I use arch btw. It’s better because we the arch users say so. I’m an arch user btw.
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.