I mostly switched because I had a motherboard failure and while dealing with that took the opportunity to install it and try it out. I've found that most of the custom tools they've built are better, the default choices are smarter (particularly their kitted-out kernel) and documentation is more detailed, it was a breeze to install. Performance doesn't seem any worse, though I haven't run benchmarks or anything like that.
EndeavourOS isn't bad, but I struggle to think of anything it does better.
Arch derivatives have to be one of the worst monkey paws for the Linux desktop.
A person who can not install Arch Linux should not be managing their own Arch installation. Inevitably something will not work right and confusion and disappointment will set in as that person is completely unprepared to help themselves.
Arch derivatives themselves are usually just worse versions of Arch with more problems. Manjaro being the worst offender there. Pushing those onto people, is not a good thing and if someone does not have the basic tech literacy to install Arch, they should not be using any Arch derivative.
No, this isn't gate keeping. It is protecting people from inevitable disappointment and frustration, which can only harm Linux Desktop and Linux gaming.
Nah. Manjaro sucks because it's just different enough that it breaks a lot of things (like the AUR) but EndeavourOS and CachyOS are just Arch with the edges filed off. Nice installers, sensible defaults. If your argument is that filing those edges off is antithetical to Arch, that absolutely is gatekeeping. EndeavourOS and CachyOS don't put any barriers upon the user, what fixes and guides that work for Arch will work for them and ultimately it's not a whole lot more complicated than Ubuntu is but with much better documentation thanks to the Arch wiki.
SteamOS also clearly has a place as an immutable Arch, hard to argue that it's been a disappointment or a cause of frustration for users, given the narrative has been an overwhelming want from the gaming community for a desktop version. I guess the frustration comes from, if anything, it's narrow scope.
Speaking of Ubuntu, it has atrophed. It used to be that it was popular enough that you could google your problem and someone would have solved it. Try doing that now, you get ancient posts from a decade ago that are no longer relevant. It's not like it's terrible, but I don't see anyone recommend it anymore. Though Mint has it's fans.
>EndeavourOS and CachyOS don't put any barriers upon the user, what fixes and guides that work for Arch will work for them
The Arch project itself disagrees with that, they will not provide any support or make any assurances about what works on other Arch based distros. The edges being filed of is a substantial difference, which sometimes will matter. The distros (by design) include a lot of defaults, which are assumptions Arch does not make and which it assumes users know about.
>SteamOS also clearly has a place as an immutable Arch, hard to argue that it's been a disappointment or a cause of frustration for users, given the narrative has been an overwhelming want from the gaming community for a desktop version. I guess the frustration comes from, if anything, it's narrow scope.
I specifically talked about managing Arch yourself. On the Steamdeck you never have to touch a console to make things work. Valve will provide updates for you, no manual intervention needed. It is also well defined and extensively tested hardware, which does not apply to anything else. No user should use SteamOS outside of the Steamdeck, Valve is clear about that.
Besides my main point still stands. If you can not install Arch, you lack basic Linux literacy. The moment your Arch based distro based, you can not fix it without these basic skills. You will be disappointed and frustrated and unless you are willing to spend a lot of time learning (after which you could just install Arch anyways) you will never touch Linux again.
I specifically said fixes and guides, Arch deriviatives usually have their own active support communities to deal with user support. What your describing also counts for, say, Mint or literally any *-based distro. Nonetheless the Arch wiki is still a useful rescource for solving problems, indeed that was so even when I was using Ubuntu which incenidentlally is how I ended up trying Arch in the first place; I used Arch's resources to fix Ubuntu's problems more than Ubuntu's resources, why not give it a shot?
But I bounced off vanilla Arch's install process and painstaking setup. Tried Manjaro, got hit by successive boot breaking bugs, then found EndeavourOS and discovered they hey, Arch doesn't need to be a pain in the ass or a broken piece of shit.
Arch can be and can continue to be Arch, anything based on it can be something else but also sort of Arch and that's fine and maybe even really good.
You, presumably, are not new to Linux. You know how to fix your system. The users CachyOS is targeting do not. They will run into walls, get frustrated and leave.
I really couldn't care less that someone like you uses some Arch derivative, because they don't want to spend the 3 hours doing the setup themselves.
Just FYI,the Arch setup is as easy as setting up e.g. Debian, unless you are terminally afraid of using terminal UIs.
I somewhat agree with your comment, but there is definitely a space for something in between Ubuntu and a full-fledged Arch distro installed by hand. As in, not for beginners, but for intermediate users who want a taste of Arch without a strong commitment. Where I agree with you is that this approach has indeed failed several times before (Antergos and more recently Manjaro), but who knows, CachyOS may be different.
Why? Any intermediary user can install Arch and is able to find their way through documentation.
These distros also target completely new people, with very little or even zero, Linux experience. Someone like that is not done any favors by putting him in front of a pre configured Arch. They will run into problems they can not solve without substantial time commitments and that will lead to frustration and disappointment.
At the very least these distros should be honest about what they are. From the top of the CachyOS Website: "Whether you're a seasoned Linux user or just starting out, CachyOS is the ideal choice for those looking for a powerful, customizable and blazingly fast operating system."
This is doing a complete disservice to their potential users. This is ot the "ideal" distro for someone who never touched Linux.
I'm using it, having migrated from EndeavourOS. If one wants an easy mode Arch to play games it's a great choice.
were you unsatisfied with EndeavourOS?
