(No provocation)

I see these reasons:

  • newbie
  • lazy (don’t wanna edit config files etc.)
  • unique features (like assistant/toolbox, some optimizations like in cachyos)
  • wanna check how different systems are set up (that’s rather distrohopping)

Personally, I used manjaro i3 when I was beigginer and wanted to see how tiling WM should be configured (check out ranger config, for example). But after some time, I don’t see reasons why not to just customize pure arch (same with debian and debian-based distros).

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Yeah, I mean, if I were to admin a fleet of computers or something like that, I would definitely not run Arch on those. 😅

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      LOL. Same.

      Every now and then I find a comment where someone who clearly knows what they’re doing is deploying an Arch server in a work setting. Feeling confident with that decision takes something I don’t have. Maybe it’s experience, knowledge or something.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        51 minutes ago

        I believe there are docker images for Arch? But those probably have some form of reproducibility, I should hope. Since you can’t install specific versions of packages declaratively with pacman unless you have physical access to the actual package file, I would not use it for a server. Maybe coupled with Guix or something? I dunno.

        Maybe they need an environment with very up-to-date packages, or something along that vein. 🤔