It’s not about Arch itself being a unique choice, it’s about how Arch looks very different from user to user because they not only had the option but the requirement to install nearly everything but the Kernel themselves.
The result is that no two Arch users end up with the same OS, just the same kernel and package manager.
90% of Arch users run the exact same installation you get when you copy-paste the example commands from the installation guide without diving into linked pages, then add a user with default groups and install Gnome.
While I don’t think it’s as high as 90% of users, I admit I didn’t think about people who would subject themselves to Arch just to not take advantage of what Arch has to offer.
(But seriously, why would anyone choose to do this when they can just install Mint)
Rolling releases and very “vanilla” packages. I get the upstream configurations with very few changes, making it better imo to modify and rice into what I want.
Rolling releases for issues with newer hardware and the AUR. That’s really all there is to it. There are plenty of ways to be “unique”, but at the the of the day, nobody else is ever really going to care.
If I bought myself a 6 year old Thinkpad, I’d put Mint over Arch on it in a heartbeat. For the desktop that’s constantly upgrading, it gets Arch because it has the fastest releases and biggest community to troubleshoot stuff.
It’s not about Arch itself being a unique choice, it’s about how Arch looks very different from user to user because they not only had the option but the requirement to install nearly everything but the Kernel themselves.
The result is that no two Arch users end up with the same OS, just the same kernel and package manager.
90% of Arch users run the exact same installation you get when you copy-paste the example commands from the installation guide without diving into linked pages, then add a user with default groups and install Gnome.
While I don’t think it’s as high as 90% of users, I admit I didn’t think about people who would subject themselves to Arch just to not take advantage of what Arch has to offer.
(But seriously, why would anyone choose to do this when they can just install Mint)
Rolling releases and very “vanilla” packages. I get the upstream configurations with very few changes, making it better imo to modify and rice into what I want.
Pacman and the aur
Rolling releases for issues with newer hardware and the AUR. That’s really all there is to it. There are plenty of ways to be “unique”, but at the the of the day, nobody else is ever really going to care.
If I bought myself a 6 year old Thinkpad, I’d put Mint over Arch on it in a heartbeat. For the desktop that’s constantly upgrading, it gets Arch because it has the fastest releases and biggest community to troubleshoot stuff.