I told myself I wasn’t gonna do it anytime soon but I distro hopped from Endeavour OS to Arch with Hyprland in the span of 3 days. Nothing against endeavour. I just tried to customize, broke some stuff and decided to try Hyprland again. I’m quite liking it. It takes awhile to get used to it but it’s fun. I cloned a repo for a customized version of it. I don’t know how long I’ll stick with it but wish me luck!

  • Qpernicus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good luck then. I spent happy years on Arch but recently hopped to Void because lately Arch packages broke to much (mainly because of my choices to be honest) and I wanted something different (not specifically no systemd)

    • Digester@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What Arch based distoe were you on? I would love to spend some time on Debian and OpenSUSE eventually. Also Fedora is intriguing, I wished I tried it already.

      I’ve had experience with Debian based and Arch based distros only. I was on Majaro for months before I had to switch back to windows and leave Linux behind for awhile

    • Raphael@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      But I was told by the fanboys that Arch never breaks. Could they have lied to me?

      • Qpernicus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. And arch never broke on me. But some packages did and lately they were just more of those. Admittedly a few were the -git version. And I just wanted something else

          • Qpernicus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The OS was perfectly usable, it were just some applications that changed dependency and such. So no I don’t agree that arch broke on me. That doesn’t mean Arch is perfect.

            • Raphael@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              When a package is not working well, the distribution is said to be broken, at least for that package. This is the Debian definition.

              The arch definition is “it’s not arch’s fault lmao”

          • Aki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I like the aggression on “fanboying Arch,” while there’s you cherry picking stuff when they’re literally mentioning git packages.

            • Raphael@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              He said “some of them”, meaning not all packages that broke were -git.

              • Aki@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I know, but did you ever ask what those packages are? Are they dependencies? Are the packages that broke came from Arch User Repository? Somehow, you immediately ruled out PEBKAC? I don’t know, you’re a Linux user, this stuff is pretty basic no? I don’t get the anti-fanboyism.