hckrnws
This was the one to finally stop getting me to distro hop. Cachy is very easy to use and very well maintained. The performance is usually the selling point people talk about, but it's also very customizable and beginner-friendly (especially for an arch-based distro).
It uses an online installer that lets you choose the desktop environment, boot manager, file system, among other things. You can follow the defaults if you're new. Once you install it, it also comes with a few helper applications that can quickly set up things you'd want to use, like a one-click button that installs all the gaming packages you want to use and their flavor of Proton which is (allegedly) faster than the default.
They also have a really good wiki which I contributed a bit to and a very active community if you need help. All around, 10/10 would recommend to anyone. I managed to convince my friend who's new to Linux to use this instead of Zorin and he's had a great time.
I really dislike that Linux proper doesn't by default have x.xx-server, x.xx-workstation, x.xx-laptop and x.xx-desktop kernel variants. Or just doesn't have defaults, requiring distros to think about what to set during compilation.
A lot of the current defaults stem from the 90s, and often were eyeballed by the creator of said code. They're not good defaults for modern servers nor workstations nor laptops nor desktops. And all of those devices work best with different defaults.
It doesn't seem (yes, appearances can be deceiving) to be that much work, because no extra code needs to be written. For each variant, just set different default parameter values for stuff like swappiness, lazy RCUs and what not. Make it a thing to revisit the defaults every 10 years.
CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out.
> CachyOS and some other distros already do this, but a big chunk of distros doesn't because they think the defaults are well-thought out.
Based on what I saw 1-2 years ago last time I looked at it, most distributions to customize and don't use the defaults straight up. From memory, so someone correct me if I'm wrong:
- RHEL/SLES - Lots of patches to kernels
- Arch - Closer to just using defaults, some config choices and downstream adjustments (so the opposite of CachyOS almost, which is why we have CachyOS in the first place)
- Ubuntu - Probably the most patched distribution compared to upstream components, also includes a lot of Canonical-specific stuff on top of that.
- Fedora - Has some bleeding edge bits and bobs
- Debian - Bit more conservative than Ubuntu, but still has patches for stability, security and backports.
In my experience, distributions changing the defaults and customizations seems to be the norm rather than the exception.
Why would you want different kernels for different device types?
Genuine question! I maintain my own Linux distro (upstream Linux + portage) for all my devices and haven’t found much reason to go beyond kernel per arch. I’m curious if there’s something I could be missing.
Well, for the two examples I named:
vm.swappiness defaults to 60, which is default from when everyone was still running spinning rust with a swap partition. Servers these days usually have very specific storage+memory configurations, whereas the usual desktop or laptop has an SSD and 16GB+ of RAM with RAM compression expanding it.
Lazy RCU loading is good on a laptop because you only lose about 10% performance and only with specific workloads, but your idle and light load energy consumption improves. Most laptops spend like 95%+ in light or idle load scenarios. Conversely, on a desktop you don't care (much) about idle and light load energy consumption, you only care about keeping max load consumption low enough so that your fans stay quiet. And on a workstation you don't care about a system being whisper quiet so you can go nuts with the energy consumption.
> vm.swappiness defaults to 60, which is default from when everyone was still running spinning rust with a swap partition. Servers these days usually have very specific storage+memory configurations, whereas the usual desktop or laptop has an SSD and 16GB+ of RAM with RAM compression expanding it.
You don't need to compile a specific kernel for that, this is setup via sysctl.
Swappiness and many others can be changed by some sort of system preset rather built that way. I know not ALL options can be done that way, but I'd want to see changes start there where feasible.
I totally missed that part of your comment, my bad. Thanks for elaborating on those, I feel inspired to experiment!
So far my kernel journey has been about making my hardware work + enabling features, and that’s mostly how I’ve been discovering config options. Do you have any suggestions on where one aught to read further on this sort of kernel tuning?
EDIT: doing some further research, couldn’t you just set those options via sysctl w/o needing to build a separate kernel?
I love the separation of concerns. It provides an amazing terminal-first kernel and everything graphical is maintained by various different organizations, and you can choose between many different options.
Maintaining a large distro is extremely difficult and every decision has several trade-offs.
> This was the one to finally stop getting me to distro hop.
For me it was Debian 12 with Sway (Wayland) followed by Debian 13 with labwc and Sway.
Now I can switch from a tiling window manager (WM) to a floating WM depending on the work task.
> labwc and Sway
Is there an option to stay permanently in floating mode, and allow manual placement? I'm stuck on AwesomeWM using just floating windows with easy keybindings for moving them around/resizing, etc. and am looking to jump from X11 to Wayland
Why use Awesome with floating windows?
Because it makes no sense to do tiling on a 12" screen, especially when you have keyboard shortcuts to activate/start applications
I prefer it still because it makes sense for every window to be maximized at startup. Also one layout that still makes sense is 1 window taking up 100% of the horizontal space and 95% of the vertical save for a small strip for a terminal.
I have - Meta + Z: Activate/iterate through terminal windows - Meta + W: Activate/iterate through browser windows
And when on a laptop I maybe do a split view 2-3 times a day for a short term. 95% of the time it's full sized windows which I switch between using keyboard shortcuts.
I had not heard of labwc before, super cool that it's compatible with openbox themes! Openbox was one of the first "cool wm" I think I used back in the day, probably like 15 years ago now when it supplanted Fluxbox as the dominant *box.
nixos for me. broke it once 9 years ago, but I never figured out how.
During CachyOS installation, select "i3" as desktop environment and look how many of the accessory programs die from linking errors. That should not happen with a package manager with dependency management.
This isn't surprising. All of the X11 based WMs are slowly bit-rotting. Unless the people that care about them step up and start maintaining the stack instead of just endlessly complaining about Wayland it'll only get worse.
> start maintaining the stack instead of just endlessly complaining about Wayland it'll only get worse.
This is actually what forced me to migrate to Wayland, seeing lots of people complaining about Wayland but not seeing people stepping up to maintain X11. And those who used to maintain X11, built Wayland instead.
Yes, Wayland isn't perfect, but for professionals who just want shit to continue working, you kind of have to move to the software that is being maintained, for better or worse.
Always the same lies. People "stepped up" in the and as a result were outright banned from the gitlab (instead of e.g. just rejecting pull requests). Current maintainers refuse to do any release management and instead treat every merge into master as a new release. This kind of sabotage makes development or contributing very difficult. Also the people that used to maintain X11 (e.g. Keith Packard) had nothing to do with building Wayland.
Wayland on the other is just a insanely stupid API. Everybody advocating for Wayland should be forced to write a simple client at least once without relying on behemoths like GTK or Qt.
Comment was deleted :(
> outright banned from the gitlab
Yeah, lies and then you come in with shit like this. You can surely show several proofs then, right?
> Wayland on the other is just a insanely stupid API. Everybody advocating for Wayland should be forced to write a simple client at least once without relying on behemoths like GTK or Qt.
Why would you do it outside of toying around? Btw, I have and it's nothing out of ordinary.
X11 is on the way out. Both major DEs will abandon X11 backend within one year.
