this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
327 points (97.4% liked)

Linux

10244 readers
428 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RalfWausE@blackneon.net -3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I, personally, think Omarchy is the best "easier to install Arch" out there - you can hand out a flashdrive to anyone with at least the most basic IT-knowledge and they would get a working, useable and upgradeable system within ~20 minutes.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why would anyone who wants something easy to install go with Arch? You're not the target audience! Just install Fedora or Debian!

[–] sga@piefed.social 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I do. I know how to install arch, but I do not always have time or patience to get internet working (mostly this). I prefere arch for many reasons, and there is more to it than just the installer. But when I last installed arch, archinstall script was yet to be stable, so it was not an option, but now even that is fine i guess.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

[...] I do not always have time or patience [...]

ARCH

[–] sga@piefed.social 1 points 15 hours ago

should this not be a testament to arch? i have a custom bootloader (well not custom, it is uki, generated by a relativly new an niche uki generator booster), i started using rust coreutils since march or april, have swapped much of other core stuff, or have a relatively minimal system, and still be patient?

Arch's specialness does not end with installer. and this kinda is not unique to arch - arch does it, so does debian (but slower to get new packages i want), gentoo (maybe better than arch, but i do not want to compile everything), void (less packages), fedora (between arch and debian i guess), etc. most base distros allow you to swap stuff.

[–] RalfWausE@blackneon.net 1 points 1 day ago

Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse... in the end, it doesn't matter. If you (you as in "newbie Linux user") find a distro that captures your attention that is all that matters. For me - personally - it was some Slackware based distribution that hooked me back in the 90s....

[–] sga@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am not going to get into politics, and just suggest a read of https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/a-word-on-omarchy/

[–] RalfWausE@blackneon.net 1 points 1 day ago

Yes, Omarchy is in some ways quiet... hacky and has a bit of a "style over substance" approach, but i think that is not THAT important for the role it fills. It remembers me of the various riced up setups from the early 00s (and perhaps late 90s, but my memory is hazy in that regard) that simply looked cool (i just say "compiz") and had this WOW effect on regular Windows users.

Omarchy has this and also benefits from an idiot proof setup routine. If it drags in people from Windows its good, some will start tinkering with it, some will dig deeper into the Linux / Unix world... its an entry level drug in a way.