Im also wondering this.

I've tried installing it on 2 different pcs a few times and ive not gotten it to work yet lol. Granted I didnt spend a lot of time on it.

I appreciate you can build the system yourself but its almost choice overload for adhd me and ill end up installing every single package anyway that ill never need, which negates the point of arch.

The short answer is because I'm lazy. I might lose 30 min during the system setup instead of 20, and now I have a system that I don't have to worry about until the hardware gives up.

Arch is a rolling release distro, which means it's unstable, which doesn't mean what you think, instead it means that you can update your system indefinitely without worrying about "versions". For example, if you had Ubuntu 20.04 installed on your server, in may you had to update it to 24.04, and that's something that can cause issues. And in 2029 you'll need to go through that again. Arch is just constant updates without having that worry. Which means no library is safe from updates, ergo unstable.

Also the AUR is huge, and I'm a lazy ass who likes to just be able to install stuff without having to add PPAs or installing stuff by hand.

Also there's the whole customize the system, I use a very particular set of programs that just won't come pre installed anywhere, so any system that comes with their own stuff will leave me in a system with double the amount of programs for most stuff which is just wasteful.

Finally there's the wiki, while the vast majority of what's there serves you in other systems, if you're running Arch it's wonderful, it even lists the packages you need to install to solve specific errors.

Yes and no to all of those reasons, and many others.

There isn't a right or wrong way to install/use Linux. As the saying goes "you do you". If going through the Arch learning curve doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. If you're the sort of person whose curiosity sometimes leads them to do silly things that aren't necessarily logical but that you find enormously fun and satisfying, then maybe go for it.

Believe it or not, it's still less work than NixOS (at least for a daily-driver OS)

More software I wanted was packaged for Arch than Ubuntu.

Maybe I like the misery.

Its like buying a pre-built PC vs a custom PC.

They do the same things at the end of the day, but the the custom PC converts the extra time investment into a result that gives better performance and is more suited to your needs.

I've just gotten used to knowing i can get the latest and greatest and AUR makes a lot of stuff easy when it comes to getting stuff not readily available on the package manager. There's not often i can't find something i want or need to not be on there.

I've used both base arch and cachyos. I've landed on cachyos for now because i didn't want to fiddle with games and wine and just wanted them to work and they just do on cachyos. Laptops that i don't expect to game on just get base arch with hyprland installed, just mostly so i can get my tinkering fix from modifying hyprland

I use Artix (fork of Arch with init freedom)—the main reason why I prefer an Arch base specifically is for the AUR. The reason why I prefer a minimalistic distro in general, is because I want to be able to choose what software I install and how I set up my system. For example I don't use a full DE so any distro that auto-installs a DE for me will install a bunch of software I won't use. You also usually get a lot more control over partitioning etc with minimalistic distros—lets me fuck around with more weird setups if I want to try something out.

To be clear I don't think there's anything wrong with using distros that have more things "pre-packaged". It's a matter of personal preference. The category of "poweruser" makes sense—some users want more fine-grained control over their systems, whilst some users don't care and want something that roughly works with minimal setup. Or perhaps you do care about fine-grained control over your system, but it just so happens that your ideal system is the same as what comes pre-installed with some distro. Do whatever works for you.

For me it mostly just came down to years of frustration combating windows to do what i wanted. Arch offers the level of control for me to set things up the way i like them. Was it harder to set up initially than another distribution? Yeah. But it was a worthwhile trade off

haven't tried arch but afaik it's a distro that lets the user control everything, like gentoo or slackware. that's actually an easier system to manage if you know what you're doing and have something you want in mind.

~~or some people just enjoy tinkering and suffering~~

It's a misconception that is any "trouble". I'm using CachyOS, which is basically Arch but with additionally optimized repositories and settings. You just install it an use it, like Mint or Ubuntu. It just works, but it's also faster for performance related tasks (especially gaming, but also others), importantly and explicitly without any tinkering.

Quite the opposite, actually: there much less tinkering required to get gaming specific things to "just work", as the tweaks are all there by default. This includes running Windows programs often considered hard to run (through Wine).

I do happen to enjoy and want a rolling release. There's a new kernel released, and I can install it like a day later. New KDE comes out, update is there for me in a few hours. Software is generally up to date, which was such a refreshing experience as I'm used to running Debian server side. Oh what a contrast.

It meets their needs and preferences, simple as that. I tried Arch in like 2008, and thought people were crazy for all the trouble it took back then. Nowadays there's a lot of nice distros built on it, so you can get the benefits (such as they may be) without all the low-level tinkering.

Not a mean question at all. I haven't had more difficulty keeping a working system than I did on Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, etc. I get everything I need in Arch and the packages are always fresh off the grill. I also like the emphasis on text config files and a ground-up install. That helped me better understand my system and how it works.

No idea about performance. My performance recommendation is "don't run Windows!" :)

Honestly, in the long term it has been less effort.

