Arch Linux

Reader supplied reviews for Arch Linux Average rating 9.2 from 294 review(s) Please select a rating in the range of 1-10. Please write at least a few sentences about the distribution while limiting your review to 4080 characters. Version: current Rating: 10 Date: 2026-03-19 Country: Algeria Votes: 29 I have been using Arch for a year, and it has been quite an experience. I have learned a great deal and explored many distributions before ultimately settling on Arch. After all of that, I can confidently say that Arch is the best: it is faster, reliable, and provides the latest updates, allowing me to enjoy my favorite software with their newest features and bug fixes, unlike Ubuntu or Debian-based distributions, which are outdated for a very specific type of stability which is: "however it was it should remain". Imagine moving from Windows and leaving behind all the new features your software once offered, only to settle for versions that are a decade old. Fedora is better in these terms but not so much. I appreciate Arch’s minimal approach, as it allows you to decide exactly what to install. This way if something fails, you can often identify the issue with just a little knowledge, since there are relatively few potential points of failure. because it is minimal, whatever you install tends to work seamlessly, whether it is: a desktop environment, window manager, or other software. Of course, occasional bugs or issues may occur, but with the Arch Wiki and researching, you can not only resolve the problem but also understand how it occurred and how to prevent or fix it in the future. Version: current Rating: 6 Date: 2026-03-18 Country: United States Votes: 0 Becoming increasingly unstable when used with this distributions versions of Plasma. Every release, something new breaks. Bluetooth flaps, plasmashell crashes, the use of the new bloated and slow plasma-systemonitor pet project of KDE. Now pulseaudio randomly crashes and full screen games quit working. During the last system upgrade, somthing even deleted the extra .wine prefixes. Always dealing with certificate errors with pacman. Newer isn't better - We need stable environments and Arch used to offer that - and this distro proves that following the mainstream releases too tightly brings too much amature code into the system to make this a professional environment to use daily. Version: current Rating: 9 Date: 2026-02-21 Country: Greece Votes: 15 I ve been using linux since 2010 and i mostly have tried fedora and endeavourOS. Arch best suites me because of its minimal approach, You need to learn and read but once you know the essentials, then nothing else compares. No extra packages installed by default, no needless software. You really have the choice to have only what you need. As far the desktop environments, there was a long period i had been switching from KDE to XFCE and backwards. In my opinion, KDE is a bit more modern in look n feel and offers a really great group of packages for daily usage. XFCE is more lightweight with a more traditional look n feel. Recently i decided to give Hyprland a try and i think i will stuck with that. Once again you need time to learn and read in order to find out how to configure it but i think it worth it. Lstly, the wiki.. This should be a general reference tool for every person uses linux no matter the distro. It is a great source which teaches so much! Every time you need information for a general linux related thing search it, there will be something valuable. 9/10 only because it can get better and it will! See all 294 reader reviews of Arch Linux...