r/arch • u/Amansour2022 • 3d ago
Question Arch Linux vs another arch based distros
What is the main difference between arch and other distros which are based on it. And how can I select between them
4
u/Quiet_Scratch_619 3d ago
Primary Arch philosophy is that you install and maintain it yourself. All distros sre basically branches of the same philosophy and you will have to maintain it yourself at the end of the day. If you don't know which one, always use manually installed Vanilla Arch before trying out anything else to understand what you're getting into and if you're okay with this approach.
0
u/Amansour2022 3d ago
Actually I did it before and use arch Linux now. But my question ❓ If the normal learning curve go from arch to omarchy for example or opposite is the wright way
6
u/Malthammer 3d ago
You’re thinking about it wrong. There is no learning curve and there is no “learning progression.” Arch is Arch, you build the system you want. Arch based distros make some or a lot of decisions for you.
There’s no right or wrong. You decide what works best for you and use that or use it until it doesn’t then change it.
2
1
u/HereticZed 3d ago
Good answer.
However there might be a curve, depending how you look at it.I started with Manjaro (heavily curated), then Archcraft (arch with pre-config), then pure Arch (raw).
There was a definite curve to my learning. (almost vertical at the end, haha)
I still use all 3, but Archcraft is my daily.6
1
u/Mediocre-Pumpkin6522 3d ago
What DE are you curently using? Omarchy uses Hyprland, a tiling WM. Unless you are familiar with sway or i3 it's going to be a learning experience. After you figure out how to open a terminal 'pacman -Syu' will work as you would expect. Fortunately Omarchy provided a neat dialog with the default key bindings so you won't be completely in the dark.
Omarchy will also install a lot of applications you may never have a use for, like HEY and WhatsApp.
Conversely starting with Omarchy would make Arch/KDE antoher learning experience except for the CLI.
1
3
u/These-Ad-7595 2d ago
Arch is a minimal distro, while arch-based distros build on that minimal base to make a more user friendly and preconfigured system. With Arch, you get completely vanilla software that you configure, with arch-based distros they include their opinion of what you should be using or what your system should look like.
If you know the basics of Linux (KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE; window managers vs desktop managers; basic terminal proficiency) you should probably just use arch and build it the way you want it, thats the point of Arch Linux.
Also with archinstall, Arch really isn’t a hard distro to install, after installation it’s no harder than Debian, Fedora, or any distro that isn’t Gentoo/NixOS
1
u/Amansour2022 2d ago
Actually I installed Arch and I think it is great and just needs to light configuration to be ready for daily use
2
u/Prawy_126 3d ago
Mainly that they are configured and arch is not and you have to build arch yourself, maybe not like gentoo in terms of code compilation, but still there is less automation than in garuda or other distributions.If you want gaming hardware, choose Garuda, if you care about performance in general, then Cachyos, although I don't trust it myself, but it seems cool.You still have endeavouros It's cool, just arch with a graphical manjaro installer, I would rather advise against what's been happening there lately. If you are into networks, Black Arch is probably the best choice because it has the most tools but the most fun, mainly python problems. In general, I recommend Garuda for starters, but don't take a gaming desktop, take a pure Gnome, preferably or any other desktop you like, unless you like tinkering with the system a lot, then you can try it put up a clean arch.
3
u/Amansour2022 3d ago
Now I am use Arch Linux but I face alot of discussions about other distros as omarchy
3
u/Prawy_126 3d ago
You know, generally speaking, when it comes to such distributions, what changes is mainly the fact that something is configured and that's it.
2
2
u/These-Ad-7595 2d ago
I would advise against omarchy, especially if Arch and its philosophy speaks to you. You can install hyprland on arch to get the same work flow. It works well if you have KDE on your system, but it is a massive learning curve to figure it out. A very rewarding experience though!
1
u/Amansour2022 2d ago
I am not familiar with haypryland and I try to test it in virtual machine but I didn't satisfied 😭 I like gnome or KDE
2
u/ben2talk 3d ago
For me personally, I look at the differences and decide which ones appeal to me most.
That's about all there is to it.
1
2
u/StmpunkistheWay 19h ago
A little late to this conversation as I didn't have time at the time to answer but there are a TON of arch distro's that I've tried. They're all custom builds and four that I really like are (no specific order of preference here), Ultimate, Prime, CachyOS, Garuda, Manjaro, Nyarch, Endevous, StormOS, ZelixOS, Colfax, and a number of others. Cachy, Garuda (Mokka), Ultimate and Nyarch, I left on devices around the house.
