• ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I get that people like things to be easier, but honestly, Arch’s installation process is so streamlined these days that I don’t see that as the selling point. However, if it provides a better driver experience, then that’s cool. Simply not something I need.

    • SloganLessons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      EOS provides some more QoL features, it’s not just the installation itself (a button to update mirrors, auto keyring update, some nice pre-installed things like yay, etc)

      If you need an Arch installation ready to go out of the box, EOS is a solid choice.

      Edit: not trying to convince you to jump to EOS, just providing a bit more context about the distro

      • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yeah, that’s cool. For me, the beauty of Arch is how naked it is when I install it. It’s like “least priveleges” but for my workstation. I only add the crap I want. No more, no less.

        I cut my teeth on FreeBSD 2.2.1 way back in '97 or whenever the hell that came out. Suffice it to say, that OS was naked as hell. Arch feels like coming home to me in a strange way, even though BSD is still solid. Linux is a much better workstation that BSD these days.

        edit: perhaps I’m something of a masochist. :)

        • pathief@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I see Endeavour as Arch with sane defaults. They also use the Arch repos, if the distro dies I’m not really affected.