Can we please, PLEASE for gods sake just all agree that arch is not and will never be a good beginner distro no matter how many times you fork it?
Can we please, PLEASE for gods sake just all agree that arch is not and will never be a good beginner distro no matter how many times you fork it?
Arch is aimed at people who know their shit so they can build their own distro based on how they imagine their distro to be. It is not a good distro for beginners and non power users, no matter how often you try to make your own repository, and how many GUI installers you make for it. There's a good reason why there is no GUI installer in arch (aside from being able to load it into ram). That being that to use Arch, you need to have a basic understanding of the terminal. It is in no way hard to boot arch and type in archinstall. However, if you don't even know how to do that, your experience in whatever distro, no matter how arch based it is or not, will only last until you have a dependency error or some utter and total Arch bullshit® happens on your system and you have to run to the forums because you don't understand how a wiki works.
You want a bleeding edge distro? Use goddamn Opensuse Tumbleweed for all I care, it is on par with arch, and it has none of the arch stuff.
You have this one package that is only available on arch repos? Use goddamn flatpak and stop crying about flatpak being bloated, you probably don't even know what bloat means if you can't set up arch. And no, it dosent run worse. Those 0,0001 seconds don't matter.
You really want arch so you can be cool? Read the goddamn 50 page install guide and set it up, then we'll talk about those arch forks.
(Also, most arch forks that don't use arch repos break the aur, so you don't even have the one thing you want from arch)
What kind of beginning you mean? If you start to learn linux than use Arch or Archman specifically. If you just want to use Linux as desktop go other alternatives.
A beginner to what, to pacman, to arch, to rolling distro, to linux, to unix, to a PC, to using man-made tools ...
I made an installation to an old pc once, I though it would last a while, and since the users could barely understand what an on/off button does, they just wanted google and facebook, so it was a wm with two browsers, daughter already knew what chrome was, and in the login shell I wrote a script that each new day it booted it attempted pacman -Suy --noconfirm then once a week the cache was emptied and the logs trimmed.
That was before covid, a couple months ago I met her, she said it has been working fine every since.
So there is your dinner
PS Actually it wasn't arch it was artix with runit but that is about the same
LINUX IS AN EXPERIENCE NOT SOMETHING TO ENDLESSLY DEBATE ABOUT.
I went from Windows to Mint, to Pop-OS, to EndeavourOS and haven't left EOS.
My time with Mint and Pop were about a week each. I switch from Windows to Linux 2 years ago.
For my experience, jumping into Arch feet first has been a great learning experience. My desktop PC is a gaming PC first, so having the most up to date packages has been great. It's helped 'de-mystify' Linux for me. I've had to troubleshoot issues, but thanks to Arch's excellent and extensive documentation, with some light reading I've manages to make it work.
I'm now moving on to setting up my own Homelab/Server, which will NOT be Arch based (...unless...?), because the experience with learning how to navigate Linux with Arch has given me the confidence to tackle something I have absolutely no experience in (NETWORKING).
It's a good beginner distro if you want to stumble, fall, and learn things. It's not a distro where everything is all good right out the box. For that, maybe try something like Linux Mint Debian Edition or Bazziteos
I'd just like to vent that these kind of discussions are one of the big turnoffs of the Linux community in general. People speak "in absolutes".
You either do it this way or you're a dumbass. You either use the distribution I like or you're doing it WRONG. You shouldn't use Arch because you're not experienced enough, you should use Mint for an arbitrary amount of time before you graduate to the good stuff.
You friends get way too worked up over other people's personal preferences and push your biased and subjective views as facts.
Is Arch Linux the right fit for a newbie to Linux? The right answer is "it depends", not "never". Would I recommend Arch to my mom? No. Would I recommend it to my programmer colleague who already lives in the Powershell? Sure, why not.
Is Arch Linux the right fit for a newbie to Linux? The right answer is "it depends", not "never". Would I recommend Arch to my mom? No. Would I recommend it to my programmer colleague who already lives in the Powershell? Sure, why not.
Yup, i had a lot of people tell me that arch wasn't a good beginner distribution, and had some friends try to talk me out of it. But i was planning to move to Linux for over a year and had set up Linux servers in the past. Just hadn't used one for my main PC. I've been on arch for over a month and it's been fine. I still wouldn't recommend it to every beginner but I'm not going to say it's never appropriate.
I think the difficulty with Arch is not about using the command line, but about knowing the Linux ecosystem.
People coming from OS X or Windows probably don't know the difference between a WM, or a DE or what Display server they should use.
They don't know if they need to install a network manager or setup sudo on a new system.
These things come from experience of using a Limix system even a mainstream one like Ubuntu.
Different people deal with things in different ways. Some (most?) people feel like learning linux is undesirable or a chore, while others embrace the sense of discovery and exploring a new and exciting thing. After using Windows for decades I don't want the same experience, I want something completely different.
Before I installed Linux I played a bunch on a virtual machine. I installed several distributions, desktop environments, hardware compatibility. I ended up landing on EndeavourOS more than a year ago. Never borked my setup, never had update problems, never had a problem I couldn't solve (more like Arch Wiki solving it for me).
