I was Nobara user, then I am using Fedora right now. I want to use things like Hyprland etc. and ya know, Its damn cool to say I am using arch btw. So I’ve decided to use Arch Linux. But everyone says its always breaking and gives problems. That’s because of users, not OS… right? I love to deal with problems but I don’t want to waste my time. Is Arch really problemful OS? Should I use it? I know what to do with setup/ usage, the hardness of Arch is not problem for me but I am just concerned about the mindset “Arch always gets broken”.

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
      9·
      6 months ago

      A distro that ships KDE in not a vanilla form and with some pre-installed custom configuration/fixes by default I think. Stuff like Kubuntu, Arco XL, Manjaro KDE etc

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        16·
        6 months ago

        Ah ok. So basically any bigger distro.

        I haven’t actually found one that doesn’t have kde.

        • LeFantome
          1·
          6 months ago

          That is not what he said. First, he means that the distro is KDE-forward and using that desktop environment by default. Second, he said that KDE was “non-vanilla”. Third, he suggested that the distro has extended KDE with its own utilities ( a more focussed version of the second point ).

          To illustrate the difference, Ubuntu is a “bigger distro” but not a KDE one whereas Kubuntu is a KDE distro.

          Red Hat does not package KDE ( which I assume means Rocky and Alma do not either ). You have to use a third-party repository to get it. Chimera Linux does not have KDE. I am sure there are others although it is not something I have paid attention to.

          • Johanno@feddit.de
            1·
            6 months ago

            Ok I understood it as there is a live disk with kde as an option. Or you can install kde on installation. Like debian, fedora or nixos