“Arch is the most ‘Linux-like’ of the three”
Say what? Not sure how the other two are any less “Linux-like” than Arch. They’re all Linux, which is about as Linux-like as it gets.
Say what? Not sure how the other two are any less “Linux-like” than Arch. They’re all Linux, which is about as Linux-like as it gets.
No snark: I understand that's largely a result of Arch deliberately pushing decisions down to users rather than deciding for you, appreciate that it's a deliberate decision, and am _very_ glad it exists.
I guess if "Linux is about choice" (it's not) then Arch is very Linux-like.
This is interesting because it hasn't been my experience at all. IIRC in the last 3 years I only had to fix something after an update once, and that was only because of my own stupidity.
I actually find Arch a lot more stable now than when I was using Ubuntu many many years ago, where something would always break after upgrading to a new version. (But maybe Ubuntu's better in this regards nowadays; I don't know.)
The parent poster was definitely right that Arch pushes all of the decisions down to the users rather than deciding for you, so I suppose how much it breaks depends on how good your decisions are and how much of a Linux expert you are. I could fix virtually any broken Linux system while blindfolded, so I know how to set it up so that it never breaks and doesn't require any maintenance. This probably explains the difference in our experiences.
Maybe the original authors meant Unix-like?
The website (computerbase) also seems to host their own downloads of the operating systems they review, very weird.
Nobody else likes to do these kinds of benchmarks because if you do them right the performance differences should be negligible. If not you've probably stumbled upon a bug.
Phoronix actually does Linux benchmarks right. [1]
It's a sentence you would expect from someone with little to no knowledge about Linux.
i would describe it as more "pure" in that sense, saying its more "linux-like" is oversimplifying
Most people I’ve talked to want the freedom that comes with Linux, but also as little pain as possible. Arch isn’t it. There’s a reason Ubuntu became so popular back in the day: it was a free and easy to use into to desktop Linux.
Arch has always felt more like a distribution for people who enjoy tinkering with the distro rather than just using the computer to get things done.