I like to learn things by doing things, I like to fail fast and learn from the mistakes. EndeavourOS provided the exact experience I was looking for and would recommend it to someone with a similar mentality. I wouldn't recommend Arch (or arch based distros) to people who aren't tech savy, but people make it seem more complicated and brittle than it actually is.
I know someone who was fed up with Windows recently, and they decided it's finally time to switch to Linux. Me and another person recommended Linux Mint, but they got many other recommendations for Arch. They went with Arch, and it hasn't gone boom yet, but I'm not sure if it's a matter of time or what.
I have heard Arch is more "stable" these days than it used to be, but I'm not sure.
I use Ubuntu myself except for on my ThinkPad where I use Mint, and I'm gonna switch to Mint on my desktop eventually.
Once it's installed Arch is just as easy to use as any other distro. It's "unstable" because it's rolling release, sometimes issues crop up with bleeding-edge updates, just keep an eye on the forums before updating.
I've only had to deal with a broken system a couple of times, both were 100% my fault, and both were fixable without reinstalling. Even when something breaks it's pretty forgiving, as long as one is paying attention and not afraid of reading documentation.
Literally never had EndeavourOS break in any way.
Last time might have been the GRUB issue that affected all of Arch. If you use GRUB that is, since it's not the default on EndeavourOS. Next time might be old package repos being shut off, but only if your install is older, plus there's already the second announcement with simple instructions regarding that on Arch News. Also, it will just block updates.
I've put two people without any prior knowledge on EndeavourOS, didn't hear any complains either. I myself had no prior knowledge in Linux and hopped from Kubuntu to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed to Garuda Linux in short succession. I only switched to EndeavourOS after Garuda repeatedly broke. Been on it for 2 years without an issue I think.
I know this is not a representative study and as a computer scientist, I do grasp things quickly, but I strongly oppose the notion that EndeavourOS is not beginner friendly.
We, long-time users of Linux, all have our opinions based on various preferences. The thing is that a lot of these preferences are pretty technical, like Ubuntu having snaps, Fedora and Mints' flat pak policies, etc...
For the average user, they will not know what this is or even see a difference between the systems at first. The linux community would do better if we could have a unified front on distro recommendations. People will switch distros as they learn and their curiosity grows.
I think, we should ask people to pick based on their DE preference. If they want something like windows, let them have Mint or Kubuntu, if they want something closer to mac, let them have Ubuntu. I say this as someone who likes Fedora Plasma spin.
Everything else, is just information overload and will give users decision paralysis.
Our goal should be conversion of users. Once our numbers start growing, then things will pickup. Just imagine if we had office and adobe products here. How many people would be able to switch. I still use windows on my work computer as there is a single app holding me back.
Please, do not bring adobe and office pack there for god sake...
Why? A lot of people specifically do not use Linux for this reason. Like it or not, those apps are ingrained in the business world.
People are not going to sacrifice their income to use Linux. That is why I have a second computer just for windows for work.
If it weren’t for that, I could just use one computer with 2 user accounts.
I would, however, recommend Arch if you're a Linux novice looking to learn about Linux in a more accelerated pace.
Or Void Linux.
But but but SteamOS!
Meanwhile random people just using SteamOS and being happy.
yea, but I feel like it's worth saying that steamdeck (where most of the steamos instances are) runs primarily in steam mode, and runs immutable OS by default so it's pretty hard to actually mess that up. Plus steam manages most updates for you instead of you managing the updating yourself, which also helps remove the skill factor.
Android looks at SteamOS from the distance
This post is a little cringe. Endeavor OS is a great Arch Experience for those who want a little preconfiguration and a GUI install. I've since moved onto doing it the arch way, but EOS was a great foot in the door and I know for a fact I'm not alone. Ive learned more about Linux in 2 years going from EOS to Arch (and running a proxmox server) than I would have running some "beginner friendly" distro. Really wish folks would stop gatekeeping.
EOS btw.
Absolutely agreed! Arch wiki helps with this as well.
Although Ive been using linux for 2 years now, and i still want an installation manager with sane defaults.
Although Ive been using linux for 2 years now, and i still want an installation manager with sane defaults.
Have you heard about our Lord and Saviour, Debian?
This was a big driver for my distro hopping, until I landed on purple Arch. I'll either go to the blue team or Gentoo or LFS or something if I decide to hop again.
My struggle was that more beginner-friendly distros like mint and Fedora workstations were too beginner-friendly. I struggled to find things to learn because I installed it and had an out-of-the-box windows experience
I struggled to find things to learn because I installed it and had an out-of-the-box windows experience
And that's a good thing! Non-technically-inclined ppl are wary of instability issues and having to work with the terminal to fix their daily driver. If the OOTB experience is good and the UX is comparable or better than Windows - they will be more likely to stay.
If someone is accepting the fact that shit might go sideways, is willing to learn through experiencing issues first-hand or simply likes to spend time fiddling with their OS to find the perfect setup for them - that should be the Arch- and Arch-derivatives audience.
