Arch is about DIY approach. Arch derivatives for "making it easy" are a joke because they defeat the whole point of doing it yourself
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Linux
48143 readers
756 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Doing it yourself is fine as an educational exercise for newbies, but skilled linux users generally have better things to do than to do the setup by hand for the nth time. On the other hand the "vanilla"/bleeding-edge approach of Arch makes it one of the best bases for derivative distros available, so basing your distro on it is a no-brainer for many.
but skilled linux users generally have better things to do than to do the setup by hand for the nth time.
Had this fine skilled linux user over there heard about archinstall scripts?
Thought Arch was all about DIY?
It is but if you still want to have an "easy install" you might go with an archinstall script that usually happens to be "lighter" than a derivative distro
Or just use a distro that sets everything up for you.
Seems like anything is the solution except that in your mind, lol.
Glad we have option 😎
Or just use a distro that sets everything up for you
You didn't even get my point but had the audacity to write that second sentence :-/
Your point was that users can use arch install scripts to automate some of the setup process.
I countered by saying they could just use a distro that has an installer integrated directly into it.
I also added that in your mind, there is no legitimate reason to use an arch derivative. This highlights your bias.
What was I missing, exactly?