Their big loss + good gain for Endeavouros + Garuda. ( just my opinion ) apart from few bad loonies there are some real nice/clever people their + helpful
Then end result of EOS vs pure Arch is almost the same. EOS is just easy to install then pure Arch. Once installed one can customize as one sees fit. The difference between the 2 is not like the difference between Ubuntu and pure Debian.
Note: one can even get rid of all the EOS specific software then who could tell the difference between EOS and pure Arch?! The pure Arch Wiki is great for all us EOS users.
One who looked at the /etc/lsb-release and / or /etc/os-release files.
This is actually a question I have: what exactly is EndeavourOS? If you just looked at the main endeavouros.com landing page, you’d think that mpw is actually right: It doesn’t advertise much besides some preinstalled software and the installation assistant. I looked for /etc/lsb and /etc/os-release, and couldn’t find them. What’s supposed to be there?
cat /etc/os-release NAME=EndeavourOS PRETTY_NAME=EndeavourOS ID=endeavouros ID_LIKE=arch BUILD_ID=2023.02.08 ANSI_COLOR="38;2;23;147;209" HOME_URL='https://endeavouros.com' DOCUMENTATION_URL='https://discovery.endeavouros.com' SUPPORT_URL='https://forum.endeavouros.com' BUG_REPORT_URL='https://forum.endeavouros.com/c/arch-based-related-questions/bug-reports' PRIVACY_POLICY_URL="https://terms.archlinux.org/docs/privacy-policy/" LOGO=endeavouros
cat /etc/lsb-release DISTRIB_ID=EndeavourOS DISTRIB_RELEASE="rolling" DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="EndeavourOS Linux" DISTRIB_CODENAME=rolling
These two files are the Distribution Branding info. Apps, such as neofetch, can read these files and display the Distribution Branding.
What I like about Endeavour/Arch is being able to do complicated things simply. A lot of things I would be able to do myself from scratch, but it’s a time saver to just get the one provided like you’re DE(that can be a big time sink).
The only thing to come close to that is
xbps. The AUR just makes installing non-official packages so much easier and you don’t even look for them.
P.S. Purple is a very cool colour.
My wife, whose experience with IT consists of using ancient windows PCs in the school/library, is very happy with EndeavourOS. Being able to install updates by just typing “yay” makes maintenance very easy. Of course if she wants to install anything, she usually calls me. However, that would likely be the case with Windows (or any other OS) which I would not be as familiar with.
So if there is not much difference between pure Arch and EOS then why go through the tedious bother of manually doing the pure Arch install? I have done the pure Arch install which drops one into the terminal then from there one starts the customization to fit one needs.
With the EOS install you get more pre-configured software when choosing a DE. The good news s that EOS uses the same Arch repos that a pure Arch user would use minus or plus the addition of EOS software which is not essential?!
t seems to me that doing the pure Arch install does give one some special badge of honor as both are really just Arch. As mentioned above Ubuntu is far from pure Debian with all the snap stuff/etc and bloatware .
If I didn’t have a full time job, I would probably install arch just for the sake of ticking a box and then use EndeavourOS for any future installs. Unfortunately, I am not so blessed (and have to use Windows in work as well), so I have basically gone straight to EOS. I want to have full control over the software on my computer and the freedom to configure it however I want*, and this OS basically does that for me.
*But I’m also a basic bitch and use KDE with minimal customisation (at first because the customisation broke with updates, but later because the default configurations are just fine).
I think you just answered your own question. The manual Arch installation is more appropriate for folks who find the pre-configured settings of EOS or other distros undesirable, and want to set up their system a different way.
…on a terminal-centric distro which doesn’t support a GUI package manager.
If you know how and you have the desire and perseverance, build whatever you want and change it. Otherwise please don’t make all operating systems the same.
From a practical point of view, is there a a difference?
I’ve installed arch, debian, slackware and gentoo base/net systems and build my systems to what I want them to be. But spending a week setting up a running system I really don’t have time to do anymore.
So kudos to the teams like EndeavourOS team and others that provide systems like this spending the time and effort that I don’t have anymore. It’s “been there, done that” for me. Now I just want a good system that gives me choices and the online installer does just that.
I don’t choose gui packagemanager, snap and flatpak and other crap because I don’t like it. If Arch repos and AUR doesn’t have what I need I will build the package from source if I can find it.
Freedom of choice is a very good thing What other people do is their choice.
Not used to the frog? He talks to nobody in particular. Nobody is being “toxic” here and that word is being overused. Nobody is being insulted, except somebody who takes things personally. This is becoming OT… but it had to be said.
Why not give users of EOS a choice if they want to use a gui software/update manager?
So why not support both methods, every user has a choice that way.
Personally i use pamac-gui-git and it works fine.
I’m certainly not against pacman (or any terminal based programs) at all but for me a gui manager is so much easier
Maybe a simple answer is this Does EndeavourOS allow GUI package installers?
Well there is some contradictory in this in my view
For those who are not familiar with Antergos, it was an Arch-based distro with a GUI online installer called Cnchi and basically provided the same options EndeavourOS does now.
The article title speaks about if EOS allows gui package installers but in the article itself there is no mention that this is the case. So no not by default but if you want you can install a gui package installer
Eos is to easy install Arch through a ‘GUI’ installer but later on i read a lot about why default no gui software manager is provided?
In my view a gui software manager also falls under easy install and easy to use
EOS doesn’t ship one.
If you ask for help with pamac - just about universally everyone will tell you it’s broken junk that works randomly, and to avoid it. That’s about the “support” you’ll get for using it.
My opinion about pamac - “even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
Where’s the love for pacseek!?! Fantastic TUI package manager imo.
I tend to agree with him, since anyone absolutely insisting on using junk broken software that rarely works, and continues to try and try. It’s gotta be out of pure stubborness to insist on making a circle a square. . . or too dumb to realize there’s significantly easier ways to do something (especially after being told there’s easier ways) and doesn’t understand it.
Sound observation from what I can tell, even for a frog. And he eats flies, that eat poop. . .