I’m a little bit underwhelmed, I thought that based off the fact so many people seem to make using this distro their personality I expected… well, more I guess?
Once the basic stuff is set-up, like wifi, a few basic packages, a desktop environment/window manager, and a bit of desktop environment and terminal customisation, then that’s it. Nothing special, just a Linux distribution with less default programs and occasionally having to look up how to install a hardware driver or something if you need to use bluetooth for the first time or something like that.
Am I missing something? How can I make using Arch Linux my personality when once it’s set up it’s just like any other computer?
What exactly is it that people obsess over? The desktop environment and terminal customisation? Setting up NetworkManager with nmcli? Using Vim to edit a .conf file?
There is a pretty big difference in terms of usability between Arch and everything else because of the rolling release model and the AUR. Lots of things you would have to manually install from a git repo or track down a PPA for can be installed like a normal package.
So what you’re saying is that the package manager is very different?
My point stands - once things are installed your “Linux Experience” is pretty similar.
NOTE: I’ve used words like “most” and “similar” and “pretty”. Do not ignore these words. They have meaning.
I would say it’s not very different, just one league above all the others that I’ve come across.
The three things that stand out in my opinion is how much their package manager can query packages, it’s rolling release and the number of packages they have in the AUR.
It makes Arch the most complete and up to date Linux distro,
with the exception of a user friendly forum,
that doesn’t look like the nazi soup kitchen from Seinfeld,
and an installer.
(BTW)
What did you expect they are using the same programs.
Read the thread…