• Damage
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Why would anyone who wants something easy to install go with Arch? You’re not the target audience! Just install Fedora or Debian!

    • sga@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I do. I know how to install arch, but I do not always have time or patience to get internet working (mostly this). I prefere arch for many reasons, and there is more to it than just the installer. But when I last installed arch, archinstall script was yet to be stable, so it was not an option, but now even that is fine i guess.

      • Damage
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        […] I do not always have time or patience […]

        ARCH

        • sga@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          should this not be a testament to arch? i have a custom bootloader (well not custom, it is uki, generated by a relativly new an niche uki generator booster), i started using rust coreutils since march or april, have swapped much of other core stuff, or have a relatively minimal system, and still be patient?

          Arch’s specialness does not end with installer. and this kinda is not unique to arch - arch does it, so does debian (but slower to get new packages i want), gentoo (maybe better than arch, but i do not want to compile everything), void (less packages), fedora (between arch and debian i guess), etc. most base distros allow you to swap stuff.

    • RalfWausE@blackneon.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse… in the end, it doesn’t matter. If you (you as in “newbie Linux user”) find a distro that captures your attention that is all that matters. For me - personally - it was some Slackware based distribution that hooked me back in the 90s…