I’m sorry if this has been asked before or if this is a “controversial” topic. BUT
Is there any advantage to Arch over Endeavour? What are the major differences overall? As of now, I’m aware that Arch installs with basically nothing resembling bloat, and the installation process is more educational overall, but anything apart from those two differences?
Thanks for schooling me 
in short no 
but yea EndeavourOS will be an archsystem configured in one way, some options of endles ways to install arch are possible with the installer we do configure to install an archbased system.
If you start installing arch the arch way you can configure everything in case of what is possible with arch, EndeavourOS is simple creating a common base system with a Desktop Environment plus commonly needed configurations for basic system needs and some helpful tools.
The only difference i can say is the installation procedure. That’s it.
YES defiantly with Arch you build the system to suit you that means its your Arch, With EndeavourOS you install the developers vision so even if you just change the wallpaper the devs vision is destroyed, and its still not your Arch or EndeavourOS.
That being said EndeavourOS is a very good substitute if you can’t get the head around the Arch way that is actually very simple.
Actually EnOS is a good substitute even if you CAN get your head around the ‘Arch way’. The difficulty with Arch is that is will tell you HOW to do something, but gives little or no information on WHAT you need to do, or what most people do, or what you will wish you had done!
EnOS gives you a working base system, with commonly needed things already there. Not all - by any means - but a way to be functional. After using it a while you may find you want to have less, or to build Arch the Arch way - and you will probably use many of the same things you see in use on EnOS.
This includes seeing what tools you’ll want, and an introduction to the kinds of things that exist out there - so you can end up configuring things the way you want them.
You’re not even close to own your system unless it’s Gentoo / Linux from scratch 
Arch is such a bloat, provides everything for you on a silver plate, just use some commands…pff 
That is the plus mark of Arch Linux not the minus Arch actively discourages new to Linux users, while encouraging seasoned users.
I could not imagine reading the wiki if it was written by Joe average user.
So why do you use EndeavourOS Lol
Their is nothing Magical about Gentoo apart from the brag factor been there worn the tea-shirt.
Linux from scratch been there as well the both fail on one fundamental thing they are just Linux.
EndeavourOS is mostly the same thing as Arch, the differences are superficial. EndeavourOS has everything Arch has, plus:
It literally takes one minute to convert an Arch install to EndeavourOS install and vice versa.
Yes we have a good community what it lacks is factual help that is again where Arch scores real answers not guesses in the dark.
Its a fine line which is best in real terms arch the threads are simple and address the problem.
Here multiple threads totally waylaid by stupid answers that have nothing to do with the question that has been asked so there is never a answered don’t get me wrong I’m as much to blame as anybody else,
SO in reality both communities have the biggest advantages over the other. Arch with professional help,
Endeavors with its relaxed forum that takes a day to get a working answer but you have a laugh on the way. lol.
Arch just refuses to update with the times like it should have. Distros like EOS nicely address that issue.
@anon83136962 I don’t think that is correct Arch is Arch with out it their would be no EOS or any other Arch spin without Arches stance
There really is no reason for any distro not to at least have the option of a graphical installer this day and age. That said In my opinion EOS has the actual advantage over pure Arch.
I don’t think arch is against installers it is just not the pure arch way…simple. it is really just a personal choice and does not make one better or worse then the other. “When in Rome do as the Romans do”.
Besides you can always build your own…
Never said Arch was or is against installers. What I said is Arch should of caugh up with the times already.
What’s the point?
Their motto is to be minimal as f**k and if you want you can always build your own…
It’s base distro, not some fancy shiny stuff 
I was speaking in general. It was not in response to you post. 
From the arch wiki:
Arch needs an installer. Maybe a GUI installer?
Arch used to have an installer with a text-based user interface called the Arch Installation Framework (AIF). After its last maintainer left, it was deprecated in favor of arch-install-scripts.
Since installation does not occur often (read the rest of this article to know more about what rolling release means), it is not a high priority for developers or users. The Installation guide has been fully updated to use the command-line method.
Maybe they appreciate the fact that a GUI install will be better, but they aren’t keeping it on priority. And their reasoning seems okay (to me at least). Arch is rolling and once you install it ‘once’ on a system.
The easy updates are the icing. 