So, what's stopping these rejected contributors to create their hard fork of XOrg, just like XOrg was a hard fork of XFree86?
> People "stepped up"
If by "people" you mean a fascist who doesn't know how to program, then sure. But the sensible people who don't present a security threat with their politics or with shitty code are 100% in the Wayland camp.
> Also the people that used to maintain X11 (e.g. Keith Packard) had nothing to do with building Wayland.
Those people aren't maintaining X11 today, are they? The people who are maintaining X11 today have put it in bugfix-only mode and have told you, many times, that the future is Wayland. End of discussion.
Look, you want to run a retro 90s desktop for shits and giggles, that's great. There's even an officially supported path for this use case: Ariadne Conill's Wayback. But the DEs and the toolkits are all removing X11 support within the next year or two. There is no future there. You want to keep running modern software, you will have to switch to Wayland eventually—and soon.
> Wayland on the other is just a insanely stupid API. Everybody advocating for Wayland should be forced to write a simple client at least once without relying on behemoths like GTK or Qt.
Nobody actually develops applications that way. They all use a toolkit, and the behemoths cover pretty much 90% of actual application development (modulo things like Electron). Both of those, by the way, are deprecating X11 support.
X11 is still in fact maintained to a degree insofar as minimally fixing bugs.
Last activity 2 hours ago at time of writing.
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/groups/xorg/-/activity
Most of the people complaining are users who don't write any software. There is no practical difficulty in using an x11 wm at this point nor expected to be until major software not only doesn't support x11 by default but cannot be built with support for same.
Maybe it will be difficult to run X in 2030?
There is no X11 bitrot. Just a lack of funding. If funding for Wayland stopped today, Wayland would die much quicker than X11 because there is essentially zero community involvement whereas for X11 there are enough people that care to keep it alive for free.
Desktop Linux is more of a love project, it has basically no real support. Compared to the kernel it's more like YouTube $5 comments.
And given that Wayland has less moving pieces (it properly sits on top of kernel abstractions), your take is even less likely to be true.
I use dwm. There is no bitrot.
There's still bitrot on the X.org side even if your DM is maintained
Only on systemd/logind systems. Bitrot doesn't just happen, it caused by your dependencies considering your usecases obsolete.
Oh, so only on systems running the standard stack that 90% of Linux systems run then. Nope, no bitrot here.
Always the same lies...
There's X11libre for Linux and there's X on OpenBSD and FreeBSD. I am sure it will be fine.
> All of the X11 based WMs are slowly bit-rotting.
was the statement I was replying to. In 10 years of using dwm I've not been aware of any bitrot that affects me. Certainly nome in the WM itself.
Define what problems you think exist please.
Reminder that Wayland is now older than X11R5 was, when Wayland started and claimed X11 was old and bad code.
almost every distro that offers an i3/sway/awesome install option seems to do a really poor job of it.
I don't know why.
Last time I started an endeavoros install with a default i3 it borked the login manager and set no system handlers of any kind. When I went to fix the handlers the entire package that set them was gone. When I went to install that (on the advice of the accompanying forum) I had to install most of GNOME.
If you're using something that isn't KDE or GNOME you're probably going to hit rough edges.
That used to be the case a few years ago as well, when Wayland/sway was still considered experimental.
I had tried Manjaro i3, and XFCE’s i3 variant but at the end it was actually more convenient to install the KDE version and then install i3 on top.
I use CachyOS as my daily driver and I gave up on i3 after few tries. It just doesn’t work.
I’m happy with XFCE now and it is very performant.
Comment was deleted :(
No issues with sway here.
With all the unofficial patches and experimental compilers they use it must be full of subtle bugs.
Comment was deleted :(
What are examples of packages that fail with linking errors? What are the errors?
xob, whose binaries are taken from the AUR which hasn't been re-built since 2018.
Vanilla Arch would fail in the same way with this package. Not sure I follow.
CachyOS installs it when you pick the "i3" flavour at install. Arch doesn't.
Yeah, well, that is AUR for you.
Comment was deleted :(
Did you report this as a bug?
No, i attempted to use CachyOS as ready-to-go distro to stop contributing. Instead of starting to contribute to CachyOS, i went back to my previous distro where i already do contribute.
I had a similar beef with FreeBSD ports. And to be fair, they specifically disclaim "liability" to what the package maintainers do because they are separate groups. But the one time I tried going off the beaten path from pkg (which installs binaries) and went to /usr/local/ports and actually tried to build something from scratch, it just choked on dependencies and quit.
IIRC, I tried to build vim from scratch, but during the menuconfig, selected different "cflags" (or whatever they call them) to add additional features. When you do this, it pulls in more packages, and eventually something failed to compile the way I had configured it. I realize there's probably N! different combinations of packages / dependencies. But still it left me thinking "why bother releasing this crap/give me the option to customize at all if you don't even do basic tests on it?".
Yah well? Why would I when there is Plasma/KDE which never did that to me? :-)
User choice
I used i3 for the longest time and I'd say a wayland based alternative like sway or miracle is a better choice nowadays. Even KDE Plasma recently dropped x11 support [1] so going forward, most apps will target wayland first.
Migrating my i3 config to sway hardly took any effort. I was also able to get rid of a lot of xorg specific configurations from various x11 dotfiles and put them directly in the sway config (Such as Natural Scrolling)
[1]: https://itsfoss.com/news/kde-plasma-to-drop-x11-support/.
I've been using Linux since the mid-90s and Linux almost exclusively for the last couple decades and I have only one question, aren't most Linux distros fully customizable? I currently run Fedora on my desktop but I've run everything from Slackware to Red Hat to Debian to Knoppix to Corel to Suse to Arch, you get the idea, and I've found all of them nearly equal in the customizability department. Is there a distro out there that actively fights customization?
They are for you because you're a pro at it by now even if you don't realize it. You have to remember there are a ton of people installing Linux now for the first time ever. Some distros give a better out of the box experience. My guess is Cachy is popular with people that have heard Arch is great (because it is) but don't want to deal with a text mode installer, or enjoy the value add it brings to gamers.
The immutable distros (Fedora Silverblue, Bazzite, etc) can be more challenging to customize, but that's kind of the point too.
They are all customizable, but you have to remember - not everyone is a Linux expert, and not everyone has the time or the will to tinker.
None that I know of, however I'd say certain distro's might attract people who want more/specific customization
> fully customizable
There are all sorts of customizable. CachyOS' use of that word is rather inspecific. I guess it means the compilation flags are better customized for your CPU, plus it is easier to choose a kernel with a different scheduler enabled. So, "more customizable" in that sense.
Of course you could ask whether you could 'customize' your distribution not force you to use systemd. Most popular distributions fall flat on that one, I'm afraid...
Most distributions also don't allow to 'customize' any of the following:
- compiler used for building the distribution, - libc implementation, - C++ standard library implementation, - coreutils implementation, - system shell, - kernel (e.g., using Hurd), - PAM or equivalent, - util-linux, - package manager,
and so on. systemd is just one more thing in that looong, looong list.
