May be a mean sounding question, but I’m genuinely wondering why people would choose Arch/Endevour/whatever (NOT on steam hardware) over another all-in-one distro related to Fedora or Ubuntu. Is it shown that there are significant performance benefits to installing daemons and utilities à la carte? Is there something else I’m missing? Is it because arch users are enthusiasts that enjoy trying to optimize their system?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

you can set it up however you prefer and then combine them in novel ways to solve your tasks more quickly

Can you think of a quick example, out of curiosity?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    For context, I'm using NixOS, not Arch, but it's a similar enough idea. I have a tiling/tabbed WM configured just the way I like it, and a window switcher thingy, and it makes juggling hundreds of windows really easy and quick. Combined with a terminal-based editor, a custom setup for my shell, and direnv for easy environment switching, I can be switching between a dozen different projects within a single day (sadly a requirement for my work right now).

    Whenever I look at how my colleagues with KDE/Gnome are managing their workflows, it makes me appreciate the work I put into my setup a lot.

    Also, I have a whole bunch of shell aliases and scripts for tasks I do often.

    Sure, you can configure any distro to do that, but things like Ubuntu or Fedora would get in the way. At some point, when you want to choose (or even write) every component of the system and configure it yourself, it's easier to just build from scratch rather than start with a lot of pre-configured software and remove parts.

  • source
  • parent