I get that people like things to be easier, but honestly, Arch’s installation process is so streamlined these days that I don’t see that as the selling point. However, if it provides a better driver experience, then that’s cool. Simply not something I need.
EOS provides some more QoL features, it’s not just the installation itself (a button to update mirrors, auto keyring update, some nice pre-installed things like yay, etc)
If you need an Arch installation ready to go out of the box, EOS is a solid choice.
Edit: not trying to convince you to jump to EOS, just providing a bit more context about the distro
Yeah, that’s cool. For me, the beauty of Arch is how naked it is when I install it. It’s like “least priveleges” but for my workstation. I only add the crap I want. No more, no less.
I cut my teeth on FreeBSD 2.2.1 way back in '97 or whenever the hell that came out. Suffice it to say, that OS was naked as hell. Arch feels like coming home to me in a strange way, even though BSD is still solid. Linux is a much better workstation that BSD these days.
I have used both Arch and Eos. I use a special tiling wm, and I have Nvidia. Form Arch I have to install everything I need, from Eos I just select install without a wm/dm remove some bloat and install the missing. Almost the same outcome, almost the same time to set up. So it does not matter (for me).
Out of the box Eos provieds ease, Arch provides knowledge (along the way). I have friends which are tech savy enough to daily drive Eos, but unintrested to learn how the linux ecosystem works by installing Arch (at least until a bug forces them to read the wiki)
archinstall straight up could not deal with the partition setup I wanted, EOS installed without problems. Something about installing btrfs with multiple subvolumes next to Windows on the same drive.
My wife found it accessible enough that I switched my own setup to it for consistency and it’s done well. But yeah if arch works don’t consider switching
I get that people like things to be easier, but honestly, Arch’s installation process is so streamlined these days that I don’t see that as the selling point. However, if it provides a better driver experience, then that’s cool. Simply not something I need.
EOS provides some more QoL features, it’s not just the installation itself (a button to update mirrors, auto keyring update, some nice pre-installed things like yay, etc)
If you need an Arch installation ready to go out of the box, EOS is a solid choice.
Edit: not trying to convince you to jump to EOS, just providing a bit more context about the distro
Yeah, that’s cool. For me, the beauty of Arch is how naked it is when I install it. It’s like “least priveleges” but for my workstation. I only add the crap I want. No more, no less.
I cut my teeth on FreeBSD 2.2.1 way back in '97 or whenever the hell that came out. Suffice it to say, that OS was naked as hell. Arch feels like coming home to me in a strange way, even though BSD is still solid. Linux is a much better workstation that BSD these days.
edit: perhaps I’m something of a masochist. :)
I have used both Arch and Eos. I use a special tiling wm, and I have Nvidia. Form Arch I have to install everything I need, from Eos I just select install without a wm/dm remove some bloat and install the missing. Almost the same outcome, almost the same time to set up. So it does not matter (for me).
Out of the box Eos provieds ease, Arch provides knowledge (along the way). I have friends which are tech savy enough to daily drive Eos, but unintrested to learn how the linux ecosystem works by installing Arch (at least until a bug forces them to read the wiki)
archinstall straight up could not deal with the partition setup I wanted, EOS installed without problems. Something about installing btrfs with multiple subvolumes next to Windows on the same drive.
Cool. Glad it worked for you.
My wife found it accessible enough that I switched my own setup to it for consistency and it’s done well. But yeah if arch works don’t consider switching