Here to say that cachyos is by no means just a gaming os it's a really nicely packaged distro and works much better than KDE neon, far better than manjaro.
It also generally feels snappier for simple things like opening terminal, but I am pretty sure that was a kde neon issue.
I only use KDE so your experience might be different than mine.
I've been daily driving CachyOS for ~3 years now. It was the first distro I could use "out of the box" with a Nvidia 1080 TI and later 3060 along with an old Intel i7-8700k without having to spend a significant amount of time tweaking and fiddling with config files just to get a working Plasma/Wayland setup.
Though I definitely think the resources and guides Archwiki provided plus the fact that I had been distro hopping(Mint, Ubuntu, PopOS among others) the last couple years before I settled into CachyOS/Arch helped a lot.
I will say though(at least in my experience) attempting to use a tiling/dynamic WM like hyprland, sway, river, anything that depends on wlroots did not work well, which is to be expected as i dont believe any of the desktop environments I listed support Nvidia.
KDE Plasma(The default DE) and XFCE which I only used for a short while gave me the most stable and consistent environment. Generally I never promote CachyOS, but this is the first time I've seen it on the front page of HN, if you're willing to put in a little effort(i.e read through the CachyOS docs and maybe a couple pages of the Archwiki) I'm pretty sure CachyOS is the best experience "out of the box" for users with a Nvidia GPU/intel CPU/iGPU. Outside of straight up upstream Arch as long as youre willing to put in the time to configure it post install to optimize your system.
Regarding the KDE aspect: my preferred DE is KDE and I installed CachyOS with that. Everything seemed to go smoothly and using it was also a good experience.
With that said, I ran into an age-old problem: sleep.
(For reference, I have an AMD Ryzen CPU, RTX 4070 super GPU and some low-end motherboard and I am using the proprietary nvidia drivers.)
I searched the web for hours and tried a lot of things, including different kernels, but nothing helped. In the end, after I couldn't find anything new on forums, reddit, blog posts, etc, I asked chatgpt for some ideas.
It had me change BIOS settings, kernel params, nvidia module params (or something like that - I'm not well versed in this topic tbh), etc, but in some way waking up from sleep still did not work.
After it suggested some undocumented kernel param with the nvidia kernel module, I said that's it, let's try something else and reinstalled with Gnome.
To my surprise, it worked without issue. I've been using it like this for weeks now.
I have no idea if the explanation is good or not but chatgpt said it's because my hardware + proprietary nvidia driver + plasma wayland was a bad combination.
Also barely use it for gaming/multimedia, already have Windows for that, I use it for work (software development/machine learning) with Gnome3 and haven't had any issues with it since I started using it in 2025. Don't notice much performance difference with normal Arch though either tbh.
nvidia support seems to be better, but I have no idea if that is arch or catchyos.
I've only used CachyOS for a couple of months, before that Arch since 2017, and never had any issues with nvidia cards on Linux, and I think I'm usually in the areas where people find them cumbersome (tiling WMs, gaming, machine learning, CUDA). Started with a 1080, then 2080ti, then 3090ti, and finally a RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell, don't remember any issue with any of them.
I think both Arch and CachyOS would do fine with nvidia cards, but thanks to who I don't know.
I'm another former long-term KDE neon user that switched to CachyOS. It's been very pleasant, so much so that I put it also on my laptop.
Bazzite (Fedora atomic), CachyOS (Arch), PikaOS(Debian), Nobara(Fedora), (Pop_OS - Ubuntu), it's nice that there's a gaming version of pretty much all major distros at this point so everyone can have a familiar base, hopefully they all survive
I don't understand why we need "gaming versions" for distros. I've never used them but if there's stuff that's broken for gaming in the base distros, shouldn't that just be fixed?
Trade-offs in the default load-out, essentially - some of the things you want for games can bloat out the standard build, compromise the "license integrity" of the base repositories, make system instability more likely etc etc.
There is unlikely to be a time that "things stop moving" enough to make all these trade-offs go away, but you can pretty much just add all this stuff to the base distro yourself anyway if you want to (I still play games on vanilla Silverblue, for example).
Target audience favors in for default load out, too. Gamers aren’t likely to be *nix gurus and want something that will come configured correctly for their use case out of the box, including stuff like Nvidia drivers.
For this group, needing to follow wiki guides and such and spending time on basic system functionality just isn’t happening. If that’s the only option, they’re just going to reinstall Windows.
PC gamers tend to be a bit more amendable on those things, even Windows ones. Especially if they have >0 experience with modding, then they're pretty much primed for following "I don't know what this does" instructions.
I think the group you're thinking about are console gamers, who never had to upgrade drivers, never dealt with mods and generally has a very different experience compared to PC gaming.
Well, you also have those who are capable but not necessarily willing.
I’m increasingly leaning that direction. Day job is software dev, have been using and/or tinkering with some form of *nix for almost 25 years, and have been using computers for even longer and sometimes I just don’t have the patience for fiddling around with computers to coax them into doing what I want them to.
At least for Bazzite, Nobara and CachyOS, there is the SteamOS desktop option that boots directly to Steam's Big Picture that is quite unconventional in some ways (e.g. this desktop mode kinda also acts as a display manager, so there is the option to boot to your desktop from Big Picture mode and this option is generally broken without specific integration with the session manager).
Sure this could probably be a package in a more "traditional distro", but I'm almost sure most people don't expect their Display Manager to be replaced with Steam when they install a package.
> Sure this could probably be a package in a more "traditional distro", but I'm almost sure most people don't expect their Display Manager to be replaced with Steam when they install a package.
You can add steam big picture mode as a session type which would let you pick it from the login manager (the same as if you had both GNOME & KDE installed, for example). There would be no need to replace anything.
No, but I would after e.g dpkg-reconfigure steam-bigwindow
I had Manjaro previously, but it regularly had issues booting due to Plymouth. I'm not quite sure what the issue was, but Plymouth was deprecated. I switched to Fedora for a while, but finally got sick of Gnome 3. (yes, I could have just used KDE on Fedora but wanted to try out Cachy) Cachy has been pretty good, and I'm seeing much better performance in games than in Fedora, although I'm not sure how much of that is due to Fedora open-sourcing their kernel driver was responsible for the difference. (I still had the proprietary ones on Fedora)
I hope some of these work out. Honestly from a strict compatibility and ease of use standpoint nothing has been as simple or reliable for me as Ubuntu used to be. I left it due to snaps and premium nagging, but I've had the usual little "linux" quirks ever since. As much as I love cachy, my current quirk with it is that heavy disk writes tank the system aggressively. A bit of brief research suggests this might be due to using BTRFS, but I'm comfortable enough with the system that I don't want to do a total reformat right now.
I guess what I'm saying is that as much as I love linux there is still some refinement needed.
I use industry standard Ubuntu, I'm a gamer, I have no issues, and I have used nvidia cards going back 2 decades so I can dispel the nvidia myth too.
Release-day Mesa updates is something that would be irrelevant for a normal distro, but important for a gaming one.
Because there is no need. It just the usual trend/hype.
* Manjaro is Arch.
