Debian and Ubuntu are nice, but not exactly bleeding edge.
IMHO arch is far better, and comes with an extra bonus: you can use pacman just like on MSYS2 (Windows)
IMHO arch is far better, and comes with an extra bonus: you can use pacman just like on MSYS2 (Windows)
For example, my personal computer is running Debian Sid (i.e bleeding edge, dev track) while my computer for work is using the latest Debian stable.
Here's a simple example: you want hyprland, patheon and interception-caps2esc on ubuntu? Good luck!
On arch, it's just a pacman away.
You don't like how arch is perceived as elitist? Use manjaro.
Ubuntu had its place in the last century, but with most development happening on git you need a rolling release.
Poe law strikes again! My apologies then, because I known how Arch can have this reputation.
But Arch is just so good! Ubuntu and RedHat seem to be stuck in the past: it's not just about rolling releases, but many small details that pile up.
FYI I also find Alpine very interesting.
Like offering users a GUI click-through installer?
I can't say if it's a joke or if you are serious. But if you like an installer, there's manjaro.
Personally, I think install shouldn't need a click-through installer: it should be done by a commandline, to have a finer control over all the details.
With Ubuntu, I only used the installer iso to type Control-Shift-A to get a terminal, install rsync and do my tinkering.
Or how can you mount the efi partition to new systemd location /efi instead of /boot/efi (ex: if you're not using grub) without breaking the install?
There are just too many choices for too many people. It's best not to play, and let it be a commandline problem. You rarely have to reinstall without another OS or boot media, so doing a chroot and copy-pasting the right commands (or rsync or untar a working master image) is just simpler.
>But if you like an installer, there's manjaro.
Manjaro is not Arch. My comment was a criticism of Arch Linux, not Manjaro.