It's a shame, but seems so common to the whole of the internet these days. Arch seemed goofy to me. But FreeBSD is pretty terrible on my laptop and I like tha

It's a shame, but seems so common to the whole of the internet these days. Arch seemed goofy to me. But FreeBSD is pretty terrible on my laptop and I like that very small base that I add what I need on to, and not the "all the things for beginners". I've enjoyed my past 6 or so months with it. I've normally used Debian personally for Linux for the past 15 years, but wanted to try something new. It probably is a good way to learn that's a big step easier than Linux-from-scratch (which is a fun exercise if you have time). And it's a good way to keep a very up-to-date Linux system. But I do have the advantage of just needing the Arch-specific tips: mostly understanding pacman and yay. I've been doing this a long time, I pick the tools I like, and I already know how to configure them (or where to look to remember). But honestly, it'd be rough if you don't have Unix/Linux experience. Getting the hardware working, learning all the vocabulary, etc. before you can even really use anything is rough, unless you have a lot of time and patience. Especially if you're expecting a Mac or Windows desktop experience. I could see a lot of users moving from Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, etc. down to something less batteries-included, though.