* Cachy is a patched Arch (exactly what Arch avoids, heavy patching).
* SteamOS is Arch.
* Arch is Arch.
> Any useful and stable patch will be merged by upstream. That is why using CachyOS or ClearLinux isn’t beneficial in long term.
Seems like you're blinded by your own context, if CachyOS for example see patches, integrate them earlier than upstream, and let user use them today rather than "long term", how is that not useful or beneficial to the users who want/needs that?
Besides, testing patches this way sounds like it'll have wider impact in the community than just the distro that integrated the patch, as it'll have a way wider testing userbase then. Isn't that also good long term?
I think the main selling point of Cachy is that the binary packages are compiled at a much higher optimization level. It simply won't run on older CPUs without modern extensions. Vanilla Arch definitely does not do this.
> When the patch works it will finally land even in Debian Stable.
Which is very pointless if it's three years late for e.g. a game release
It's about sane default packages and installers and desktop experience, as well as onboarding.
It doesn't take a lot of work to get any distro to become a good gaming machine, but it does take some work to make it a seamless turnkey gaming machine for the masses.
Of course there is a need - if you get a brand new PC don't you want it to perform as it should? Or do you want to wait another 2 years for that to happen?
Also very few people want to tinker with every single little thing, they want a nice stable base that does what you expect and build upon it - that's why most people were fine with previous versions of windows. So if cachy fixes 95% of the issues for you, why not go for it? Saving time and headache is a reasonable thing for a focused distro.
Manjaro is not Arch. It uses custom repositories with patched packages, delayed version rollouts and custom kernels.
The proof is in the pudding:
> PikaOS Linux is a Linux distribution based on Debian's cutting-edge "Unstable" branch [...] [1]
Trademark and reach.
Gaming distributions don't run a stable version of Linux distributions. They're always a spin-off from one of the popular Linux distributions (rebasing every once in a while), with additional changes tailored towards gaming.
Now, you cannot just say I call my distribution Debian GNU/Linux Gaming Edition. If you would, you'd need to work under the umbrella of Debian. With a different name, you differentiate from Debian, while you can keep the advantages of their framework (hello Ubuntu).
It's not necessarily broken, but for instance packages in cachy are compiled against x86-64-v3 iirc so they wouldn't work on older machines that don't support avx2
Can't you just add an x86-64-v3 arch to Debian if that really makes much of a difference? (I'd be surprised if it's really that significant because you can't recompile the game itself, and even when you can recompile things use -march=native doesn't make that much difference in my experience).
There are some things regular distros can't/shouldn't do, like including codecs still under patents, matching proprietary Nvidia drivers with the correct kernel version, proprietary firmware for game controller adapters, the launching of Steam Big Picture mode as the default UI, etc.
[I am sorry for the meta, if it's against the guidelines I hope this comment will be quickly deleted. But I am not criticizing anyone, I just find it interesting.]
The discussion between supporters of these kind of distros and people against them are very similar to those between vegetarians.
"I don't know why the community needs a veggie chicken nuggets honestly. We have delicious vegetables."
"But veggie chicken nuggets have their place. They are quick and microwaveable, and they help bringing people in"
"We bring them in with preservatives and chemicals? Sweet potatoes are also quickly microwaveable.."
And so on.
Welcome to every internet discussion ever, where people who don't understand or know each other's perspective and contexts unless they share them, so everyone is mostly talking past each other and in reality, to someone else.
Fedora has been rock solid for a few years (minus Zoom + Nvidia), as my primary work OS. I'm always nervous to jump to an Arch-based distro as my daily driver, for fear of having to regularly fix issues. Is this a legitimate concern in 2025? Would my experience (especially with graphics) be improved on something like Cachy?
I have been running arch for about 5 years now, and I think there were about 3 or 4 instances where I'd have to do some manual intervention to fix an update, but those interventions were generally all fixable by commands posted on arch linux's blog (which, for some weird reason, the arch devs expect you to check every time you run `sudo pacman -Syu`)
Arch devs know how much friction manual intervention updates cause, so they try to keep them to a minimum.
Honestly, I've had more problems running windows than running arch.
> Honestly, I've had more problems running windows than running arch.
Worst thing with Windows isn't the occasional "wtf, how do I undo this change Microsoft forced upon me?" but more "Damn, it's that time of the month where Windows force me to do X", most recently being upgrades that you cannot shutdown or restart your computer without doing. Used to be you could run some command to avoid it, but literally all the hacks stopped working.
So now I'm slightly afraid of booting Windows which I do sometimes, because I don't want to end up in the situation where I need to boot Linux for five seconds to do something quickly, but Windows is refusing to do so without first doing a 20 minute upgrade. Fucking disrespectful of people's time!
Arch being unstable is a myth. I’ve had far more issues with major upgrades between versions of Debian, fedora and Ubuntu than I ever had on arch. I think my install is almost 6 years old now.
Same. My first Linux was Ubuntu 9.x, every time I upgraded the major version something broke. Eventually ignored the "Arch is unstable" as I saw my co-workers having zero issues, and been using Arch since 2017 now with zero breakages that I myself wasn't responsible for.
Same here as well, using arch as daily driver for 10+ years now. I think just twice I've had major headaches due to package/kernel upgrades which required a few hours troubleshooting. Otherwise, smooth sailing and a pleasure to work with. Love the AUR (w/ pikaur)!
> Love the AUR (w/ pikaur)!
Never heard about pikaur before (Rua gang here), but judging by the screenshots, does it not allow you to review the PKGBUILD before building the package? Seems to me like the most basic feature a AUR helper has to have, since AUR is all user-contributed without reviews. Is pikaur really letting you install packages blindly like that?
> Arch being unstable is a myth.
Arch follows a rolling release model. It's inherently unstable, by design.
You are probably using some annoying pedantic definition of unstable. Most people mean it to mean “does stuff crash or break”. Packages hang out in arch testing repos for a long time. In fact, Fedora often gets the latest GNOME release before Arch does, sometimes by months.
> You are probably using some annoying pedantic definition of unstable. Most people mean it to mean “does stuff crash or break”.
English has a specific word for that: reliable.
Pedantry aside, having a complex system filled with hundreds (thousands?) of software packages whose versions are constantly changing, and whose updates may have breaking changes and/or regressions, is a quick way of ending up with software that crashes or breaks through no fault of the user (save for the decision to use a rolling release distro).
This isn't true in practice. It turns out incrementally updating with small changes is more stable in the long run than doing a large amount of significant upgrades all at once.
Have you ever had to maintain a software project with many dependencies? If you have, then surely you have had the experience where picking up the project after a long period of inactivity makes updating dependencies much harder. Whereas an actively maintained or developed project, where dependencies are updated regularly, is much easier. You know what is changing and what is probably responsible if something breaks, etc. And it's much easier to revert.
> Have you ever had to maintain a software project with many dependencies? If you have, then surely you have had the experience where picking up the project after a long period of inactivity makes updating dependencies much harder. Whereas an actively maintained or developed project, where dependencies are updated regularly, is much easier. You know what is changing and what is probably responsible if something breaks, etc. And it's much easier to revert.
