timochan

timochan

HomeArchives

Why does your next Arch have to be Arch

#Note137
AI Translation
This post is translated from Chinese into English through AI.View Original
AI-generated summary
The author discusses their experience with different Linux distributions, specifically Arch, Manjaro, and EndeavourOS. They mention the advantages and disadvantages of each distribution, highlighting the simplicity and stability of Manjaro and the adherence to the Arch Linux source of EndeavourOS. The author also mentions the drawbacks of using Debian-based systems and expresses their preference for Arch-based systems. The article includes links to more detailed information about the distributions.

Introduction#

Previously, I mentioned that due to downloading a confusing package, my configuration files in Arch became completely messed up, so I switched to Manjaro. Manjaro indeed simplified the installation process and is relatively stable. However, there are also some issues: since it is derived from ArchLinux Fork, if you choose the stable branch, the package update speed is very slow, and it may not match the packaging dependencies of archlinuxcn or AUR. Additionally, Manjaro's official maintenance sometimes conflicts with the community, which feels quite magical. On the other hand, if you choose the unstable branch, the domestic mirror source occasionally returns a 404 error, which is very annoying. I happened to come across EndeavourOS.

1
2

Pros and Cons#

The pros are as follows:

  • Follows the KISS principle
  • Graphical installation interface (same as Manjaro)
  • Only provides the most basic desktop environment
  • Rich selection of desktops, not limited to the one included in the installation image
  • Smaller installation image size
  • User-friendly boot after system installation
  • Not maintaining a separate source, but directly using the Arch Linux source

The cons are as follows:

  • I can't think of any disadvantages for this thing, if there are any, it would be the disadvantages of Arch Linux
  • Arch Linux's aggressive release strategy
  • AUR's wilder package distribution

Of course, I don't consider any of the above disadvantages as actual disadvantages. Why? If you have experienced Debian-based operating systems, you will be very disappointed with the packages in the source. The packages in the stable branch are outdated and not rich enough. Third-party packages can only rely on PPA extensions. However, everyone knows that managing third-party PPAs is a troublesome task. Third-party PPAs do not guarantee compatibility, so overall usage is quite fragmented. You might suggest switching to the unstable branch? Please, you never know what branch your users are on, and Debian versions 9-11 are all being used, so packaging is quite painful. You never know how bad your user's environment dependencies are, even though APT/DPKG package management is very powerful, it can't handle chaotic dependency environments and non-standard packaging. And your users won't actively switch to the unstable branch.

Perhaps you will say that Arch is too aggressive and what you need is stability. If you need stability, then go back to using Debian-based systems. The rolling release strategy is not designed for you. Come to Arch when you are tired of Debian. Maybe this is the famous Debian's law, anyway, I really hate using Debian-based systems on desktops.

System#

image

This article is synchronized and updated to xLog by Mix Space.
The original link is https://www.timochan.cn/notes/40

Footnotes#

  1. https://www.timochan.cn/notes/38 ↩

  2. https://www.timochan.cn/notes/39 ↩

Loading...
Ownership of this post data is guaranteed by blockchain and smart contracts to the creator alone.