If you're an "out-od-the-box" comouter user (web browser, maybe one or two apps, and office suite, then stick with the more conventional distros. If you are very dynamic with your OS, especially 8f you play with a lot of different OSS applications, then Arch get's easier.

I wanted my computer to be secure but headless. Suse, fedora both had supposed instructions but in classic Linux style they had a bunch of out of date commands and software and it didn't work. Fedora always required a human to enter a password on boot, suse just bricked.

Endeavarch had instructions (a maze of unclear gibberish, to be honest) that actually worked and did what I wanted with minimal fuss and it's been operating well for 2 years.

1. Because I like to. 2. Because it still has the best flexibility for packages. 3. I like using cutting edge releases.

It is also extremely overblown just how "hard" arch is. Either way I know a lot more about my system and how it functions now.

Arch is great for reasons ppl already mentioned, but if i'd start over i'd go with Endevour, purely because its so much easier to install

It's actually less trouble. Back when i used ubuntu based distros I ended up using the arch wiki anyway, and I never successfully upgraded from one ubuntu LTS to the next without problems anyway, so I figured why not try the distro that doesn't have upgrades and has amazing docs. It's much more stable.

Rolling releases, great docs, great amount of software available with the package manager, especially with the AUR.

I went through the manual installation a few times and while the general process is annoying and error-prone, after setting up the basics many things worked great out of the box, even the printer I once had. I'm on Endeavour now which mostly does exactly what I want.

I currently use bazzite, but I learned more about Linux by installing arch from scratch than anything else I've ever done with my PC. It was a beautiful experience and I will never forget it.

I recently got a new laptop, and I'm considering installing arch again on the old one again to have a system available that is less restrictive. I'd probably use an installer this time around...but maybe not.

Arch is honestly pretty simple compared to what it was like to install Linux in the 90s...

That said, I mostly run Debian, and have a little smattering of arch. Much like running testing & unstable Debian on two of my machines, I have it there to check out new things and for testing purposes. Same goes for arch, I'm using it to test out new things.

It's a good question and years ago I might have asked the same thing. I'm a minimalist and I really dislike all the extra crap that comes with all-in-one distros these days. Not just installed programs, but also daemons and services that start by default. I hate the idea that I have to go in and manually turn them all off on new installs. I used Ubuntu for a long time but slowly got more and more annoyed at the bloat. The snap situation was the final straw that pushed me to explore other distros. I landed on Arch and really liked it. A new Arch install can be incredibly clean, basically providing nothing more than a command prompt from which you can install what you need. The only stuff running on your machine is what you explicitly put on it. There are a couple things I get annoyed with in Arch, like some baked-in drivers for hardware I don't have, however it's minor enough that I can let it go. I also played with Gentoo but couldn't get comfortable enough to make it my daily driver. Arch is my personal best-balance between cleanliness and effort.

I initially started using it because I needed the newest drivers and back ports on Mint was taking to long, since then I've stuck with rolling release so I don't have to deal with driver hell. I stick with Arch over say Debian Tumbleweed at this point mostly from momentum.

I started using Linux in a time when package management was barely usable, and I had a broken distro as a first distro. Too often I was chasing down answers all over the internet when there were few to share, and the diy aspect of arch is rather nostalgic for me.

As with many of these questions, it depends and it’s subjective. In my case I have a machine running Endevour to tinker with and dip my toes into Arch. The philosophy is different where you need to think more about where your packages come from and be able to validate them (especially the AUR). It’s fun to tinker and better understand the underpinnings and on this machine I have very little that I rely on working so am OK with the increased level of jank.

For work I need a system that I can rely on working like it did yesterday and last week as well as having wide support from vendors. For me that means Ubuntu LTS. In many cases there are tools and applications that I really don’t care about how they work internally, just that they can be easily installed and work in-depth.

the distro I'm daily driving uses arch as base so I just ride along

I like the rolling updates, to be honest. Endeavour has been a wonderful and simple experience. Aside from some NVIDIA issues with Wayland it has been a blast.

Because AUR.

because it's less work. i don't have to strip out what a distro thinks i want. i don't have to worry about major distro releases that might have changes that need manual intervention. if there are updates that need manual intervention, they're small, easy to deal with and usually do not effect me. everything is well documented and standard. packages are installed with default settings/config (to my understanding), so i can easily read upstream documentation and not have to deal with weirdness. getting packages that are obscure is easier. i don't have to worry about upstream having a fix, or supporting something that i need but my distro not having the update in their repo. it's just simpler and easier to manage (for my use case)

I get to set up a system precisely how I want it to work, when an update releases for something, I get that update and I am not at the behest of a maintainer to decide for me if I need that feature or bugfix at the moment. There’s no preconfigured “opinions” on how stuff should work that differ from the defaults in most cases, which means everything usually actually just works, vs some distros where the maintainers felt they were smarter than upstream and consequently broke shit.

I’m a certified Linux professional of over 15yrs and I have never installed Arch. Not once, never needed it. It offers nothing I can’t either build myself or just install Debian and change what I need it to be.