3 ms·

Both of my main computers are over a decade old. 3rd gen i5, and my laptop runs an Nvidia NVS5400m. Absolutely prehistoric hardware. Arch is the only distro I'

Both of my main computers are over a decade old. 3rd gen i5, and my laptop runs an Nvidia NVS5400m. Absolutely prehistoric hardware. Arch is the only distro I've tried that just works out of the box. It's the only distro where Optimus/Prime/Bumblebee actually works and doesn't just run the GPU at full bore all the time. All of my games work as well as you could hope with this hardware, with no configuration or tinkering up front. Arch has been the absolute most stable and fast OS I have ever used, bar none. My current installation is the longest I've ever gone without reinstalling the OS, including windows. It's definitely not the most ergonomic OS, but it just works, and it works every time. Specifically, I use the Garuda flavor. It's advertised as being specifically for games, but I don't know what's special about it other than the garish "gamer" RGB default desktop theme. I'm gonna try Cinnamon next.

Levitating 3y ago
I recommend staying away from Arch-Derivatives like Garuda Linux. They really add nothing off value. You only end up having a couple of inexperienced Linux users having messed with your kernel, swap disk, schedulers, governors etc. The first principle of ArchLinux is simplicity and being able to know your system, and these derivatives throw that straight out the door. Everytime you run into an issue you'll not know if its related to Arch itself or something the Garuda installer has messed with. Which is why people on the ArchLinux forums and IRC aren't eager to help others using a derivative. Garuda is one of the worst examples with the team being so unprofessional. As an example their emberassingly small wiki contains emoticons. Manjaro already gets shame for not properly informing users of the risks of the AUR, and Garuda absolutely discards security entirely by using a third party repository with pre-compiled AUR packages... All-in-all you get a whole lot of uncertainty for having some stuff pre-configured. Something a simple install script (that you can actually review and modify) could cover as well. As for Cinnamon, it's nice I like it.
- calamari4065 3y ago
  After using Garuda for a couple of years, I agree completely. If I run into any non-trivial problem, it immediately becomes so much worse because there's no way to know how much of the problem is Arch and how much is Garuda. And only one of those shows up in search queries. I picked Garuda because my requirements were: 1. Arch 2. Has desktop environment out of the box It was the first one I found and looked adequately shiny. I just really dislike raw Arch and having to install my DE from scratch. It always feels like I'm doing something wrong and I'm never sure I configured everything correctly.

Levitating 3y ago

I recommend staying away from Arch-Derivatives like Garuda Linux. They really add nothing off value. You only end up having a couple of inexperienced Linux users having messed with your kernel, swap disk, schedulers, governors etc. The first principle of ArchLinux is simplicity and being able to know your system, and these derivatives throw that straight out the door. Everytime you run into an issue you'll not know if its related to Arch itself or something the Garuda installer has messed with. Which is why people on the ArchLinux forums and IRC aren't eager to help others using a derivative. Garuda is one of the worst examples with the team being so unprofessional. As an example their emberassingly small wiki contains emoticons. Manjaro already gets shame for not properly informing users of the risks of the AUR, and Garuda absolutely discards security entirely by using a third party repository with pre-compiled AUR packages... All-in-all you get a whole lot of uncertainty for having some stuff pre-configured. Something a simple install script (that you can actually review and modify) could cover as well. As for Cinnamon, it's nice I like it.

calamari4065 3y ago
After using Garuda for a couple of years, I agree completely. If I run into any non-trivial problem, it immediately becomes so much worse because there's no way to know how much of the problem is Arch and how much is Garuda. And only one of those shows up in search queries. I picked Garuda because my requirements were: 1. Arch 2. Has desktop environment out of the box It was the first one I found and looked adequately shiny. I just really dislike raw Arch and having to install my DE from scratch. It always feels like I'm doing something wrong and I'm never sure I configured everything correctly.