I started with mint more than 10 years ago because a friend of mine told me it was one, if not the best, distro for newbies (that was a fucking lie). Idk how mint is doing today but back then was kind of a mess and dealing with it wasnt easy, so i dont really know how or why i switched to debian for a while. With debian i had a lot of problems with some software, mostly proprietary drivers for esotic hardware i was running back then due to me buying the cheapest laptops available, so i started distro hopping for a while. Every distro but fedora was debian based so it felt a lot like a more of the same experience and I felt stuck in a loop where i was eventually gonna reinstall my whole system after breaking something i didnt even know existed.
Then one day i found arch. Installing it wasnt as easy as clicking install on the live system's guy, but just by following the wiki general instructions i didnt have any issues the first time. It felt good. Building the system block by block helped me understand how things work, the package manager was the best i had seen and the newbie corner basically had the solutions for all my screw-ups, even more than ask-ubuntu did. Everybody in the community was super helpful (even some of the devs). Then there was the AUR, with almost every piece of esotic or proprietary software i needed, much easier than adding some random guy's repositories to apt or enabling backports on debian. Also i found out that i prefer having a rolling release. With arch i learned how to use and maintain my system, and i just stuck with it.
That said, just how some use linux just to brag about it with their normie friends, many many people use arch to brag about it with other linux users (like my friend did), mostly beacause arch has the infamous reputation that it is hard to install, hard to maintain, easy to break. Which is actually not that bad considering that all these people are gonna end up posting in the newbie corner lol.
Truth is that arch is not harder than any other distro. It only comes down to your will to learn and RTFM What i think worked for me was the transparency. Nobody said it was as easy to use as windows, but nobody in the wiki said "dont do this unless you are an experienced user". Arch is not another fork of ubuntu pretending to be "even more user friendly", it's just arch.
I think the problem is about distros like antergos (rip), manjaro, garuda, endevour trying to oversimplify something that only needs you to RTFM only ending up breaking something they tried to automate and hide behind a curtain that wasnt meant to be automated and was meant to be learned to manage, by hand
EDIT: spelling. I'm a non-english speaker, if you find any more errors just tell me and i will correct them (or clarify something better)
I think mint is crazy better these days compared to 10 years ago, and it probably just came down to "we want to be user friendly to those who need their hands held" crashing into "actual users who need their hand held are trying it out." 10 years ago, I think there simply wasn't enough interested in Linux outside of Linux circles to properly test and figure things out, not to mention the strides the software itself has made in supporting more hardware more seamlessly.
The thing about RTFM is that users don't, and the users that stuff like Mint is geared towards is those who when asked to read a wiki page, will simply give up. Windows has a cottage industry of people who do various things to make it easier for that kind of user. For example, just installing Windows on a device for you (albeit with bloatware usually) complete with all the drivers for your hardware. For most of the hardware on a laptop (audio, internet, HIDs, USB), that'll have you set for life without having to touch anything and for the graphics that'll at least have you set for several years without having to touch anything. And it's not like Linux doesn't have this level of support, it's just that Windows has this level of support for consumers and Linux typically has it relegated to the enterprise sphere.
That being said, it's insane how easy it is now to just install Mint, or PopOS, or even Ubuntu and have a working system. But most users don't even install their Windows, much less a completely foreign OS.
For what it's worth, I have switched three machines of mine from Win10 to Mint in the last year, and in each case it was much easier and faster to install than Windows. And of course, daily use is much faster and smoother than Windows, but that is true of all distros. It's just worth mentioning because mint is made to be the full featured user friendly experience (some might even call it bloated) out of the box, yet it's still a rocket in comparison.
One was a typical work-issued Dell laptop w/ port replicator + M365, one was an old PC at home I built several years ago, and the last was an even older PC I built like 14 years ago.
Just yesterday at work I installed Win10 in VirtualBox so I could test a Windows app that gets built alongside our main embedded Linux software (used the VM since a certain popup window secondary to the main app wasn't immediately working in Wine). Holy crap was it painful after being used to the Mint installer.
Then when I got home I decided to turn on that 14 year old system that's been off for a month (when I installed the latest point release 22.1) to let it update. Even using the GUI updater, and even though it had to update the updater itself before updating however many dozen packages AND the kernel, I timed the entire process at five minutes flat. On the computer from 2011, with a pretty old & small SATA SSD system drive. And you can use the PC like normal until it's done, when it shows a banner suggesting you reboot when you can because of the kernel update.
Again, nothing special in the Linux world where software is actually created with users put first. But still noteworthy for being the "easy" distro that looks a lot like Windows when you first boot it up.
I'm not posting this to say anything negative about Arch, either. That kind of distro is very important to begin with, and Arch in particular seems it's good enough that it might be the new Debian. Especially with SteamOS switching to it.
Veterans will always go back to Debian. It is inevitable.
I'd rather use windows 7 than ever go back to Debian ... something with 7 being the last good version of anything ;)
I've got 25 years of Linux usage under my belt at this point, and I've settled on Debian for all PCs, servers, and anything else. Stability is so much more important to me than bleeding edge software, but for those things that absolutely need the latest and greatest, there's Backports and Flatpak.
