• r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      When I made a new linux install I chose Arch. I think for me the reasoning is thus. While I have a LOT of experience with unborking server linux installs, with desktop it’s just a pain to deal with. I previously used Manjaro which, while very easy to install, does obfuscate a lot of what happens behind the scenes. When it goes wrong, personally I found it harder to fix.

      With Arch, beyond enough to give me a terminal and basic gnu tools, I’ve chosen what I install from then on. I think that means when things go wrong there’s a much higher chance I’ll know what it is and how to solve it.

      Time will tell if this plan works out or not though :P

      • nfms@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’ve had the same path as you. Arch has been the simplest distro I’ve tried. And with archinstall it’s a breeze.
        I’ve also found that Plasma 6 takes away most of the hassle with setting up a desktop - for my use case.
        Been using a PC since Win 3.1 and it’s by far the most stable system I’ve ever had

    • freewheel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Funny thing is, I did neither of those things the last time I had need to install; the script handled it for me.