As a Linux newbie, all I know about Arch Linux is that it is a DIY distro where you assemble the entirely of the OS by scratch. Somehow it feels like it is too easy than it needs to be, even if it is primarily meant for experienced users. I imagine it to be less like building your PC from parts bought from the market and more like building each and every component of the PC by scratch along with building the PC, which I assume to be much harder for the average consumer. It seems absurd how it is possible for a single person to incorporate the innumerable components required for functionality in a personal system that does not crash 100% of the time due to countless incompatibility errors that come with doing something like this.
I would like someone to elaborate on how it feels to ‘build’ a system software by yourself with Arch and how it is reasonable to actually do so in a simple language. I do have some experience in programming, mainly in webdev, so it’s not like I need a baby-like explanation in how this works but it would be nice to get to know about this from someone who could understand where this confusion/curiosity is coming from.
To use a web dev analogy, Arch is like node, pacman is like npm. You can install node and it’ll do basic functions - just like you can install arch and have basic functions with the base package. Then you need to just install additional packages to include the functionality and libraries you want to use.
Following the installation guide highlights many packages needed for a “fully functional” desktop, and there’s a lot of choices to make along the way. It’s not considered good for a novice because most users don’t know (or care) about the difference between pipewire or alsa, i3 or gnome, network-manager or systemd-networkd - they just want a GUI, sound and a network connection.