Endeavour does it for me.
No nonsense arch setup without any bells and whistles.
Yeah, I get that. I do, however, really like how FireDragon comes with a lot of the extension I'd like to use, and with searx as the default web search. It also takes almost no time to switch to a much better KDE layout as opposed to the seemingly script kiddie dr4a6onized default.
I wouldn’t use firedragon. It is a very outdated fork of librewolf, which is hardened even more. While librewolf is only a few days behind regular Firefox, firedragon sometimes is months behind making it a horrible choice for security.
Edit: seems to no longer be the case
EndeavourOS ftw imo
In any case, I end up wasting all that saved time on the semiannual rewrite of my neovim config anyway.
What's some neovim config you always keep?
Over the years of using Vim both professionally and for my own uses, I've learned to just install LunarVim and only add a handful of packages/overrides. Otherwise I just waste too much time tinkering and not doing the things I need to.
I usually keep most of the config. I just move them around to make it more comprehensive. The only time I made a huge change during a rewrite was when I learnt about treesitter textobjects.
Same until I started using helix, where my only config is adding another language server and setting a theme
welp, there goes my Tuesday.
I agree, also thanks neovim 0.10 making me spent half a day tracking that obscure line that was throwing errors.
Those two days aren’t really spent configuring, they’re spent learning.
First time maybe, the second time not really
second time doesn’t take two days, but yeah you’re right.
Idk, install arch, then pull make files and dot files from git, wham bam, done how I like it on no time flat.
Learning to install Arch, now that's a transferable skill.
If you actually try to understand what's happening, I think it's one of the best ways to learn how a system is composed, at least if you install manually. What's a partition, file system, what does mounting do, chroots, you name it.
I don't use Arch anymore but still think it's a great distro to learn the basics while still having the luxury of new binary packages. Manual Arch install abstracts basically nothing away from you, for better or for worse.
Currently on NixOS, I'd say while its engineering is better overall, the things you learn there are much more distribution-specific or maybe concept-specific and often not applicable to other distributions.
I guess there are also probably ways to install e.g. Debian manually, I've never seen instructions for it though as there was always the focus on the installer, and frankly I'm not a big fan of apt and all. It always seemed to be much more convoluted than pacman plus it does a lot of stuff for you, whether you want it or not was my impression.
What about just using archinstall?
That's like reaching the top of Mount Everest with oxygen and fixed ropes. You can only brag until you talk to a /real/ climber.
archinstall saves you like <15 minutes of boilerplate
I was once checking out Garuda, because the name popped up a handful of times. Outside of the absolutely repulsive front page, the moment i saw unmarked and unexplained “fun scripts” in the installer, i unplugged the installer
Very fair. I'm a far cry from an advanced user - I know just enough to be dangerous to myself, and didn't see that. As I said in another comment, though, I do like that the default browser is somewhat hardened and uses a decent searx instance as the default search. It does seem to be marketed towards teenagers, though, unfortunately.
It’s not even really about how advanced you are. Using something more trustworthy, and something you can depend on, is always better. For arch(-based) distributions, i would always recommend Endeavour. Plain Arch will just do it too, if you can follow instructions as listed
2 days?
You guys stop configuring?
Endevouros
Or you could use something stable
I Syu every other day and I literally cannot remember the last time I had to fix anything in my Arch setup (outside of initial setup)
Arch is pretty stable and often more usable than something based on Debian from my experience fedoras better but has so many more bugs compared to arch. I chose arch because everything was broken on Debian and fedora based stuff. Leave me alone with your philosophy about "out dates software is stable software".
Not everyone uses a ten year old system and bugs in graphical software that exist when the new version of Debian drops exists for pretty much the whole releases lifecycle from my experience and that's painful.
Debian is literally one of the most stable systems out there. It only pails in comparison to RHEL and RHEL like systems but the stability difference isn't huge. Arch on the other hand you get updates daily and they create breaking changes.
Arch is pretty stable
No, it's a rolling release. Stable means that behaviours don't change during a support cycle of a major version. A rolling release can't be stable since it doesn't have major versions.
Two days are worth the years you're gonna spend living with that system.
I installed arch last night in less than 20 minutes. The longest part was figuring out how to connect WiFi from the terminal. But I googled it and it was easy.
Quickly having a working system vs. Quick debugging if something inevitably doesn't work.
arch makes doing complex things easier though
Only two days for arch btw? That's nuts.
I didn't spend 20 minutes setting up Arch.
I use Arch btw.
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
Community rules
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
