• pewpew
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why should I use Arch btw if Ubuntu does everything I need? It’s not some locked down os like Windows and I can tweak it however I want

    • Prager_U@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      You might want to configure it from scratch, with exactly the tools and utilities you want (e.g. networking utility, desktop environment). Or you might just find this process fun and interesting. Some people take issue with how Canonical is run, and decisions they make.

    • stewie3128@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I think it’s funny that so many Linux users talk about how locked down Windows is, when 90% of them live in an effective walled garden defined by their package manager, or other inborn restriction of their distro. I doubt that even 10% are compiling from source with any regularity.

      Why do you need to wait for someone to repackage FF for you before you install it? Just go get it if you run Arch BTW, but you know the overwhelming majority of ArchBros really only know how to install it through Pacman.

      • velioc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        What‘s wrong with installing software from a package manager when the package I need is on there and has a decently up to date version? If its not on there I can still build from source.

        When I‘m in a situation where I just need a specific lib or cli tool or whatever and don‘t have time to potentially debug a niche compile error, installing from a package manager is more convenient and saves time.

        Except snap, which can burn in hell.