I’ve been using Linux Mint since forever. I’ve never felt a reason to change. But I’m interested in what persuaded others to move.
I’ve been using Linux Mint since forever. I’ve never felt a reason to change. But I’m interested in what persuaded others to move.
Arch. Rolling release is too much maintenance and AUR can be a pain. I do like the minimalist approach though.
For those of a similar opinion and aren’t familiar with it, check out Void. Also a minimalist rolling release, but aims for more stable packages so less updating. Decent package selection in their repos as well.
Yeah, I used Artix and Arch for a while, but I switched to Void a few months ago and I like it better.
I wouldn’t consider arch minimalist. It just defaults to a netinstall with no desktop. Debian’s default net install also doesn’t have a desktop. Arch is more “vanilla” than debian, but not noticeably more minimal on first install.
In that it’s not a kernel with just a c library and busybox, sure. But for a Linux distro, I think the term applies.
This wouldn’t be a distro though, at least not in the context of the question being asked by the OP. My point being that Arch isn’t “minimalist”, because its not really any more minimal than Debian, or Fedora. It is more vanilla than them, preferring to not modify the original sources beyond their packaging, while Debian does do a lot more changes in this regard.
Something like Tinycore, or Puppy are minimalist focusing on running in memory entirely, or Alpine is minimalist by focusing on reducing disk space. Debian, Fedora, or Arch installs, on the other hand, are basically the same in terms of size, unless you also consider them to be minimalist. At which point we are in agreement.
I concede the point.
This line was the seller. It made me think more specifically that a Debian install without a DE is going to be pretty comparable to a base Arch install. And I don’t consider Debian minimalist