Preach greybeard
I never liked debian or it's derivatives, but since moving to Selfhosting most of my services and needing sane defaults on my server (I'm a noob with server stuff) I've circled back to LMDE after 20 years of using primarily bleeding edge and DIY distros.
I like it, it's nice that it's set and forget and doesn't need constant attention like my bleeding edge stuff always did.
As a fellow Mint enjoyer who is too fucking old to be fixing their desktop all the time.....yes
LMDE is great. I run it on my Thinkpad T14 G1. Runs like a champ, and after installing
tlp, it manages to eke out almost 7 hours of battery life with a questionable battery.I'll be switching from Windows 10 to LMDE on my desktop gaming PC at some point soon this year. I have no intention of letting Microsoft dictate what I can and can't do on my custom PC that I built with my own hands. W11 further reduces that capability.
Debian is just the carcinization of Linux.
Debian is the stable friend who might not have all the answers at the moment but can help you with whatever you need to do, and does it without ever asking for anything in return.
Debian is love, Debian is life.
It makes sense because if you are a veteran, you probably already have your workflow streamlined, so you don't need new software in the repositories.
On the contrary, I'd still argue it's a good distro for beginners, but not for newbies. people who are tech-sawy and not hesitant to learn new things.
I jumped straight into EndeavorOS when I switched to Linux, since arch was praised as the distro for developers, for reasons.
Sure, I had some issues to fight with, but it taught me about all the components (and their alternatives) that are involved in a distro.
So, once you have a problem and ask for help, the first questions are sorts of "what DE/WM do you use?... is it X11 or wayland? are you using alsa or pipewire?".
Windows refugees (like me) take so many things for granted, that I think this kind of approach really helps in understanding how things work under the hood. And the Arch-wiki is just a godsend for thst matter. And let's be real, you rarely look into Arch-wiki for distros other than Arch itself, since they mostly work OOTB.
The Arch-wiki was my main reason for switching to arch. When I used an ubuntu based distro I felt like I had to rely on forum posts to figure out anything whereas with arch everything is documented incredibly well
True, between arch and gentoo wiki you can hardly find any other information that is worth your while.
a lot of it applies to other distros though. its a lot of help in a pinch.
"I didnt read the changelogs"
I have never read the changelogs and I have never broken my EOS install ever.
Weak bait.
- Arch users everywhere: You MUST read the Arch news files before updating.
- Also Arch users when updating: Oops, I forgot to read the news file.
- pacman when updating: I have pre install hooks but I don't print the news files updates by default because that's probably bloat or something.
Make it make sense
while you do have a point, i'm still having issues with taskwarrior printing it's update notifications, even after opening an issue and the maintainers patching it.
The thing is, i use arch on 3 different devices, and i don't need to see every news entry 3 times, so yes in my case having it as default in pacman would indeed be bloat.
That said, there is PLENTY of places where I think arch could have saner defaults. but the beauty of arch is that it is made to be configured exactly the way you like it, so you really can't fault arch as much in this case, compared to other distros that try to take all decisionmaking away from the user.
There’s a good reason why there is no GUI installer in arch (aside from being able to load it into ram).
This is the dumbest conceit of the arch community. I learned Linux using Fedora back when regular usage required more know how than installing arch does and it was enormously helpful to have something you could click and install and THEN learn in a functional environment. Also following the guide isn't THAT hard its just a waste of effort for a million people to do so.
i think it’s also incorrect: the basic premise of arch is minimally configured, do whatever you like… no installer is going to allow a user to do everything they want, so that’s kinda not “the arch way”… it’s not some gatekeeping BS, it’s just not what arch is about, and that’s fine… that’s why there are spinoff distros that disagree and make their own - this is FOSS after all
Everyone has a right to go their own way. Everyone has a right to have an opinion on how you go your own way.
I remember installing Debian before Ubuntu was born using an ncurses type interface and spending five minutes selecting the packages I want to install, (only for it to tell me that one package was incompatible with another and the installation couldn't proceed!) but being able to do it somewhat graphically made it so much easier than simply by text.
An OS stays out of your way and lets you do what you need to do. Having to essentially create the basics is unproductive and a waste of the user's time.
SteamOS
Yep, as long as Valve keeps it up to date and as long as newbie users don’t figure out what Sudo does it will be fine for them.
2 requirements for arch:
- Not fearful of CLI
- Able to RTFM.
- Willing to spend a whole day on your first install
that's it. That's also not MOST PC users. Just suggest popos or mint or that one "gaming" distro and let them enjoy it.
If they want to nerd out after they're used to Linux they will learn the CLI. If they want to, they'll find Arch or whatever DIY/rolling whatever distro.
people who unironically recommend anything arch-based (haha yes steamos is based on arch, yes you're very very clever, i'm sure you can even figure out why it's an obvious exception if you think about it for a minute) are just detached from reality and simply want to be part of a group.
The only time arch is suitable for beginners is installing it in a VM to learn linux via brute force, after you've gotten used to going through that process you'll have a very solid base of knowledge for using a more suitable distro.