Have you ever had situations where Foo has an urgent security or reliability update that you can't apply, because Bar only works with an earlier version of Foo, and updating or replacing Bar involves a significant amount of work because of breaking changes?
I won't deny that there's value in having the latest versions of software applications, especially for things like GPU drivers or compatibility layers like Proton where updates frequently have major performance or compatibility improvements.
But there's also value in having a stable base of software that you can depend on to be there when you wake up in the morning, and that has a dependable update schedule that you can plan around.
Comment was deleted :(
As another commenter said, sometimes upgrades require manual intervention. You can fix this using a tool like informant which shows you all the interventions you have to do before you upgrade.
Also, you can use a tool like snapper + btrfs-assistant (both of which come pre-installed on Cachy IIRC) which lets you fully revert your filesystem (snapper rollback) or partially (snapper undochange) if something breaks. Just make sure to use a btrfs filesystem for that.
Comment was deleted :(
> Is this a legitimate concern in 2025?
I've used Arch Linux (always with a nvidia GPU no less!) since 2017 sometime, moved over to CachyOS just this year, and had no issues that weren't caused by myself in all this time.
I initially moved away from Ubuntu at that time, as I got so tired of dist-upgrade breaking my system every single time I tried to upgrade, so figured I'll at least understand the breakages better when they happen with Arch. But I never got Arch to break something by itself, it always end up being my fault.
Yes, dist-upgrade was the biggest pain with the Ubuntu based KDE neon too. I'd wait for multiple months after a new version was published before I'd upgrade, and still would often encounter issues that broke the boot. I made sure to reserve at least half a day for each dist-upgrade -- multiple times I fixed issues with a bootable USB image and mounting the full-disk encrypted partition to fiddle something.
I was always able to recover with some insights from random forum or Reddit posts, but I can't say this was the type hacking I wanted to do.
I'm hoping a rolling release is easier in the long run, but we'll see. Also this time I used a separate SSD for /home so that at least I could do a full reinstall and still keep my data.
I'm using ordinary Arch for the last year and I didn't have a single issue.
I've seen this be popular but I'm a little sceptical as to the effectiveness of their optimisations. Does anyone have some examples, anecdotes?
As shared elsewhere, I've used Arch Linux since 2017 sometime, and this year I replaced it with CachyOS as I was changing disks anyways and wanted to see what all the noise was about.
It's like a Arch brother that holds your hand slightly more, and have some "defaults" they nudge you towards in the docs, and some number-heavy software is slightly faster, maybe 10-15%, but overall it feels and works just like Arch Linux. To be honest, I don't notice a lot of difference and I think I'm as fine with Arch as with CachyOS, that's how little different there is between them.
Just an anecdote but I've been running it for a few months now and at least for gaming it works well. Arc Raiders plays fantastically. There is an issue with one of my headsets that when you get in game the audio quality drops to dogshit but I think that's a bigger issue with the headset on Linux and not particular to Cachy.
Sounds like you're using Bluetooth headphones and the game is attaching to the microphone which will automatically switch the audio codec from audio mode into headset mode. I'd suggest trying to completely disable the microphone of the headset so the game won't even try to attach to it.
Yep that's it! I ended up just buying a headset for gaming, since I use the other one for mostly music anyways. Solved the issue there. There were some workarounds I could try but I needed a new gaming headset anyways, the padding on my old one basically just fell apart after almost 7 years.
I live in fear of the day that will happen to mine.
I have an old Arctix RF headset, from back when they didn’t use Bluetooth and the quality was actually good. I’ve yet to find anything equivalent being produced today.
sounds like an issue with bluetooth audio profiles having a hard time with bidirectional usage
Here are benchmark rounds of CachyOS against current Ubuntu and Fedora workstations as fresh as early November:
So tuxracer runs better? And some other benchmarks showing how reducing latency decreases throughput in general.
I've setup cachyos repos on arch and it does indeed feel snappier. I've not measured any performance, but I'd imagine it's negligible on my pretty new ryzen 9. Nonetheless, the process was fairly easy and so far nothing has broken because of that. If I were to actually care enough to test it, I'd also try just swapping the scheduler on the normal Arch kernel.
I’m running CachyOS for a year now as my daily driver (non-work) on my ancient desktop from 2019 and ancient Nvidia card. It is very fast and smooth. I mainly use it to development using LLM sidekicks and it doesn’t break sweat. I use XFCE and just love how fast the experience is.
Anecdotically I'm using it since about 2 years on obsolete Kaby Lake Core i5 7500T & Core i7 7700T @35Watts in 1 liter Lenovo Thinkcentres (M910q tiny). Which have integrated HD630 Graphics.
Under Plasma/KDE. I just followed their defaults in the installer, which at the time were BTRFS for the filesystem, whith systemd-boot, and everything wen't well. The only thing which I would have done differently in hindsight would be the boot partition at 2GB, which seems wasteful when only about 50MB are ever used. But shrug?
What else, hrrm, the stuff is mostly clocked down to 800Mhz, because of the chosen scheduler, in spite of this nothing ever lags. Though the systems have 32GB RAM, that should help with that.
It's really smooth, even on that old 'crap', even mostly clocked down.
I also had it never crash on me with anything, neither single applications, or system hangs.
After upgrading with pacman -Syu I immediately clear the package cache with pacman -Scc, because I never ever needed that.
At the moment I'm considering to remove the pacman hooks into btrfs-snapshots, because I never needed them either. Seems like cargo-cult to me :-)
I also let it bitrot for up to 150 days, meaning no updates whatsover, and then lifting it up in one accumulated rush. Effortlessly. In the past, because I've been lazy and couldn't be bothered. Lately more often :-)
I didn't reboot in these long phases without updates. Just suspend to RAM. Which works every single time. And the system stayed always responsive.
Their ZRAM setup is usable by default. No fiddling necessary.
With this stability I dared to activate https://github.com/graysky2/profile-sync-daemon / https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Profile-sync-daemon and never had any trouble with it so far.
At the moment I'm having fun discovering a new world of audio experience with https://github.com/wwmm/easyeffects
How could I live without that?!
(Don't worry, cores stay at 800Mhz with that playing YT in FF, or watching a movie with MPV)
At least on my hardware it's the DREAM.
Oh. Did I mention I don't game at all? With the exception of maybe some Freeciv in the browser...
Using CachyOS for all my work for around 18 months now. Super stable, fast and up-to-date always, highly recommend it.
I still haven't found a stable Linux distribution. I used to like Debian years ago. Dependable, reliable.
Now none of them seem to be. Went distribution hopping and trying to find something. I'm a FreeBSD guy mostly - and in my experience its still not year of the desktop for Linux despite me wanting to ditch Windows 10. FreeBSD is way behind as a desktop OS, although it doesn't have the ridiculous baggage of Linux's audio subsystem.
Had CachyOS lock up on me tonight, but its still been the least problematic most dependable variant of Linux I've tried so far, even if its sproriadic in failing to correctly mount shares. Pop-OS has been the next-best, but they're falling behind some of the other distro's.
