I've been using Garuda for about a month and before that, Cachy for a few weeks. Now, I'm considering making the shift to Arch Linux with Hyperland (likely using a pre-customized setup). I love how Garuda makes things easy, but I get frustrated when I run into issues while building AUR packages or dealing with system problems—these aren't issues I've had with Garuda or Cachy. Given my experience and my limited time for troubleshooting, should I go for Arch, or would an Arch-based distro or Fedora-based distro suit me better?
5 Answers
If you don't mind reading a bit, then you should be just fine with Arch a thumbs up!
I've heard that Cachy has better performance compared to Arch. Might be worth sticking with it or checking out other alternatives that are less hands-on.
It all comes down to your reaction when things go wrong. Do you feel annoyed and frustrated, or are you more excited and curious about fixing issues? If you lean towards the annoyed side, Arch might not be the best choice for you.
Arch will need some babysitting and requires some commitment, but you're already familiar with the base since you’ve used Cachy. It’s worth trying, but remember it’s a bit of a commitment. There are other options like i3 that also allow for customization without too much hassle if that's your thing.
Why not give Omarchy a try first? It could be a good middle-ground to see how you like the Arch experience.
It really depends on the situation for me. If I can quickly fix an issue or already know the solution, I'm fine. But if I'm short on time and just want to get things done, that’s when I get frustrated.