I use Fedora 38, it’s stable, things just work, and the software is up-to-date.

  • cuacamole@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I might as well ask here:

    Im running arch on my Desktop. Mostly just to Experiment a bit, nothing to serious, Laptop is ubuntu, and both are dualboot with Windows for Gaming (nvdia gpu in both).

    The Main reason to use arch was to play around with Windows Managers like hyprland. However I get the feeling that some stuff is simply missing and or configured wrong on the System.

    Is it a better idea to start with something like endeavor with sway and start ricing from there?

    • alternateved@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ubuntu usually provides you with system working out of the box. Same goes for Fedora and its spins. Arch is DIY distribution, which means that the “missing” stuff you have to install/configure yourself. archinstall gives you just a basic start.

      If you don’t know your way around bare window managers, then yeah, it would be a good idea to try with things preconfigured: EndeavourOS should give you that, Fedora Sway spin also.

      Or you could bite the bullet and try to provide the missing things yourself and learn in the process. What are you missing?

      • cuacamole@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its more among the lines of “oh shit, this should probably work” but does not work. For example copy and pasting, some audio stuff. It just feels like a lot and i often feel like im just bruteforcing until something works well enough until it doesnt.

        I like most of it, but some stuff just feels very time consuming, just to get basic features working. I want some of that, but some basic comforts would be nice.