The fucktards at Fedora(/Redhat) closed a "I can't boot because of an error in fstab" in Fedora as won't fix. I couldn't even get to a superuser shell - so the system is in an unrecoverable state even from console. Rescued it via a livedisk and manually mounting filesystems, but the response was inexcusable given the time I put into the bug submission. Trying to mount network drives and failing to boot, as a result of not checking there's a valid network connection first is not something I'd expect in 2025...
Tried Ubuntu and its a complete mess compared to its former self, and Debian is so far behind, I may as well use FreeBSD as a desktop.
And the fact they've ditched ifconfig for a more painful user experience is just dumb. It's still the least problematic of distro's I've tried though. Gaming (somewhat usable on Linux) and audio (still a mess) are what keep me on Win10 even though I want to ditch it. Apple can go get fucked, but their TV shows are kind of impressive.
The BSD's just keeps working (yes, there's less hardware support) and you don't have to keep learning a new 'dialect' because the kernel and OS stay relatively consistent over time. I still think the sudo command on Linux is dumb. Let me explictly su, get stuff done and log out. None of this type your own password to get to do superuser stuff. I mean seriously...?
Edited: Downvoted because they can't handle my personal experience? With no rebuttal? Even HN isn't what it used to be.
Debian is not far behind, it's just on a really long release cycle because that is what it is designed to be. Debian trixie has mostly the latest and greatest from 6 months ago.
I can't vote, but calling real people "fucktards" was poor form.
Sometimes is the only form when you spend time, write really good report and get just „go f yourself, not a bug”. He could call it "enshittification going in Fedora community", but went straight and honest.
Interesting what’s your hardware on the FreeBSD setup, thinkpad?
Probably downvoted for resorting to juvenile name-calling when someone else didn't diagnose and fix a problem in your local installation of a free software project for you.
I ran CachyOS for a while and it’s really good! These days I’m rolling on OpenSUSE Aeon for the immutability and because my homelab stuff is all Suse based.
But if you’re a gamer that also uses your PC for development or content creation you can’t go wrong with CachyOS.
For those of you who are a little bit more adventurous - The custom CachyOS kernel is also available within a Portage overlay:
https://github.com/Szowisz/CachyOS-kernels
Which enables you to run a Gentoo based system on the kernel modified by the CachyOS kernel team through a ebuild for the official sources on GitHub.
When emerging it deals with all necessary dependency flags and configuration for you, just a little bit tinkering with USE flags required.
There is also a Fedora COPR with the CachyOS kernel and a few other packages, see https://github.com/CachyOS/copr-linux-cachyos
Now that you mention Gentoo, the whole distro make me think of this: https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/by-others/funroll-loops/Ge...
I prefer apt-shred dist chainsaw.
Aren't you concerned about security on all these smaller distros? They look great, but I'm more and more worried about supply chain attacks. I feel safer on something like Fedora.
Two years ago switched permanently from Win11 to Mint. It was ok, but craved something more bleeding edge. After two dozen distro hops landed on Cachy. Might try Gentoo at some point.
When you are tired hopping between different but similar distros, give NixOS a shot. No way back from there :)
> No way back from there :)
Presumably because it locks your bootloader or something, such that you are unable to wipe your PC once you're finally done pulling your hair out and ready to admit defeat? ;-)
There’s a sense of order and tidiness in running Nix on multiple machines with diverse uses and hardware, all based on single configuration, that’s difficult to let go off once you’ve tried it.
It’s basically an elegant weapon, for a more civilized age.
No, it's because when you finally get all your things to work you don't want to upset it. It gets very angry.
Yeah, I noticed that this is a beast you do not want to disturb. But what I did not anticipate, is that the beast was also prone to disturbance by evolving dependencies.
For any nix-curious person out there check out Julia Evans posts [0]
But also note that she eventually moved out of it > (note from 18 months later in August 2024: I’ve mostly switched back to Homebrew, nix was interesting but overall I think it’s not worth the complexity for me)
Careful though, you might end up like me and add more and more machines, because setting up new machine is very satisfying with nixos
Seems to be a mixed bag regarding performance: https://www.phoronix.com/review/cachyos-ubuntu-2510-f43/6
I have been unable to get anything other than Cachy to run Baldur's Gate 3 as well as Windows on my Lenovo Legion 2021. Best I have found for performance and so far stable on my relative new tower.
Tried installing Cachyos yesterday, was playing Arc Raider like 15m later (mainly because I had to wait on the 30GB download). Zero issues so far. Next up is to see if Rocksmith 2014 wants to play ball.
Approach of using all kind of non upstream or unfinished stuff to sell it as better performance is actually counter productive. It makes new users who are unaware of it, being unable to report bugs upstream which basically creates an isolation from the wider Linux community.
It appears to be done for the sake of hyping themselves as superior, but it's causing problems. I totally wouldn't recommend anything with such approach to new users especially.
I'm sticking with Ubuntu, used it since 2006, works great with nvidia going back that far on several different nvidia cards over the years, great gaming performance. Make that Ubuntu with kubuntu desktop, since Gnome sucks.
Using daily with niri and it feels way faster compared to omarchy
I set this up to reinvigorate my T2 MacBook Pro (with Cosmic) but it keeps restarting when the lid is closed, and keyboard and trackpad don’t always resume on restore. I was impressed with the docs!
I’m thinking of trying Ubuntu, but maybe T2 Linux will always be a compromise, hardly CachyOS fault I reckon.
I've had fantastic experiences reinvigorating macs with Ubuntu. Highly recommended.
Funny I've been poking with the latest ISO last night in a VM. ZFS on root with mirroring and boot environment is seamless, which to me is a huge enabler for a rolling release with fast update cycle, so I want to try it deeper. Currently on fedora kde spin which has a lot of quircks, with Cosmic coming out soon I'll probably switch.
What quirks did you encounter if I may ask? Was considering this setup.
Overall it works well and I like the defaults, the work done is remarkable, and it's been a huge relief considering the shitshow that's Windows 11, and even an improvement from Windows 10 which I enjoyed for years, but it lacks a bit of polish I feel, depending on what you use it for. I don't blame anybody it's really hard work to maintain something like that and a lot of things are nice, but here are some annoyances :
- It doesn't shut down properly most of the time, I have to cut the power ; which I do anyway to go to sleep but sometimes I forget after I use it in the morning before going to work, and it stays with a black screen and the fan running all day
- There are a lot of updates, a few Gbs per week, and I have to type my password several times a week (even when logged in), I can't find how to change that
- Sometimes after an update I'll lose an icon or two, or some settings like scroll speed, etc ; not a huge deal but forces me to google around to get the setting back
- Lots of apps are in flatpacks or snaps, I could try some other repos or maybe nix/guix/pkgsrc but I would lose the appstore anyway so I might as well look around for something else
- Some things seem painful to setup, nvidia drivers, incus/lxc, zfs on root... NVidia was the most important and I managed to make it work well now but didn't bother with the rest
> features the optimized linux-cachyos kernel utilizing the advanced BORE Scheduler for unparalleled performance.