IMO every distro should have a rolling release option. Kind of like how OpenSUSE has the normal version and Tumbleweed. You have normal version for when you need the OS to work (you're new to Linux, it's your main personal/work computer, it's a server, etc) and then you have the rolling release option for when you're willing to give up stability for the newest versions of everything as soon as possible.
The only thing I don't like about stable distros is being 3-4 versions behind on software. Back when I was using Ubuntu I used to get frustrated because I wanted to use the latest version of things like LibreOffice, but couldn't without bypassing the repos, which can cause issues down the road.
I'll tell you, nothing bricks as hard or as irreparably as Windows. I have never had to actually reinstall Linux due to some problem (though it's a good practice security-wise).
Even when you removed the french language pack?
It was my second distro after mint. It's very fun to learn as long as you got time to kill.
Any windows power user or dev on a mac can follow a wiki, read a bit and learn.
Good for beginners? I didn't describe a beginner right here. Anybody with experience in computing will find arch straightforward and satisfying. Heck, a CS student would probably go through a first install process faster than I do after 5 years.
What are the concept involved? Partitioning, networking, booting... These are all familiar fields to tons of very normal computer users.
Arch can be a good first distro to anyone who knows what a computer is doing (or is willing to learn)
just because a given person could make it work, doesnt mean they want to. i can personally fix a lot of these issues, but i dont wanna have to bother. i just want to accomplish the inane bullshit i turned my computer on for.
i just think an arch recommendation should always come with that disclaimer. newbies have to know what to expect else they will associate that experience with linux in general.
Arch was my first distro after going back to Linux. I really liked learning the inner workings of a computer and an OS.
I know plenty of people who just want a plug&play experience with the only input for the install being name, password and date. For them, I would never recommend Arch, simply mint or pop_os would do just fine as the only thing the computer has to do is open up the browser.
I just want more Linux users, not specific distros. In the end if you know your way around Linux, the distro choice doesn't matter, you just choose a package repo
You're focusing too much on the installation process, if installing Arch was the whole of the problem things like Endeavor would be a good recommendation for newbies, but they're not. Arch has one giant flaw when it comes to being beginner friendly, and it's part of what makes it desirable for lots of us, and that is the bleeding edge rolling release model. As a newcomer you probably want something that works and is stable. Arch is not, and will never be, that, because the core philosophy is to be bleeding edge rolling release. If you're a newcomer who WANTS to have that and doesn't mind the learning curve then go ahead, but Linux has enough of a learning curve already, so it's better to get people started with something they can rely on and afterwards they can move to other stuff that might have different advantages/disadvantages.
We're talking about the general case here, I've recommend Arch to a newcomer in the past, he was very keen on learning and was happy with reading wikis to get there stuff sorted, but realistically most people who're learning a whole new OS don't want to ask questions and be told RTFM, and RTFM is core to the Arch philosophy.
The first Linux I used wasn't part of any distro. A few years later I compiled Slackware to run bind and Sendmail.
Last year I tried Arch in a VM. I got to where it expected me to know what partitions to create for root and swap and noped out. It's not 1996. I don't have time for those details any more. No one should. Sane defaults have been in other distros for decades.
Debian welcomes you 💫
one of the main points of arch is for people wanting to learn these details. its not for everyone.
if you want a distro to just work, i second the suggestion from the other dude. get a debian based one.
I started with real arch and loved it. Different strokes different folks
Once you learn pacman is hard to go to anything substandard and slow, so you are hooked.
I wonder if there is something like a graph or diagram that shows the different parts that comform a distro.
Like a visual aid where you can see what combination of parts or components you are choosing on a distro.
Does something like this exist?
I'm in the void.
quick, quick, explain in one sentence whether the newb should go with musl of gliMBc ... hurry ... the screen is about to turn black and the installer will be gone
go musl with no hassle wink wink
I want linux to be as welcoming as possible to everyone and the newbie question of what distro to use will come up a lot. I dont think it's helpful in any way to bicker about why my choice in linux is better. We should be giving them the tools to make the best decision for themselves
What if we built a beginners linux community (Linux, Where Do I Start -> LWDIS) and point to all the distros communities, and on those distro specific communities they had beginner friendly install, setup, rice, maintenance instructions and advice along with a difficulty rating. I don't know if stickies are a thing here but could be helpful in keeping relevant info on top. This could be a place for fanboys to shine on there favorite distro while keeping the basic inclusive LWDIS community free of bickering about distros that might cause confusion and turn people off.
spoiler
"Fortunately, the charging one has been solved now that we've all standardized on mini-USB. Or is it micro-USB? Shit."
Fair enough!
I very much appreciated the xkcd, gave a good chuckle.
The LWDIS page should have a basic overview of the different distro family's and maybe a breakdown of their specialty's or focus. Probably have a breakdown for windows and mac specific easy ways to burn an ISO in the stickie.
Then people could field questions and guide people to the distro that might suit OP's needs best instead of sponsoring their favorite distro.
From there they can go to the individual distros for more complete information and questions. If that distro and their community feels like a fit for their needs I think we could have a better retention rate than what we have been doing.
