So I've run many versions of Linux over the years, with varying degrees of excitement. I've heard a lot of people (especially recently) talking about Arch and how great it is. So I'm intrigued....
So I've run many versions of Linux over the years, with varying degrees of excitement. I've heard a lot of people (especially recently) talking about Arch and how great it is. So I'm intrigued. Can anyone elaborate on why one might want to choose to install Arch in WSL over one of the other compatible distros?
Context: my daily driver is Arch + KDE Plasma. Arch's rolling releases may be of interest in cases where people want to be closer to bleeding edge than they're going to get out of a more stable...
Context: my daily driver is Arch + KDE Plasma.
Arch's rolling releases may be of interest in cases where people want to be closer to bleeding edge than they're going to get out of a more stable distro. Depending on what they're doing this could be a huge deciding factor for some users.
I'd also say the Arch documentation. The wiki is much more comprehensive than anything I've found for another distro. If you look up similar terms like "install [software] on [distro]" my experience is that most distros will just take me to random articles scattered across the Internet, many of which are badly rotted by differences in versions. With Arch though I just pick the link that goes to their wiki and it... works?!
And I'll throw in the AUR as a bonus. For a ton of software someone else already packaged up the work to get a thing running on Arch. I didn't end up going this route but I was recently looking into Magical Voxel, a program that is only available for Windows, and someone had already put in the effort to make an AUR entry that wrapped it in WINE, presumably with a configuration that was tested, so that it would install and behave just about as well as any other AUR software.
+1 on this, when I roll with linux, it's always ending back up at Arch, and I've tried everything. It just works, minimal, and effective. The AUR (Arch User Repo) is by far the greatest package...
+1 on this, when I roll with linux, it's always ending back up at Arch, and I've tried everything. It just works, minimal, and effective. The AUR (Arch User Repo) is by far the greatest package list around.
The Arch wiki is the hallmark of the greatest linux resource around as well, even if you don't use Arch, the Wiki is by far the greatest resource for finding packages, guides, and more on anything Linux.
If you want a quick and easy install, with generous defaults, then install EndeavorOS. Arch is usually a 'do-it-yourself, build yourself up from the core, kind of attitude', but EndeavorOS makes it as easy as clicking a few buttons.
For me it would just be because I’m used to Arch. The reason I picked Arch years ago and stuck with it is because of the vast amount of control and configuration options it gave me right out of...
For me it would just be because I’m used to Arch.
The reason I picked Arch years ago and stuck with it is because of the vast amount of control and configuration options it gave me right out of the box. I was able to create an installation with exactly what I wanted on it. It’s crazy fast, zero bloat, and exactly what I want. For WSL, maybe you could get a similar experience in terms of a thin installation. But in my opinion, if you wanted to use Arch on WSL you probably already use Arch on bare metal. I’d love to hear some other perspectives though!
Thanks for the perspective. Lubuntu has been my distro of choice for a while due to its stability and relatively lightweight footprint, so it sounds like Arch might be worth considering. :)
Thanks for the perspective. Lubuntu has been my distro of choice for a while due to its stability and relatively lightweight footprint, so it sounds like Arch might be worth considering. :)
I've used EndeavorOS for awhile, which I understand is Arch with the rough edges shaved off. It's...fine. The biggest advantage is the AUR, and the biggest disadvantage is that the other side of...
I've used EndeavorOS for awhile, which I understand is Arch with the rough edges shaved off.
It's...fine. The biggest advantage is the AUR, and the biggest disadvantage is that the other side of the "exactly what you want" implies that you know exactly what you need. This incidentally is why the Arch wiki is a great source of troubleshooting information, but it also makes for a frustrating experience for people who just want it to work.
I liken Arch to Gentoo, but you don't need to compile yourself. That isn't throwing shade, but should help scope desirability.
Those aspects do make Arch an excellent option as a base OS for using to build another OS. EndeavorOS is quite nice, but I disliked baseline Arch.
Finally, it's always nice to have your Linux distro in WSL match what you're using elsewhere.
Because this "official" is Arch official, not Microsoft. OpenSUSE also has official WSL images. They work great. Doesn't solve the plethora of other arcane WSL issues.
Because this "official" is Arch official, not Microsoft.
OpenSUSE also has official WSL images. They work great. Doesn't solve the plethora of other arcane WSL issues.
So I've run many versions of Linux over the years, with varying degrees of excitement. I've heard a lot of people (especially recently) talking about Arch and how great it is. So I'm intrigued. Can anyone elaborate on why one might want to choose to install Arch in WSL over one of the other compatible distros?
Context: my daily driver is Arch + KDE Plasma.
Arch's rolling releases may be of interest in cases where people want to be closer to bleeding edge than they're going to get out of a more stable distro. Depending on what they're doing this could be a huge deciding factor for some users.
I'd also say the Arch documentation. The wiki is much more comprehensive than anything I've found for another distro. If you look up similar terms like "install [software] on [distro]" my experience is that most distros will just take me to random articles scattered across the Internet, many of which are badly rotted by differences in versions. With Arch though I just pick the link that goes to their wiki and it... works?!
And I'll throw in the AUR as a bonus. For a ton of software someone else already packaged up the work to get a thing running on Arch. I didn't end up going this route but I was recently looking into Magical Voxel, a program that is only available for Windows, and someone had already put in the effort to make an AUR entry that wrapped it in WINE, presumably with a configuration that was tested, so that it would install and behave just about as well as any other AUR software.
+1 on this, when I roll with linux, it's always ending back up at Arch, and I've tried everything. It just works, minimal, and effective. The AUR (Arch User Repo) is by far the greatest package list around.
The Arch wiki is the hallmark of the greatest linux resource around as well, even if you don't use Arch, the Wiki is by far the greatest resource for finding packages, guides, and more on anything Linux.
If you want a quick and easy install, with generous defaults, then install EndeavorOS. Arch is usually a 'do-it-yourself, build yourself up from the core, kind of attitude', but EndeavorOS makes it as easy as clicking a few buttons.
Definitely the Arch wiki and the AUR are Arch's killer features as far as I'm concerned.
For me it would just be because I’m used to Arch.
The reason I picked Arch years ago and stuck with it is because of the vast amount of control and configuration options it gave me right out of the box. I was able to create an installation with exactly what I wanted on it. It’s crazy fast, zero bloat, and exactly what I want. For WSL, maybe you could get a similar experience in terms of a thin installation. But in my opinion, if you wanted to use Arch on WSL you probably already use Arch on bare metal. I’d love to hear some other perspectives though!
Thanks for the perspective. Lubuntu has been my distro of choice for a while due to its stability and relatively lightweight footprint, so it sounds like Arch might be worth considering. :)
I've used EndeavorOS for awhile, which I understand is Arch with the rough edges shaved off.
It's...fine. The biggest advantage is the AUR, and the biggest disadvantage is that the other side of the "exactly what you want" implies that you know exactly what you need. This incidentally is why the Arch wiki is a great source of troubleshooting information, but it also makes for a frustrating experience for people who just want it to work.
I liken Arch to Gentoo, but you don't need to compile yourself. That isn't throwing shade, but should help scope desirability.
Those aspects do make Arch an excellent option as a base OS for using to build another OS. EndeavorOS is quite nice, but I disliked baseline Arch.
Finally, it's always nice to have your Linux distro in WSL match what you're using elsewhere.
The issue boards on WSL's GitHub are a graveyard as autobot shoots down anything older than a week or so lmao. So I'm curious what that even means
Because this "official" is Arch official, not Microsoft.
OpenSUSE also has official WSL images. They work great. Doesn't solve the plethora of other arcane WSL issues.