Never heard about BORE scheduler. It is an additional patch to the kernel ? How stable is this ?
I have no idea how stable it is but it seems it's a scheduler that weighs processes based on burstiness?
Gaming distros trade stability and security for performance. IMHO they're only useful for FPS bragging rights. Most popular distros should already be performant enough for gaming purposes.
I don't think it is only for bragging rights, while in a vacuum the mainline kernel should be good enough for gaming, it is not really good when there are multiple tasks competing for the CPU attention (and this is especially bad for gaming because this can create a frame spike, ruining the game experience especially for multiplayer games). I think fixing this particular issue is one of the reasons Bore scheduler was created.
Speaking as a long time gamer, at least on Ubuntu, I've never seen the issue you're describing.
Try running a long video conversion job that uses up all cores while running a game, no matter how much you fiddle with scheduling priority the performance in the game might drop by 50% and frame times will spike multiple times over. Even if you try reserving some cores for the game, performance will still be much lower.
It's only fps bragging rights if you go from something like 180 to 190 fps. But for other person on slower hardware that may mean for example hitting consistent 60+ fps and eliminating stutter.
This BORE scheduler is genuinely interesting and has little to do with FPS in games.
Or they lower the bar for someone that wishes to pick up Linux for gaming but are not comfortable or able to massage the distro it is based on into something gaming-compatible.
Not even close. An -rt kernel, scheduler, up to date MESA drivers and the like can make a distro much faster for modern games than a server-balanced one which is often set to yield a high I/O thorughput but bad multimedia performance.
Bazzite is the opposite of that.
The gaming version of cachy OS seems to come with default proton versions which seem to work around many windows kernel anti-cheat (valve proton being very limited as it seems).
> How stable is this ?
As in? When I tried it, nothing crashed/segfaulted/appeared broken for the ~week I was using it, various workloads mostly programming with Rust, Python, PyTorch and Clojure.
You could go into their wiki. It's linked from the page, and skim/skip over that installation stuff, until the chapters where they explain what they did to the kernel(s), how they compile and link optimized, schedulers, and stuff. It's not ultra-thourough, but gives a good overview.
I've settled on sched_ext: BPF scheduler "bpfland_1.0.18_g5bff813c_dirty_x86_64_unknown_linux_gnu" -powersave for processes, and let mq-deadline handle internal storage, and bfq anything connected via USB.
What do you mean by "stable"?
I really like the idea of compiling both the kernel and packages for modern CPUs instructions. This seems to be around 5% free speed (googling various benchmarks) + better responsiveness for personal computer use.
Any views how sustainable it is for the authors to keep working on it? Is it just donation based or is there a bigger supporter behind it?
Comment was deleted :(
Happy CachyOS user for more than a year now. I can highly recommend it! I use for gaming mostly.
Same here. Pretty amazing. Almost every game in my (large) Steam libarary runs out of the box. Performance is on par with Windows. This finally allowed me to ditch Windows.
And no, I don't bother with crap that needs a kernel level anti-cheat. Simply not for me.
It's my favorite distro so far. It works out of the box on my Zephyrus, with all the fixes needed for smooth performance, including, but not limited to, flawless iGPU/dGPU switching.
I wish they had a working ARM port
CachyOS would require Arch Linux to implement the support first. Progress is slow but steady:
- https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@li...
Tired: x86_64 Wired: arm64
I'm curious, what hardware would you run it on?
I oftentimes run Linux Desktop fullscreen in a VM on macOS. macOS acts like a hardware abstraction layer in that case. Depending on the task and the tools, I sometimes prefer this option (I do like the macOS UI though (except for the current version), I just like to use the right tool for the job)
M2 Ultra Mac Pro with 192GB RAM?
How does it compare to DHH’s Omarchy? Looking for opinions from those who tried both.
Omarchy is not a distribution; just a customized Arch setup.
This may be my ignorance, but aren't most distributions [1] just an Arch / Fedora / Debian / whatever base with a desktop environment and a few opinionated choices (UI tweaks, installed applications, etc.)?
[1] I realise CachyOS makes some kernel modifications, but is that typical?
I believe the difference is between Omarchy simply having some default configuration for certain applications compared to CachyOS having a repository with a larger amount of packages which are being maintained by the CachyOS devs.
> [1] I realise CachyOS makes some kernel modifications, but is that typical?
Yes, very common. I think not making modifications (like Arch) is the atypical case, as "unmodified from upstream" is one of the core value propositions for Arch and why we chose it in the first place.
Still, CachyOS is probably an outlier in the amount of tweaks it does, and the amount of choices it surfaces to users about those tweaks.
You can just install Omarchy then switch the repos:
https://wiki.cachyos.org/features/optimized_repos/#adding-ou...
There is https://github.com/mroboff/omarchy-on-cachyos if one wanted it. I didn't, because I'm considering that a fad.
[dead]
People need to stop making Meme distributions. There will be so much grief once people figure out that what they wanted is a good, stable operating system and what they got is a franken Arch, which will inevitably fail in unpredictable ways and for which there is miniscule support.
The Arch forums rightfully warn against this and do not want users of these distros, since all these distros are inevitably broken in their own weird ways.
There are multiple very reasonable distros. There is absolutely no need to make these forks.
> There is absolutely no need to make these forks.
It's not a fork though. You can find out what a distribution is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution
> since all these distros are inevitably broken in their own weird ways
Absolute statements should probably have some absolute and undeniable proof, what exact "weird" ways are CachyOS broken today, since you apparently think yourself to be experienced enough to know this?
Maybe it's time to stop crying, and try to see some positivity in the world rather than going into a dark hole constantly.
Having a great showcase distro can be a very nice way into Linux in general. Don’t be so negative. IMHO the Linux life style also means exploring, being more aware of data/OS separation, a deeper understanding of computing in general. It’s alle achieved with these boutique distros which may display the best that’s out there.
FOSS is about freedom, freedom works best with options to apply to. Nobody is forcing you to do anything with these options.
>Having a great showcase distro can be a very nice way into Linux in general.
By "nice" do you mean a distro which is fundamentally broken and far less supported then its parent distro?
>It’s alle achieved with these boutique distros which may display the best that’s out there.
It is displaying the worst that is out there, just with a nice interface. These niche distros are always the worst choices, because they lack in support and are all fundamentally broken.
Running someone else's patch set of Arch is the easiest way to have a terrible Linux experience. Having a nice interface to lull people into believing what they are getting is a professional product and then handing them a fundamentally broken system, where some hobbyists have patched a proper Linux distro so bad, that you are not even allowed to ask for help on the Arch forum is down right devious and presents the worst of the Linux world.
The truth is that Linux is mostly stable (even Arch), well supported and maintained. But this does not apply to these small hobby projects, which are just worse versions of their base distros with some ricing on top.
>FOSS is about freedom, freedom works best with options to apply to. Nobody is forcing you to do anything with these options.
At the same time I am free to warn people against this. These distros are a bad Idea and especially if you are new to Linux they will make you suffer far more than you should.