The other day I saw one of these which distro posts and most replies were not very helpful and mostly fanboy sponsorships which i don't think would be very helpful to the OP. But their was one person there patiently and thoroughly answering OPs questions with the best info he could provide. It was tip top! That's how we grow together!
I get it, the fanboy thing, I've got it bad for arch, endeavour and garuda. Im also the geekiest twat in my town. I don't really recommend them to people I dont intend to be their IT guy when shit goes wrong. For the most part I recomend distros that have great communities people can draw from. If a newbie goes to the arch forum and hasn't at least read the docs and researched their problem, provide logs or terminal output they arent getting helped. At least not how they might need. But on the mint, ubuntu, fedora forum's they can plow through just about any problem with a little hand holding if that's what they need, and that's not a bad thing.
Friendliness, inclusion, understanding of the users personal needs, computer usage and goals is the way to keep people and expand our linux community IMO.
I started with EndeavourOS, which is basically Arch, and had a great experience.
I did have someone knowledgeable help guide me a bit at first, but eventually I learned how to find solutions myself on google, and use the Arch wiki.
I must have broke my installation a dozen times, but used Timeshift to bring it back from the dead... And I learned so much about how Linux works in the process. Wouldn't have done it any other way.
Thanks for reminding me to set up Timeshift on my EndeavourOS install, salute to you.
My first distro was an Arch fork and I moved to vanilla Arch a year later. My problems in that time have been minimal. Personally, I am glad that someone recommended that I use an arch-based distro as a beginner. Mind you, I came in as a modestly computer-literate Windows refugee willing to learn. I think for those types of people it can be appropriate to recommend Arch-based distros.
So, yes, if you are not willing to google a problem, read a wiki, or use the terminal once in a while, Arch or its forks are probably not for you. I would probably not recommend Arch as a distro for someone's elderly grandparent or someone not comfortable with computers.
That said, I do not know that I agree with the assertion that Arch "breaks all the time," or that I even understand what "Arch bullshit®" is referring to. This overblown stereotype that Arch is some kind of mythical distro only a step removed from Linux From Scratch has to stop. None of that has been my experience for the last 4 years. Actually, if anything, it is the forks that get dependency issues (looking at you, Manjaro) and vanilla Arch has been really solid for me.
I came in as a modestly computer-literate Windows refugee willing to learn
That's like 2% of the people who want to switch to Linux
Petulant counterpoint: SteamOS 3.0 is based on Arch and is a good newbie distro
The level of disillusion in the thread is insane. At no point in time is it a good idea to recommend Arch and it's derivatives to Linux newbies. They will 100% wreck their install in the first two weeks. Even I, as a pretty experienced user had to wipe my arch install after failed update attempts, luckily I had a separate home partition. Anything else like fedora or tumbleweed will provide packages that are very up to date, but that are also tested. For example I don't fear that updating my fedora install will completely brick the networking of my system like what happened to me on arch.
Ironically I wouldn't recommend any Ubuntu derivatives as for some reason, every single time I've installed Ubuntu or one of its variants like PopOS they ended up messed up in some way or another, albeit never as critical as Arch did to me numerous times. Probably some kind of PPA issues that make the system weird because it's always the fault of PPAs
Ubuntu or one of its variants
Even Mint? Seems to be the go-to recommendation for newbies.
Never was able to try mint, I only did once but the installer didn't work for some reason, probably Nvidia related so I don't blame mint for it.
Mint has worked consistently for me on the PC it's installed on.
Second this. Am not a huge fan of ubuntu itself and I have had issues with other debian based distros (OMV for example) but mint has always been rock solid and stable on any of my machines. The ultimate beginners distro imo.
Honestly, as someone who ran Arch and its derivatives, no one should be running upstream Arch but the testers.
No amount of experience or expertise will save you from breaking it. It WILL break, and you'll be mocked for that as well by "Arch elitists" who will then face the same issue.
That's why Linux veterans are rarely using Arch. It's good for its purpose, it's very important both for downstream Arch and for the entire Linux community, but it is NOT the distro you should run on your PC.
Go Fedora. Go Debian. Go to the downstream distros if you're strongly into Arch, take Garuda for example. Make your machine actually work.
I use Debian ftw.
Thanks! Found Garuda is from this thread! You're a real one!
idk I'm kind of a fucking idiot and I started with Manjaro.
I mean, I'm just one reference point, but here we go. I started with Kubuntu -- I liked KDE, and Ubuntu is a stable, LTS distro. What could go wrong?
But my PC is Intel/Nvidia, so I'm constantly facing driver issues, and not to mention, snap is completely fucked. Ubuntu is supposed to be LTS but I've somehow still got 2-4 GB of updates every day or two. I've also got random bugs here and there and no real idea of how to troubleshoot them because the support is disparate or doesn't address my specific issue.
