Why I Do not use Arch Linux?

Why I Do not use Arch Linux?

However I have Arch Linux on a USB stick, if somebody ask me a question about Arch, I will boot it and follow my comments.

The IDEA of Linux is to make it User Friendly.

 

Below is a piece copied from www.distrowatch.com.

Arch Linux is an independent Linux distribution and one of the more well known examples of the "keep it simple" (KIS) philosophy. In this case, "keep it simple" refers to simplicity from an engineering point of view. It refers to a technical simplicity rather than an uncluttered or an easy to use system from the user's point of view.

Arch is probably the world's most famous (or infamous) rolling release distribution. Its heavy focus on do-it-yourself computing, lack of a graphical system installer, and buyer beware attitude toward package upgrades has made running this project a rite of passage for many Linux users. People often talk about running Arch the same way they'd discuss earning a merit badge.

Personally, I have some complex views when it comes to the Arch Linux project. On one hand, I appreciate the concept of a technically clean, minimal distribution on which we can build things. I like having the option of starting light and adding components as needed, at least in theory. However, I often get the impression Arch Linux is trying to make things harder just for the sake of making things harder.

Arch Linux is intended to be installed via manual commands from a shell, the install media has no graphical interface and no graphical installer. Technically, there is a command line system installer, but, as I've pointed out before, it's buggy and limited. This makes it more effort to try to use the installer than to set up Arch by hand.

There doesn't seem to be any technical reason for this hands-on approach to installing Arch. There are over a dozen distributions in the DistroWatch database which are, essentially, "Arch Linux, but set up with the Calamares system installer and your option of desktop environment." Philosophically, Arch seems to want users to do more work, more reading, and more editing configuration files by hand. This approach isn't bad, necessarily, but it is more work and rarely offers an improved experience. It's similar to building your own kit car: if you have fun doing that sort of thing, that's great, but in the end it doesn't give you a benefit when you're driving on the road.

One more thought, before I talk more about my latest experience setting up and running Arch Linux: part of my mixed view with regards to Arch comes from not being sure if it is a distribution. Arch supplies a lot of packages, including the Linux kernel. It also supplies support forums, rich documentation, and a place for users to upload recipes for installing third-party software, similar to the BSD concept of ports. All of these things make Arch seem like a Linux distribution. On the other hand, Arch Linux, as an operating system, doesn't really have a design or layout of its own. It is like a box of Lego bricks we can assemble into a shape of our choosing - aided by detailed instructions - but without any automated help. It feels like a bunch of parts we can use, or not, as we like. This makes Arch more of a meta distribution than a regular Linux distribution.

These characteristics make it difficult to review Arch Linux because it doesn't really have a structure so much as optional pieces. As a reviewer, I'm basically tasked on building my own operating system from parts and then asked my opinion of it. I feel like I'm grading my own art project.