4 ms·
Not that person, but what put me off arch is that they aim to provide "vanilla" packages, which means I have to configure everything on my own. It's fine for l
by noatworksfosho 8y ago
Not that person, but what put me off arch is that they aim to provide "vanilla" packages, which means I have to configure everything on my own.
It's fine for learning, but a hassle otherwise.
Their wiki is becoming less useful too with their idea of providing less step by step and they want you to read everything and figure it out. Again fine for learning but sometimes you don't want to spend the time.
But I'm a user, not a sysadmin so maybe it's not aimed at me.
- Boulth 8y agoThanks for your input! Which distro did you end up using?
- meddlepal 8y agoI am also an ArchLinux refugee and I agree with the previous post about docs and just the general difficulty of using the distribution. It was fine when I was younger and had more time to kill configuring my tools but now I just want "works out of the box" mostly. I use Fedora with XFCE.
- noatworksfosho 8y agoDebian Testing, but pull in firefox from unstable
- Rotareti 8y ago> Not that person, but what put me off arch is that they aim to provide "vanilla" packages, which means I have to configure everything on my own. I highly suggest Antergos [0]. It's a pre-configured, easy to install Arch Linux. I switched to Antergos from Ubuntu mainly for the 'rolling releases', the good Arch documentation and the package registry (AUR, etc.). It's the best Linux experience that I ever had. I love the rolling releases. 0: https://antergos.com/ https://antergos.com/