Would be a great fit here

It’ll pass

Totally agree. But if a change has no downside for any of these I’d say it would be a good idea to implement it.

Thanks for the tip. Running Bazzite now but your suggestion seems like a great recommendation too. I’ll check it out.

Thanks for the tip! I didn’t know that distro existed. I’ll definitely look into it.

Thanks! And that’s true. Also part of the beauty of Linux IMO that it actually (almost) always can be repaired. Although it is quite involving at times.

Thank you for your in depth reply! It totally makes sense. I think some distros limit some freedom at first but still allow you to nuke your system if you’d want to although I can’t straight up mention examples.

There’s always the option to run Debian. Rock solid but as said that might come with the downside that newer hardware isn’t (properly) supported yet.

As with anything in life everything is a trade off.

I was never talking about either of them being noon friendly. Also, updating and failing to boot is kind of breaking easily I’d say. So I don’t get what point you’re even making.

I can totally get behind that. But then I’m left wondering: if that approach minimises the risk of interference, then why don’t all distros work that way?

I’d argue that CachyOS is more noon friendly than arch. As would EndeavourOS be. People fail to see my point that sometimes Linux breaks very easily and I’m not blaming Cachy or Arch specifically but a simple update and sleep should not result in a black screen on any OS IMO. It’s just off putting… If this would happen on windows I’d definitely complain too. And there have been plenty of instances where microslop added OS breaking things…

Yes you’re totally right. It’s like owning a race car. You have to do a lot of maintenance to it and it will still bite you in the ass but when it works right it’s fast as hell and a lot of fun. But on the other hand: if there’s no downside to built in some failsafes then why not do it?