Arch Linux

7777 readers

2 users here now

The beloved lightweight distro

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml

As a capable but lazy user, how much would switching to Arch frustrate me? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by lorty@lemmy.ml to c/archlinux@lemmy.ml

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I know my way around a command line. I work in IT, but when it comes to my personal fun time more often than not I'm quite lazy. I use windows a lot because just plugging in anything or installing any game and it just working is great.

But support for windows 10 is ending and I should probably switch sonner rather than later, so I'm wondering if Arch would be a good pick for me? For reference, I mostly game and do Godot stuff in my free time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] phantomwise@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Well, it depends on what you want from your OS.

If you want games to work with as little bother as possible then a gaming distro might be a better option. The only distro I tried where games JUST WORK on their own is Nobara. They have lots of patches to make games actually work. If you want to play Windows games on steam then be sure to install It's made by the same guy that makes ProtonGE, which you should definitely install if you want to play Windows games on steam, whatever your distro (if it's not Nobara, you can use ProtonUp-Qt to avoid having to install it manually).

Some games just won't run on any of the distros I tried except Nobara. I'm sure you could get them working fine on Arch or any other distro with some work... but that's work. When it comes to gaming I don't want to go in computer wizard mode, I just want to ride dinosaurs. (Yes I realize the irony of saying that after ditching Nobara on my gaming pc because I would rather have Arch with some games not working than Nobara with everything working)

Other than gaming I'd say it depends if you like being forced to do things yourself.

I'm a very lazy woman who switched from Windows 10 less than one year ago and tried several distro before ending up with Arch, and it is absolute heaven compared to Windows.

Lots of stuff don't don't work on my computer, but not because Arch is broken, I just haven't got around to configuring them (lazy + adhd) or I tried but failed because I have no clue what I am doing (four months on Arch for a grand total of eight on linux, so that's to be expected). But I prefer it that way. When I really need a feature it forces me to learn how stuff work, and that was the point of installing Arch instead of a distro that would do everything for me. I've learned a dozen times more in four months on Arch than in the same time on other distros. Or in 25+ years on Windows... I've still got a long way to go and there are lot of stuff that I can't get working yet (looking at you Wayland portals >_<) but I really like it and I don't think I'll switch (though I'm very tempted to try Nix...).

It you do decide on Arch, please don't listen to people who insist that you shouldn't use the archinstall script because the only "right" way to install Arch is to do a manual install. They're morons. The script is a great way to have a working Arch install quickly and easily, so you can actually use Arch and see if you like it. There's a lot to be learned by doing a manual install, yes. But it's ridiculous to ask people who really want to use Arch to keep using other distros for however long it takes them to learn enough to do a manual Arch install, when they could just use the script and do the same learning while using Arch. If you want to do a manual install go for it, but pressuring people into it is just stupid.