Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EndeavourOS Is Hoping To Be The Successor To Antergos - Convenient To Use Arch Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    Yep. I did Debian and Ubuntu for a year or two, playing with BeOS and other distros, and eventually started using Arch when its Wiki and what programs Debian had weren't working with each other very well so I figured that I might as well give it a try...I'm using the documentation so I might as well use the distribution. Arch and I clicked and that style is just where I've been comfortable ever since.

    These days I'm on Manjaro just so I can have an extra layer of testing over Arch Stable and because I want proper support because I used an installer or helper since those are very frowned upon at Arch. After doing an Arch install for the umpteenth time, sometimes you just want the easy way...and you'd like to get help if the easy way has a problem.
    Yeah ubuntu first for me then debian for a few months. Getting fed up with them I tried fedora for a few days and quickly went back to debian. After a while I was fed up with feeling like debian always getting in my way and when searching for anything it was always arch wiki and forum posts that helped me the most. So before deciding to quit linux i decided to give Arch a try. Read that wiki many times before i even attempted my first install, so glad that i did. learned alot and became much happier in the linux world. Since then my desktop is only on Arch. My laptop is where i distro hop. I've had all the major distros on it including gentoo and tried out most of the bsd's, currently it is on openbsd. But I really don't like using my laptop so I don't play with other distros much. My main use of the laptop is when I travel to visit family and when I do I stick Arch back on it before i go. The only thing on it that I haven't tried yet is Linux From Scratch. LFS will be a fun experience whenever I get around to it.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by zanny View Post

      The whole point of Arch is to not do things behind your back, an installer that does all the setup for you is antithetical to that.

      In practice installing Arch is just setting up the partition and pacstrapping it. Its the same steps an installer like Calamares does except you run a CLI command or two for each step rather than press a next button.

      The installation process, despite being straightforward, is a fantastic barrier to entry to keep those who would otherwise inundate the bug tracker / forums with easily solved issues via Google or the wiki on other distros.
      Oh God, it's like listening to the ghost of Sidux, where the devs had a whole list of things that users had to do. They'd insist that their system didn't have bugs and if you had a problem you must have done one of the 1,000 things wrong. They'd insult users and ban them from their forums. One guy even got kicked because one of the top Sidux people was jealous that this fellow answered questions for users faster than he could.

      If your thinking is typical of Arch users, I hope Arch goes the way of Sidux.

      http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.p...64&hilit=sidux

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by boxie View Post

        it's really easy to do on every other distro too, with even fewer steps and with a more user friendly UX!
        From my point of view, the user experience of installing Arch is extremely user friendly. But I understand that not everybody agrees. However, I'm sure the successor of Antergos will provide what you're looking for.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by ryad View Post

          From my point of view, the user experience of installing Arch is extremely user friendly. But I understand that not everybody agrees. However, I'm sure the successor of Antergos will provide what you're looking for.
          It's one of those "once you have climbed the mountain it's a lot easier to do again" things

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by boxie View Post

            It's one of those "once you have climbed the mountain it's a lot easier to do again" things
            Since I've installed Arch on a number of systems including different architectures over the last 10 years it's hard to argue against it :-)
            However, as long as you are unwilling to invest at least two hours in reading instructions, Arch is simply the wrong system for you. But please don't infer the generality from you.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by ryad View Post

              Since I've installed Arch on a number of systems including different architectures over the last 10 years it's hard to argue against it :-)
              However, as long as you are unwilling to invest at least two hours in reading instructions, Arch is simply the wrong system for you. But please don't infer the generality from you.
              yeah, I figured that much out on my own - Just been having a little fun with some minor trolling

              for me the cost/reward wasn't high enough. I Just moved over to KDE Neon to get the latest and greatest KDE software on top of a rather stable set of supported packages on a system I know well enough.

              Comment


              • #67
                I've tried both installing Arch from scratch and use installers like Antergos. To be honest, I prefer the Antergos approach. Sure, it's nice to have full control of what is installed on your system, I get that. In my case, I wanted to install the Deepin DE to play around with. I installed the base packages, booted up, and it was more or less completely borked. Turns out it didn't have any of the standard fonts as dependencies, didn't come with any default icon pack, didn't include PulseAudio or similar, missing some services usually present in deepin base installs (samba or whatever it might be). Can't remember the details, but a ton of things like that. In short, it took in the area of a few hours to figure out all of the things that were missing and add / install / configure them manually. With Antergos, it was basically a one-click install where all of those pieces were installed and pre-configured, working flawless out of the box.

                Sure it can be a fun experience to learn and set everything up manually, but sometimes you just want to get up and running as quick as possible.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Why use Antergos/Manjaro/Endeavouros?
                  1. I don't have the time to babysit my OS all the time
                  2. I like their balance between "clean system" and "easy to use".
                  3. I want a rolling distro with up-to-date packages and kernels
                  4. I don't like using PPAs since they tend to break at some point. Fixing: see 1.)
                  5. I love the AUR. All the tools you need, easy and fast to install/compile.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by boxie View Post

                    I install an OS maybe once every other year.

                    Sinking time into learning *how* to do (and by that, knowing which commands to type in, when) it is wasted IMO.

                    The Cost/Reward balance is definitely not in its favour.

                    The only time it is worth investing time into learning these things is if you need to do it often. And if you have to install Arch that often, is it really worth doing? an OS should really get out of the way and let you do things, not be the thing that gets in the way.
                    I didn't install an Arch setup for a while anyway. This was because I needed a VM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X