Prove me wrong

cant

Why I don't love Arch Linux (it's because I'm mentally handicapped)

the benefits of using nixos:

1. from patching the kernel to adding systemd units all your system configurations will be in a single file using the nix syntax

2. stability nixos allows you to rollback all your modifications to any graphical, sound, network input etc etc issues you face with your install of nix your machine will be fixed by picking the last build of nixos from the grub menu not to mention every package is sandbox on nix so you'll never run to dependencies issues you can even mix unstable and stable repo packages and they will work with each other

3. you can use modules which basically automate the process of installing and configuring software for example you can add to your nix config "programs.hyprland.enable = true;" and get hyprland with the default config to customize it yourself without needing to follow all the complex stuff on the archwiki to set it up

4. this is the last time you'll configure anything on your system for example if you add a udiskie service to your nix file you'll no longer need to create a udiskie service every time you reinstall nix or even on other machine since you will reuse your nix config and that also applies to far more complex operations like patching the kernel or configuring grub and systemd

5. you get to part of the new hip linux cult

the benefits of using nixos:

1. from patching the kernel to adding systemd units all your system configurations will be in a single file using the nix syntax

2. stability nixos allows you to rollback all your modifications to any graphical, sound, network input etc etc issues you face with your install of nix your machine will be fixed by picking the last build of nixos from the grub menu not to mention every package is sandbox on nix so you'll never run to dependencies issues you can even mix unstable and stable repo packages and they will work with each other

3. you can use modules which basically automate the process of installing and configuring software for example you can add to your nix config "programs.hyprland.enable = true;" and get hyprland with the default config to customize it yourself without needing to follow all the complex stuff on the archwiki to set it up

4. this is the last time you'll configure anything on your system for example if you add a udiskie service to your nix file you'll no longer need to create a udiskie service every time you reinstall nix or even on other machine since you will reuse your nix config and that also applies to far more complex operations like patching the kernel or configuring grub and systemd

5. you get to part of the new hip linux cult

Idk what that is. Checkmate.

but i wanna play video games

it's probably the only thing /you/ should install.
but xbps is nice. runit is easy. so void is better. i guess the only down sides are it has a really easy to use installer and way less people know about it so there's no street cred for running it.

openBSD is a good os

>>7
Depending on what you enjoy gaming is rather painless. You will have more issues with online fps games but most other things work great with minimal tweaking.

>>4
If it works well and has the same attitude of fast and straightforward documentation of how to do everything then it might be based. Point 2. is a bit weak cus I can use BTRFS snapshots.

artix gives you the initfreedom to chose from multiple inits and its pretty light and based on arch so its pretty based

other based os are openbsd and plan9(9front)

i use Artix btw

Ur convincing me to try OpenBSD at some point

I've been hearing about Init freedom and Artix so might try it once I'm pretty satisfied with Arch. OpenRC and runit sound like best ones

>>14
runit is so fast! my 'puter starts in less than a minute after pressing the power button!

arch based distros that "just work" clear base arch sadly. setting things up yourself leaves intrinsic room for error, and it definitely isn't worth the headache whenever anything breaks compared to distros where it takes substantially more effort to break anything.

>>16
Is there anything in particular you're thinking of that has high variables or tedium getting set up that you can screw up easily?

I'm OP. I got pretty tied up with networking, I'd say this has the highest chance of tripping people up. Second highest I'd say is sound. I am glad that I had the experience of getting stuck and solving these issues though and I'd know exactly the steps to take if I had a networking issue on any other distro now as well. I think Arch pays off the best and is your best friend for information. Yeah the Arch-based distros are a good choice too because you pretty much get the consistency with arch's documentation. When I was on Debian I found myself using Arch wiki and since slight differences slowed me down I decided I prefer Arch so it's all consistent syntax and and directories and whatnot.

Honestly apart from networking and sound proving to be a bit of a challenge (I just didn't get how exactly I was meant to use Pipewire at first, regular PulseAudio is probably ez), I have found everything else easy. Getting on a DE and playing a modern game on Steam was ezpz with minimum chance of breaking anything. You are honestly mainly just installing a package and then potentially also enabling something in systemd most of the time, very straight-forward.

Since you have to do things bit-by-bit and it can take an hour to be set up nicely, I'd strongly recommend something like Manjaro if you need to experiment or test something quickly in a fresh environment, though.

>>17
honestly the biggest pain in the ass while I was using arch was trying to config my greeter. there were obviously other more minor issues, but trying to resolve that one was what eventually bricked my system and made me never go back.

>>1
>>4
arch + nix has been working really well for me

i know enough about ubuntu to use it as my daily system and enough about debian in general to use it on proxmox vms to run random stuff like pihole and whatnot, though id say im probably still a total noob when it comes to more advanced stuff. Ive never really looked into arch so i dont really understand the massive hype around it. like what makes it so much better than debian? does it have support for more programs than debian? can it run vms better?

>>20
Well everything I prefer about Arch doesn't really have anything to do with support. Infact the only thing I can think of is I think theres some wlroots WMs that aren't packaged on Debian so they take a bit more effort to install. But both distros tend to have great coverage on packages.

In Debian I don't see why I have to switch into the console between two of the steps in the installation wizard so I can properly add my BTRFS subvolumes, it makes having a wizard feel pointless. Then when I'm doing something later that needs documentation, I might read Arch wiki because its so helpful. But then I think I might aswell be on Arch.

But aside from simple things like this, if it's Linux and has a reliable package manager its probably almost the same experience.

Do distros matter that much? I guess the AUR is nice.

>>22
afaik the only things that make distro's different are the package managers and whether or not it uses systemd

>>22
>>23
yeah the only really relevant things are that debian based distros can run .deb applications, and arch has the AUR. the first is useful if you want to run the most programs, the second is useful if you want to run generally high quality software, either case makes concessions. the other aspects of the package managers are somewhat irrelevant as long as you're using distro that has a well maintained repository. systemd by itself isn't really going to affect your use cases a lot, it's just easier to find documentation for distros that use systemd. the practical difference is gonna be what software you end up using on your machine, and you can customize that with any distro.

>>24
least retarded linux take

9front is the only thing you should install

>>24
You meant to associate AUR with most programs and the debian part with "generally high quality software" but said them in the wrong order.

I know that .deb is just a file extension you can find that dpkg is able to use to install programs if you don't want to use apt. Does this mean you find a lot of stuff as .deb files that aren't approved for the package manager so it's a lot like the AUR?

High quality really isnt the contrast with Debian and Arch, Arch probably even has similar careful vetting of programs, its just that Debian's release cycle allows them to make sure everything is fully stable at every release. Arch generally never gives people stability issues but it runs a higher risk.

>>27
depends on what you define by high quality I guess. for me, it means well maintained free and open source software that I can install onto my PC without having to have duplicate dependencies. which is a standard that's a lot harder to maintain on debian based distros.