What is the difference between Garuda and vanilla Arch?

I am interested in making a vanilla arch installation and doing the terrifying installation that people say is Arch. I know Garuda runs on Arch and uses KDE Plasma for the DE but what exactly is Garuda? What is the difference between "Garuda KDE Plasma" and vanilla Arch KDE Plasma? Can someone help me understand what the differences are?


" What is the difference between Garuda and vanilla Arch?"

Spirit, feeling and some themes, apps and fantastic tools to make an easy Garuda (Arch) Linux installation.

No need to invent the wheel over and over again :wink:

But if you have fun about, do it.

No support for vanilla or barbones Arch :smiley:


Hmm I want to learn how linux works so I am going to do the real Arch installation and build my system up =D I will still stick around here since this is a nice little community <3


Sorry, we are not able and willing to provide support for the creation or use of Linux or the many free programs.
I assume you understand that.

Nono I am going to read the arch wiki and do it by my self I am not asking for help


Not gonna lie, did the same thing a couple of days ago and it's totally worth it, both doing it and sticking by to the community. Garuda is still the distro I recommend the most, and I still love and use some of the tools developed by the people here, not even mentioning the chaotic-AUR and its possibilities.


I agree that Garuda is overall the best linux distro.

Going back to basics is always a good thing - as they say Rome was not build in a day.

Only used Arch Linux for 1 day after installing the Gnome DE but managed to install working DE for XFCE and KDE alongside Gnome so can pick and choose which one to use in the Login Screen.

Lol, be aware though the moderators seem to respect you a bit more if you know the basics of Arch Linux!

1 Like

Branding. And the fact that Archlinux does not ever define what is or is not a "vanilla Arch KDE Plasma."

Garuda's developers added a GUI installer, various tools and took care of the paiinful post-installation configuration woes that are typically left up to the individual user to make.

I mean, really, there is more work goes into finishing a "vanilla Arch" installation than those not having done so would probably assume. Garuda does that for you.


Garuda has tweaks like GUI installer, the linux tkg kernel, btrfs file system, a great looking desktop, a good postinstall setup and more.

And it's also easy to create your own isos


Plus its got @Bro a grumpy old man that knows a lot Hi old man


Hello to you, sir.

Except where I put my dentures.

You would be too, if you couldn't find your damn dentures.


So are we agreed their is a big difference between Arch and Garuda, but hang on they are both based on Arch.
The difference is not what one has installed and the other has not.
I mean you only install once why would you need to keep installing a rolling release anyway, Both can install the same programs use the same settings.
Got it its the name and that ever changing Eagle keeps flying away.
Plus for me I like both names
Garuda is a very special Arch based Distro it brings so much to the table not just a name and a installer as other spins, not instability as does M, + a warm friendly no nonsense forum and @Bro my old friend


I am new here and interested.
So, isnt garuda also using different repositories?

Am I able to use every package that is available for “normal” arch

Yes, the Chaotic AUR is enabled by default, and Garuda also has a repo of its own with some Garuda-specific packages.




And let me please address any fallacious questions directly. Arch Linux can be considered a ‘base’ distribution, included in the ranks with Debian, Slackware, Red Hat, SuSE. A major distribution from which minor distributions may be built. It’s just a wide variety of packages–call them building blocks–from which a whole structure, minimal, maximal or otherwise, can be made. One step at a time. One command at a time. As root. By you.

It can have a desktop environment, a window manager, or neither. It can be made to act in a Server, Desktop, or remote operating system capacity. Or nothing at all. It’s whatever you make it to be. It is not distribution-centric (like Garuda, Endeavour, etc.). It is user-centric. It is a community collection of packages centered around a kernel and package manager, each package being there to scratch some programmers itch. Not yours, theirs.

It trips my trigger. It fills all my holes. I am addicted, no question. :smiley:

Timeline: Linux Distributions Timeline


Garuda tastes better with butter.


I’ve never tried it that way. Now, pair it with queso & jalapenos and you got something to talk about! :smiley:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 2 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.