Meanwhile, on my Chrultrabook, I decided to go with Arch, which of course presented its own set of issues. The archinstall script was straightforward, and debugging it was also fairly easy since the Arch wiki and forums were a trove of information. But debugging and tinkering, even when I accidentally bricked my laptop and had to do a clean slate (don't ever interrupt pacman, I've learned!), has been a great learning experience. It's made me feel like I actually understand a little more of what goes on under the hood. Ubuntu could do that as well, but it isn't meant to be design.
Neither is good nor bad on its own, but different people enjoy different things. I didn't think I would be the type to enjoy Arch, but it gave me valuable experience and a fun project (even if I did end up staying up until 3 or 4 AM on work nights). I've got EndeavourOS on my laptop now and still Kubuntu on my PC, but I'm wondering if I shouldn't just switch over. Arch/eOS being a rolling release feels nice too, as I'm doing all these updates on Ubuntu anyway, but I'm slightly more worried about fucking something up.
Linux Mint.
MX is better than Mint.
That's arguable, but I get where you're coming from.
And then wonder why everybody having a good time with their nvidia on smooth wayland vs you on your
ancient, ok now only old Kernel since the last ubuntu upgrade, and outdated nvidia drivers.Oh wait, with mint, you are forced to use clunky Xorg aren’t you
I am sure that gives any noob the vibes of using a modern OS like windows/macOS /s
Mint works like Windows and has a lot to offer any Windows 10 user who's already using FOSS. And tbh Hypnotix alone justified the install of Mint for me. I got a great IPTV viewer, plus a PC that runs everything I want.
Note: I only regularly want Discord, Firefox, Endless Sky, OpenTTD, RetroArch, and LibreOffice. I'm sure everyone else has different goals.
I was not technically a newbie since I had previously used ubuntu in the distant past (as if ubuntu would truly prepare someone for a more advanced distro), and probably a few others I can't remember, but I came back with EndeavourOS and I'm having a great time. I did have a few challenges though I am fairly tech savvy and I knew what I was getting into so I was definitely not a regular novice.
After a single serious oopsie that bricked my system but I was able to fix I've been running a very stable system. I've kept with it for nearly 2 years now on my initial install with practically no issues, at least none I wasn't willing and able to solve. I troubleshot an issue I was having with a package installation the other day without finding any help online and that made me proud of myself.
I would have considered myself a decent power user on windows, and I feel like a sub average arch user, but hey I get to learn and improve more now.
Arch is aimed at people who know their shit so they can build their own distro based on how they imagine their distro to be.
Is Arch only for people who know how to seek help? Maybe. But it absolutely is not a distro template. It's a distro.
A package manager + some packages in the base system maybe, is basically a distro template. And maybe some kernel tweaks, or a built-in DE/WM. Or opinionated init system maybe.
There are so many more aspects of Arch that you conveniently ignored. The filesystem hierarchy, the special compilation arguments options tweaks and configuration for e.g. dynamic linking, and how Arch has way more packages than just "some packages in the base system". And no, I don't mean the AUR. Arch is no less of a distro than any other distro. What is a distro if not a large swathe of packages meticulously tweaked to interop gloriously?
And no, it doesn't run worse
Flatpaks that aren't official products of the source project sometimes have interesting issues pertaining to their permissions, are harder to set as the handler for files, harder to enable usage of system tools, don't follow system themes, are harder to start or use from the command line, and yes start slower than native apps.
I like the idea that even stable distros can have latest stuff easily or distros which don't package a given project. I use a few myself. It is certainly annoying that it ends up teaching people about what dirs they need to share with flatseal, flatseal, desktop files, and the command line for something which is supposed to simplify things.
Kinda feels like less work to use rolling release with a more comprehensive set of packages.
The real problem: Define beginner distro
Every user is starting from a different point. There is no such thing as a beginner distro. You can say this distro is good for people who can grasp the idea of a command line or this distro is good for people who have no idea command line interfaces exist, but that doesn't differentiate between beginner friendly or not.
EndeavourOS is the best 💪
As a (currently) CachyOS user, I would like to point out that their custom mirrors don't always reflect the newest version of packages, too. So if your package has a bug you may have to wait an extra day or two for it to reflect the fixed version after it drops. That or manually install the git.
Just make love with Timeshift and for the love of god don't use topgrade if you don't know what you're doing. Thankfully, because of rule number one, Timeshift told me the topgrade nightmare was over and tucked me back into bed with a glass of warm milk and a bedtime story.
I do not recommend Arch to new users but I really wish people would have a point supported by evidence when they post.
There is no 50 page manual to install EndeeavourOS or CachyOS, the two distros mentioned in the graphic. Both are as easy to point and click install as Fedora and maybe easier than Debian. The better hardware support makes the install much more likely to succeed. They both have graphical installers and lead you by the hand. In fact, when it comes to EOS, its entire identify is making Arch easy to install and to provide sensible defaults so that everything works out of the box. And of the 80,000 packages in Arch/AUR, less than 20 of them are unique to EOS (mostly theming).
There are lots of things to complain about regarding Arch related distros. Or maybe there isn’t if we have to lie about them.
To me, every distro that seriously requires you to read through all changelogs before updating is BS, and it doesn't solve a basic problem. No one in their sane mind will do this, and the system will break.
