Hm, usually I’m quite a quick decision maker, often much too quick and unreflective and regrettably stupid so. Also I have zero brand loyalty and can switch from Polski Fiat to Ferrari in a heartbeat. But Linux distros aren’t really brands, are they? And weighing Archman against Namib didn’t show any great differences in operation and speed. And Namib was great for me, for the first time in my not too long Linux career I saw the sun rising. Like really rising in my long-suffereing main computer. I was touched by greatness and saw the light. And distro maintainer frederic2ec always was a formidable host. So why would I switch to the young Türks of the Archman project?
Okay, with that out of the way I “only” need to think about if I shoudk really do the switch. The reasons pro Namib are well-known by now. It’s great. No complaints, no reason to deviate from that super duper system.
It’s just … uh, just the small fact that …
Namib is a real Linux distro while Archman is more or less just an ArchLinux installer. Which means after the easy peasy installation (Calamares again, same as in Namib) we’re ending up on a pure ArchLinux system. Only difference to vanilla Arch is that Archman comes with a bundle of preconfigured desktops (same as with Namib) but is even closer to Arch upstream. I guess I won’t receive my updates via Namib anymore but they come directly from Arch. This enables me to say I’m on Arch. Not on some Arch derivative but truly on 100% pure Arch. And so say even then Archman devs themselves: 100% Arch Compatible! No middle man anymore.
So, hmmm, should I do it?
Know what, my fraggelz? I told you already that I’m a quick decision maker and very impatient, often even too quick and too impatient. But what bad could probably happen, even if my decison turnsn out to be a crappy one?
Namib is quickly reinstated should anything go wrong with Archman Linux.
So I guess I’m gonna backup all my data and then will be absent for a little while, okay? 😉