Another “difference between” Linux question: What ist the actual difference between them?
How fast/stable are releases, compared to each other and in comparison to upstream Arch?
I think I dont get the difference because in my understanding Arch is a rolling release and with both alternatives you want to stay as close to there releases as possible, but dont break you system frequently, right?
So whats the main differences?
Pretty spot on. I run EOS, mostly because when I decided to get off Windows two years ago I tried it out and it hasn’t broken yet (at least not to the point I couldn’t fix it). My biggest draw was ease of installation, as I didn’t really have the time nor desire to go through a full Arch install. The mechanics of the OS, package management (both pacman and AUR), are identical (EOS does use dracut by default instead of mkinitcpio for image generation, that threw me for a loop when I had to fix it a while back as I’d never used it before). Any questions are easily answered using the Arch documentation. I’ve had to fix my install twice in the last few years, the most recent being systemd-boot deciding to be an asshole after an update, but I’ve been very happy with it.
FYI: If you aren’t aware, Arch has a CLI installer now that is very easy to use, should you ever want to give it a try (archinstall)
Interesting, is that included on the live image or is it something I need to grab when the image first boots?
It’s included