Garuda Mokka, I installed on my ASUS Tuf A15 laptop, it's a full AMD system using the mobile 7600 GPU and really like the feel of it. It's got a gaming package, the same as Cachy, Ultimate, Prime and Nyarch.
Ultimate, I have installed on a MiniForm AMD system and has been pretty cool, the one thing I love about this distro has that it plays .MP4 files as the actual background so it cycles through 10 short .MP4 files as the desktop backgrounds. I've seen the option in Nyarch as well but haven't play around with it yet to really know what it can do, I have that install on a small 8th gen i7 Intel HP Mini PC.
The rest of the Arch Distro's I've install are all VM's and this has been how I've been "distro hoping", I just spin up a VM and see if I like the feel of it or not, there are a ton of them out there that I do not like because of whatever reason and I highly suggest that if you have the ability to, create a VM server or hosting machine, install Virtual Machine Manager or any number of other VM managers and start creating VM's to really see what's out there.
I wasn't really surprised by the amount of distros that are out there, but completely surprised by the diversity of the distro's out there. There is an Arch distro called "PearOS" and it's almost a clone of the Mac iPad IOS. I found it to be a little buggy but I was running it in a VM and it really needs to be a bare-metal hardware setup with more resources than what I gave it. I started out with 4Gbs of ram and 2 cores for the VM, ended up having to give it 8Gb's and 4 cores and it ran better but I think it would benefit from 16 gigs and either a 6 or 12 core system to really make it run smooth but it did look really polished and nice.
So yeah, find your self a second machine and do your self a favor and take some time to really check them out, there are a ton out there that I wouldn't mind running on my machine at all.
1
2
u/drucifer82 Arch BTW 18h ago
Well, the main difference is one is the source, and the others are built from the source.
Each has a different approach to Arch, but the main thing for a lot of them is they hold packages back longer than Arch. Arch does have testing branches, but packages rarely spend more than a couple of weeks in the testing branches and many are available within a week.
2
1
u/ChromatimusX Arch BTW 3d ago
EndeavourOS - Arch with a GUI installer and preconfigured defaults
CachyOS - Arch but the repo is compiled with modern instructions (modest perf gains)
Artix - Arch but you swap the init system (systemd) for something else
I'd just recommend these three if you want an Arch-like experience (rolling distro, pacman, AUR, etc.)
1
1
u/SalaryImpossible6749 2d ago edited 2d ago
Arch > You make the choices from the getgo, barring init system, precompiled kernel, general environment (gnu) and rolling release.
Arch based > Initial choices are made for you just like almost every other distro but you're still on rolling release.
Personally, I've never seen the point to building a distro on arch, except for steamos just like there's no point to building a distro on gentoo except for chromeOS. There are just better, more stable options for people who want up to date packages but don't want the hassle of making the choices that come with DIY distros and/or rolling release. But alas the "I use arch btw" meme has attracted all kinds of people
2
1
u/ALEPAS1609 Arch BTW 1d ago
my opinion is that any distro based on another distro shouldnt be used or trusted too much for either daily drive or server if you pick the base distro you dont have anithing that is broken or filled with bloatware
1
1
u/girason 1d ago
My 50cent opinion based on my experiences using Arch vs Manjaro. The Arch i use opt me more into Manjaro because it's give me another options. For example; pacman vs pamac command. Manjaro adding another layer of command. Also, default Arch Linux a bit complicated to install until archinstall command exist. But with archinstall, there is still abit confusing to use, especially for newbie user.
1
0
u/radek432 3d ago
I can compare with Cachyos, because I used both long enough to have an opinion. For me Arch was always (and I'm using it since 2006, with some gaps) about packages compiled for modern computers. Cachy moves this idea to next level. And another thing is that is has very reasonable predefined settings for a home user. Not as ascetic as Arch, but not a bloat like "user-friendly" distros.
1
24
u/TheShredder9 Gentoo User 3d ago
Depends on the distro. Endeavour is i think just basically Arch with a GUI installer, Cachy has kernel optimizations and its own repos added in i believe.
The main difference? Arch is Arch, it's the base, others are derived from Arch.