• eleanor@social.hamington.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Arch wiki is pretty distro-agnostic (barring package names and pacman specific stuff). I’ve been distro-hopping for past decade and I’ve always used it as a reference for setting things up.

    • apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s distro-agnostic because Arch does very little to modify packages when they’re put in the repos, which means they’ll line up with the packages own man page & readme. The issue comes when opinionated distros modify things like command syntax, etc file locations and default behaviour.

      If NixOS is similarly unopinionated, it’d only really have to document its own system layer, but my point is that Arch being guaranteed to reflect a well documented system is what drew me to it.

      • exu@feditown.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The way in which NixOS works in regards to packaging, locations of config files and others makes it very opinionated imo. You have to do it the nix way and trying the “normal” way doesn’t work in most cases.

        • apt_install_coffee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing wrong with having a canonical way to configure things, but if it’s not excellently documented people are going to try doing it the wrong way and get frustrated.