I mostly switched because I had a motherboard failure and while dealing with that took the opportunity to install it and try it out. I've found that most of the custom tools they've built are better, the default choices are smarter (particularly their kitted-out kernel) and documentation is more detailed, it was a breeze to install. Performance doesn't seem any worse, though I haven't run benchmarks or anything like that.
EndeavourOS isn't bad, but I struggle to think of anything it does better.
thanks for sharing!
Arch derivatives have to be one of the worst monkey paws for the Linux desktop.
A person who can not install Arch Linux should not be managing their own Arch installation. Inevitably something will not work right and confusion and disappointment will set in as that person is completely unprepared to help themselves.
Arch derivatives themselves are usually just worse versions of Arch with more problems. Manjaro being the worst offender there. Pushing those onto people, is not a good thing and if someone does not have the basic tech literacy to install Arch, they should not be using any Arch derivative.
No, this isn't gate keeping. It is protecting people from inevitable disappointment and frustration, which can only harm Linux Desktop and Linux gaming.
Nah. Manjaro sucks because it's just different enough that it breaks a lot of things (like the AUR) but EndeavourOS and CachyOS are just Arch with the edges filed off. Nice installers, sensible defaults. If your argument is that filing those edges off is antithetical to Arch, that absolutely is gatekeeping. EndeavourOS and CachyOS don't put any barriers upon the user, what fixes and guides that work for Arch will work for them and ultimately it's not a whole lot more complicated than Ubuntu is but with much better documentation thanks to the Arch wiki.
SteamOS also clearly has a place as an immutable Arch, hard to argue that it's been a disappointment or a cause of frustration for users, given the narrative has been an overwhelming want from the gaming community for a desktop version. I guess the frustration comes from, if anything, it's narrow scope.
Speaking of Ubuntu, it has atrophed. It used to be that it was popular enough that you could google your problem and someone would have solved it. Try doing that now, you get ancient posts from a decade ago that are no longer relevant. It's not like it's terrible, but I don't see anyone recommend it anymore. Though Mint has it's fans.
>EndeavourOS and CachyOS don't put any barriers upon the user, what fixes and guides that work for Arch will work for them
The Arch project itself disagrees with that, they will not provide any support or make any assurances about what works on other Arch based distros. The edges being filed of is a substantial difference, which sometimes will matter. The distros (by design) include a lot of defaults, which are assumptions Arch does not make and which it assumes users know about.
>SteamOS also clearly has a place as an immutable Arch, hard to argue that it's been a disappointment or a cause of frustration for users, given the narrative has been an overwhelming want from the gaming community for a desktop version. I guess the frustration comes from, if anything, it's narrow scope.
I specifically talked about managing Arch yourself. On the Steamdeck you never have to touch a console to make things work. Valve will provide updates for you, no manual intervention needed. It is also well defined and extensively tested hardware, which does not apply to anything else. No user should use SteamOS outside of the Steamdeck, Valve is clear about that.
Besides my main point still stands. If you can not install Arch, you lack basic Linux literacy. The moment your Arch based distro based, you can not fix it without these basic skills. You will be disappointed and frustrated and unless you are willing to spend a lot of time learning (after which you could just install Arch anyways) you will never touch Linux again.
I specifically said fixes and guides, Arch deriviatives usually have their own active support communities to deal with user support. What your describing also counts for, say, Mint or literally any *-based distro. Nonetheless the Arch wiki is still a useful rescource for solving problems, indeed that was so even when I was using Ubuntu which incenidentlally is how I ended up trying Arch in the first place; I used Arch's resources to fix Ubuntu's problems more than Ubuntu's resources, why not give it a shot?
But I bounced off vanilla Arch's install process and painstaking setup. Tried Manjaro, got hit by successive boot breaking bugs, then found EndeavourOS and discovered they hey, Arch doesn't need to be a pain in the ass or a broken piece of shit.
Arch can be and can continue to be Arch, anything based on it can be something else but also sort of Arch and that's fine and maybe even really good.
You are still completely ignoring my point.
You, presumably, are not new to Linux. You know how to fix your system. The users CachyOS is targeting do not. They will run into walls, get frustrated and leave.
I really couldn't care less that someone like you uses some Arch derivative, because they don't want to spend the 3 hours doing the setup themselves.
Just FYI,the Arch setup is as easy as setting up e.g. Debian, unless you are terminally afraid of using terminal UIs.
Its only Monday, but calling an Arch installation “basic tech literacy” is the funniest thing I’ll read this week.
>Its only Monday, but calling an Arch installation “basic tech literacy” is the funniest thing I’ll read this week.
Booting from an USB Drive understanding a few menu options is in fact what I would call "basic tech literacy".
I somewhat agree with your comment, but there is definitely a space for something in between Ubuntu and a full-fledged Arch distro installed by hand. As in, not for beginners, but for intermediate users who want a taste of Arch without a strong commitment. Where I agree with you is that this approach has indeed failed several times before (Antergos and more recently Manjaro), but who knows, CachyOS may be different.
Why? Any intermediary user can install Arch and is able to find their way through documentation.
These distros also target completely new people, with very little or even zero, Linux experience. Someone like that is not done any favors by putting him in front of a pre configured Arch. They will run into problems they can not solve without substantial time commitments and that will lead to frustration and disappointment.
At the very least these distros should be honest about what they are. From the top of the CachyOS Website: "Whether you're a seasoned Linux user or just starting out, CachyOS is the ideal choice for those looking for a powerful, customizable and blazingly fast operating system."
This is doing a complete disservice to their potential users. This is ot the "ideal" distro for someone who never touched Linux.