Arch is also not more lightweight than other distributions.
With Arch, unlike other distributions, there are no extra dev packages. Thus, everything is present in a single package, so they require more storage space.
Arch's packages also have fixed dependencies on other packages, which in turn have other dependencies. So you can't only install what you actually want, which is often claimed. For example, I would like to uninstall various Bluetooth packages, but I can't because they are dependencies for packages I use.
The basic installation including base-devel requires more than 1 GB of storage space without the GUI. Some distributions need less including the GUI.
There are indeed more lightweight distros. But if you want something that "works out of the box", contrary to, say, PuppyLinux or Gentoo, then Arch is interesting.
It is however harder to configure than Fedora, Manjaro, SuSE, etc. It's a great inbetween.
Linux Mint Cinnamon Edition
.
incapable of instructing.
you're running around insulting people for doing exactly what you asked in exactly the format you provided
Arch Linux
Fedora
Debian
.
Sometimes, I feel sick of such simplistic questions. They look like they're just for triggering people to response.
Alpine Linux Hyperbola OpenBSD
Last is not linux based though.
.
If you want people to help you, it would be good if you weren't so condescending...
Edit: Grammar.
Arch
It's lightweight and efficient
Arch is also not more lightweight than other distributions.
With Arch, unlike other distributions, there are no extra dev packages. Thus, everything is present in a single package, so they require more storage space.
Arch's packages also have fixed dependencies on other packages, which in turn have other dependencies. So you can't only install what you actually want, which is often claimed. For example, I would like to uninstall various Bluetooth packages, but I can't because they are dependencies for packages I use.
The basic installation including base-devel requires more than 1 GB of storage space without the GUI. Some distributions need less including the GUI.
There are indeed more lightweight distros. But if you want something that "works out of the box", contrary to, say, PuppyLinux or Gentoo, then Arch is interesting.
It is however harder to configure than Fedora, Manjaro, SuSE, etc. It's a great inbetween.
Thanks to Pacman and the AUR there is an extensive list of apps to install very easily.
And you don't have to keep the build dependencies on your system, so you have more disk space.
Personally, I currently prefer Arch for the following reasons.
If I had to choose another distribution, it would definitely be OpenSuse. Their rolling version, Tumbleweed, is also highly recommended.
Incapable of following simple instructions and using Arch? I doubt it.
Zorin OS
It is a very clean and neat Linux distro.
It is easily customizable (via a preinstalled app) and is intuitive for Windows and MacOS users.
There is no need to tweak anything to get it working
Debian and FreeBSD
Fedora
Debian
Wtf is going on here
endeavourOS
spiral linux
.
Frankly, you're being obnoxious.
.
.
Yes, and PKGBUILD files with bad intentions have been published there in the past (https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-July/034151.html).
But both Manjaro (https://wiki.manjaro.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository) and vanilla Arch (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository) point out the possible dangers clearly enough in my opinion. Apart from that, it is definitely easier for users to check for example the PKBUILD files in the AUR than ready-made packages in a PPA for Ubuntu.