> Running someone else's patch set of Arch is the easiest way to have a terrible Linux experience. Having a nice interface to lull people into believing what they are getting is a professional product and then handing them a fundamentally broken system, where some hobbyists have patched a proper Linux distro so bad, that you are not even allowed to ask for help on the Arch forum is down right devious and presents the worst of the Linux world.
Except, this isn't the experience for the majority of users moving to Cachy, Bazzite, Zorin, whatever. What they're getting is a fresh, usable experience specifically in the "flavor" they care about.
Linux, and especially Arch, has an image problem, and it's the reason, despite how good these base distros might be, that people aren't coming. It takes a clever bit of branding and a marginalisation of all the gatekeeping (just like you're trying to do right now) to let users finally think "actually, maybe this is something I can use".
>Except, this isn't the experience for the majority of users moving to Cachy, Bazzite, Zorin, whatever.
Yes, but it will be experience they inevitably will have once these differences will result in their OS being fundamentally broken and nobody being there to help them.
>It takes a clever bit of branding and a marginalisation of all the gatekeeping (just like you're trying to do right now) to let users finally think "actually, maybe this is something I can use".
Hilariously giving people a fundamentally broken OS, which they use based on superficial criteria is the best gatekeeper imaginable. Once the inevitable happens and their distro is totally trashed, they will never use Linux for anything again.
If you want people to have a good long term experience give them a well supported mainstream distro, instead of a fundamentally broken arch patchset.
>"actually, maybe this is something I can use".
Which is exactly the wrong thought. No, the fundamentally broken Arch derivative you are trying to use is much, much harder to use than Fedora.
What does “fundamentally broken” mean? Seemingly you’re phrasing it as something to do with community forums and wikis? That’s a strange definition.
But you won't get them to understand these points unless you're willing to fix the image problem and then invest in better branding. Telling people they're wrong doesn't sell things.
New users shouldn't understand these points. They just should be advised not to use any of these distros, they do not need to understand the reasons, besides that they are poorly supported projects and will break their OS.
You keep saying it’s fundamentally broken. That appears to be inconsistent with virtually all of the first hand accounts in this thread. You come across as intransigent.
> People need to stop making Meme distributions.
Heh. I've been saying that since I was on Mandrake in the early 2000s. This is just what the Linux landscape is like.
That said, I'm generally not easily impressed, especially by random *nix distro 347, but CachyOS is surprisingly good. I've finally switched full time from Windows. I don't even need VS anymore because Rider is x-platform.
Personally, I wanted Hyprland which is not supported on debian/Ubuntu and only partially supported on Fedora. But couldn't for the life of me figure out how to install Arch.
>Personally, I wanted Hyprland which is not supported on debian/Ubuntu and only partially supported on Fedora
What? https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/hyprland https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/hyprland/hyprland/
>But couldn't for the life of me figure out how to install Arch.
I mean, come on. Sure, Arch is not for everybody, but if you are semi tech savy you could have done the internet searches I did and figured out which distros have hyprland packages. Both Fedora and Debian have them.
Arch is also not much harder to install than debian. Insert the image and go through the steps in the installer, this isn't some magic ritual. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Archinstall
I'm using CachyOS on a Strix Halo machine. It's pretty good, certainly a lot easier to get on with than I found Ubuntu Desktop.
Going against the grain here: we don't need so many / still more distros
Going against whatever hole that perspective came from: We don't have nearly enough distributions, we need more distributions with strong opinions, new solutions and just "far out there" ideas.
> whatever hole that perspective came from
Rude
(A perspective based on 25 years of using Linux fwiw)
It's a hole because it's pessimistic, borderline antagonistic and against more user choices. I guess the hacker in me just feels weird reading someone wanting less choices on a forum for curious hackers.
Comment was deleted :(
so we should just have 2-3 distros monopolize the world? hmm I think i'd rather keep having new distros pop out challenging the current quota.
I didn't say that. Silly strawman
That is the natural place it would end up at if new distros stopped being made as some would start dying off and you're basically just left with fedora, arch, debian while everything else fades with time.
Not to mention that distros like catchy help to push these changes into mainline.
Made by russian unfortunately
It's one thing to judge somebody for supporting an unjust and illegal war. It's another thing entirely to judge them for where they were born. None of us chooses our nationality.
There was hardly any judgement, except 'unfortunately'.
Regardless, there are people who want to avoid distributions made by Russians. Are builds reproducible? Where do these people reside? Could be important.
> there are people who want to avoid distributions made by Russians
Well, racism / citizenship-based discrimination is a thing, yes.
> Are builds reproducible?
A valid question, but what does that have to do with the ethnic background or citizenship of the distro makers?
> Where do these people reside?
It seems their team is from all sorts of places, although it doesn't exactly say where in the world each of them is located:
Of course it is a thing when the country of their nationality is committing genocide, and an authoritarian government.
> A valid question, but what does that have to do with the ethnic background or citizenship of the distro makers?
Allows security researchers to verify the binaries and/or find intentional backdoors.
> It seems their team is from all sorts of places, although it doesn't exactly say where in the world each of them is located
Lots of words for 'I don't know'. Me neither, that is why I am asking.
> Of course it is a thing when the country of their nationality is committing genocide, and an authoritarian government.
Bit ironic to continue posting comments here, isn't it?
None the less, I agree with your worry and caution based on where software is produced, but I enact that by checking my OS/software before installing/updating it, not spreading FUD on internet forums.
This website is very liberal with regards to freedom of speech, and while hosted in USA it isn't part of FAMAG, and non-partisan. While the USA is under attack from radical right, it has been before (Dubya).
The thing with citizens of Russia and China who reside in their respective authoritarian country is they cannot be held legally accountable.
What’s your procedure for checking it? How would you discover if the FSB has forced them to put a timebomb in?
ubuntu user for almost 20 years,tried many distros in the past,now feel it's a solved problem for me: just use ubuntu lts.
one reason is better sw support,e.g. Arduino, android, vivado,cuda,you name it,all are supported out of box, saves a lot of time for me
Sure, but lts often doesn't work for other use cases like gaming. For example the experience on lts with this year's AMD gpus will be extremely poor if it works at all.
I run Arch and my 9070 xt experience was poor for several months after release. I can't imagine modern gaming on an lts release.
Cachy being Arch based and recompiling with modern cpu flags doesn't seem to be targeting the users who want unchanging boring software.
> Sure, but lts often doesn't work for other use cases like gaming
Bullship, I've used it since it came out in 2006 for everything including gaming (I'm a gamer). And that is on nvidia since then too. Not the same card, various nvidia cards over the years. All worked great. Ubuntu works great.
Ubuntu is formally supported distro, probably the most common throughout all enterprises in the US (because Red Hat and all RPM based distos suck due to RPM has repo bugs still) while deb works great.
Being rolling doesn't fix the lack of upstream support for GPUs that AMD does for the first half year (and any years past 4~). LTS distros are great because they work pretty good "forever" instead of great for brief unknowable periods.
Just a couple weeks ago a bogus update was pushed to Ubuntu 24 which completely broke Nvidia as they pushed a different version of the 580 drivers and user space libraries
Crafted by Rajat
Source Code