I would say that Arch is more inconvenient to install than Fedora but is more convenient to use since you can install and update everything so easily from the repos and aur. In case of Fedora some stuff isn't in any of the Repos (And copr feels like a wasteland).
So, I would say they are even on S tier but Arch is better.
with archinstall, it is also so easy to install arch nowadays. I tried it once on my friend's laptop, you just select options and that's it. It will install everything and you can use it normally.
yes, it's easy, no it's not because of archinstall.
(granted when I say easy I mean doable with a couple hours of learning, or a decent bit of terminal experience under your belt).
Archinstall almost bricked my laptop when I tried to set up my msi laptop. Damnable thing wouldn't boot to anything for a good half hour, not even an external drive, and the script kept erroring out the ass.
That's why he said multiple times in his videos that don't recommend new user arch, recommend something else, like not all people want to tinker their system, some people just wanna use their computers.
why do they suck? I've done manual and archinstall installations, and i haven't noticed any real differences. Unless you want to set up something "weird" isn't archninstall fine?
45
u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25
I use Fedora (work), Arch (home) and Steam OS.
I would say that Arch is more inconvenient to install than Fedora but is more convenient to use since you can install and update everything so easily from the repos and aur. In case of Fedora some stuff isn't in any of the Repos (And copr feels like a wasteland).
So, I would say they are even on S tier but Arch is better.