.

      • Fryboyter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Arch is also not more lightweight than other distributions.

        With Arch, unlike other distributions, there are no extra dev packages. Thus, everything is present in a single package, so they require more storage space.

        Arch’s packages also have fixed dependencies on other packages, which in turn have other dependencies. So you can’t only install what you actually want, which is often claimed. For example, I would like to uninstall various Bluetooth packages, but I can’t because they are dependencies for packages I use.

        The basic installation including base-devel requires more than 1 GB of storage space without the GUI. Some distributions need less including the GUI.

        • 🧟‍♂️ Cadaver
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are indeed more lightweight distros. But if you want something that “works out of the box”, contrary to, say, PuppyLinux or Gentoo, then Arch is interesting.

          It is however harder to configure than Fedora, Manjaro, SuSE, etc. It’s a great inbetween.

    • 🧟‍♂️ Cadaver
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks to Pacman and the AUR there is an extensive list of apps to install very easily.

      And you don’t have to keep the build dependencies on your system, so you have more disk space.