(No provocation)

I see these reasons:

  • newbie
  • lazy (don’t wanna edit config files etc.)
  • unique features (like assistant/toolbox, some optimizations like in cachyos)
  • wanna check how different systems are set up (that’s rather distrohopping)

Personally, I used manjaro i3 when I was beigginer and wanted to see how tiling WM should be configured (check out ranger config, for example). But after some time, I don’t see reasons why not to just customize pure arch (same with debian and debian-based distros).

  • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
    6·
    1 day ago

    As a lazy admin of my own computer, I agree… for the most part. Running Debian allows you to be super lazy, whereas Arch will punish you for that. One update screwed up my GRUB because I didn’t bother reading the news. Totally my fault, learned my lesson.

    This means that running Arch comes with some responsibilities that a super lazy Debian admin can simply ignore. Just read the announcements before updating and you’re good. Ignore them at your own peril.

    It wasn’t a total disaster though. Just needed to fix my stupid mistake with chroot, and the system was up and running in about half an hour. Debian admins don’t end up with situations like that by being lazy. You would need to be actively trying to break your system to have to pay a price like this.

    Other than that, my system has been running smoothly with hardly any interference on my part. The joy of a rolling release…

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 day ago

      Yeah, I mean, if I were to admin a fleet of computers or something like that, I would definitely not run Arch on those. 😅

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        1 day ago

        LOL. Same.

        Every now and then I find a comment where someone who clearly knows what they’re doing is deploying an Arch server in a work setting. Feeling confident with that decision takes something I don’t have. Maybe it’s experience, knowledge or something.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          2·
          23 hours ago

          I believe there are docker images for Arch? But those probably have some form of reproducibility, I should hope. Since you can’t install specific versions of packages declaratively with pacman unless you have physical access to the actual package file, I would not use it for a server. Maybe coupled with Guix or something? I dunno.

          Maybe they need an environment with very up-to-date packages, or something along that vein. 🤔

          • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
            1·
            5 hours ago

            Docker would be the sensible approach.

            Imagine if the new version of some package is only compatible with the old version of PHP, but now Arch is using the new one. The admin would have to keep the old version of PHP until the devs of that other package release an update. I recall reading something about pacman not supporting partial upgrades like that.

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              2·
              5 hours ago

              Exactly, partial upgrades are not supported. Always best to do a pacman -Syu to upgrade the entire system instead of just one package.

              At least that’s the case for system packages. More isolated packages don’t need as much care or carry much risk of rendering a system unbootable or similar risks, but I say it’s like signaling your turn when driving even if no one is around — best to just make it a habit. 🙂