That's why, while I respect the upstream Arch, I'd say you should be insane for running it and trying to make things stable, and mocking people for not reading the changelogs is missing the point entirely. Even the best of us failed.
Arch is entirely about "move fast and break stuff".
Arch doesn't require you to "read through all changelogs". It only requires that you check the news. News posts are rare, their text is short, and not all news posts are about you needing to do something to upgrade the system. Additionally, pacman wrappers like
parucheck the news automatically and print them to the terminal before upgrading the system. So it's not like you have to even remember it and open a browser to do it.Arch is entirely about “move fast and break stuff”.
No, it's not. None of the things that make Arch hard for newbies have to do anything with the bleeding edge aspect of Arch. Arch does not assume your use case and will leave it up to you to do stuff like edit the default configuration and enable a service. In case of errors or potential breakage you get an error or a warning and you deal with it as you see fit. These design choices have nothing to do with "moving fast". It's all about simplicity and a diy approach to setting up a system.
It is not as overwhelming as you make it sounds, you don't need to read the whole changelog every time you update just check Arch news page and they state any manual action an update might need. I run arch since like 1 y and I almost never had to do such manual actions. You can see on archlinux.org news it's not that bad although I can totally see why it is not suitable for most people
I subscribe to the arch news letter, and they email me about potentially breaking changes like 4 times a year. Usually I don't have to do anything about them but it's good to be aware of, just in case.
Is there anyone here remember Gentoo and the merge/split
/usrperiod?Gentoo developers are kind and super helpful that they put out any important notice after you pull upgrades to your system. Run
eselect news readto know what the breaking change is going to be, and carefully perform the required actions one by one. It's a great distro made by great fellas.I don't mind there is breaking change at all. I do mind that you don't tell me about it.
Yeah, Gentoo puts serious emphasis on that, I have to give them a credit. I liked it.
But yeah, I'd rather not have breaking changes in the first place.
I started with Arch
btw
Mint has been nice
The install guide is not 50 pages-long, common!
the arch experience is weirdly weird honestly. arch is not hard to use, the wiki documentations are pretty extensive. but still there are people who dont even know how to use a wiki. what people needs to do is not learn how to use arch, but learn how to change their perspective on arch instead
I'm not completely up to speed with the core principles of Arch, but I think it revolves around KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!). Meaning that Arch doesn't hold your hand with nice GUIs. Instead, it tries to make the command line interface as easy to understand and use as possible. So if you run into a problem, you're more likely to understand how to fix it, or at least what the root cause is. Which is not a given when you're used to distros with more abstraction like Ubuntu. Then again, this design concept is not for everyone.
Arch is for control freaks, which means it takes a lot of work and patient to get it to work for your specific needs. If you don't have the time and patient for that (which is more then understandable) then you shouldn't use it.
Nah that's gentoo
Arch is for people who want bleeding edge and the aur. Gentoo is for people who really hate one particular thing that everything tries to use or have a system with very specific requirements.
Nah, maybe 10 years ago or so. Now you install it with a script and it just works.
Installing packages on Arch is way, way easier than doing it on Ubuntu, the OS that for some reason people keep recommending for newcommers.
And since installing packages is about the only thing that you do with your OS as a beginner, that's a big deal
Is there really enough of an epidemic of newbies being recommended Arch to warrant this amount of ire? All I ever hear is how Arch is the “hardcore” distro and beginners should all use Linux Mint.
I’m someone who has only ever poked around with Linux Mint on a thumb drive a few times to see what it’s like and thinking, “Yep. This is a working operating system.” and then going back to Windows because there was never any compelling reason to switch.
But I recently decided to have a dedicated PC with Linux on it and I chose CachyOS because I want to play games. (Yes, I know you can game on other distros.) And I’m… fine. I’m computer literate, I did my research, and I knew that using an Arch-based distros was “being thrown into the deep end.” But I followed the instructions, as well as some advice, and the setup completed without any issues.
I’m using my PC and things “just work.” Apparently I’m just an update away from everything collapsing into smoldering wreckage. If that happens, I’ll try to fix it, and maybe I’ll learn something in the process. If not, I’ll try to keep my files backed up so I can restore things. Or maybe I’ll decide that I hate it and try something else, but… so far so good.
If timeshift is not already installed, please do. Do a snapshot before you update and set the settings to auto delete / keep only a certain number (or do it manually) so you don't fill your hard drive. I usually keep 1 monthly, 3 weekly and 3 dailies on a rolling basis
If you do the snapshot religiously then when an update breaks it you can just boot a liveUSB and restore (mint iso is a live USB and has it already installed).
You do of course then need to work out what broke and why once you've rolled back to the prior working state
Hey, you forget about Gentoo Linux!
The real distro for newbies... (Provided the newbies are expert cs graduated and crazy nerds...)
All depends on what a beginner is... Not all beginners are tech illiterates or people who only want to use office.
What are people doing that breaks their computers? I have used arch for like 15 years now and nothing ever goes wrong?
The closest would be on my desktop sometimes nvidia drivers are in a state that breaks display reinit on wake from sleep but my thinkpad is always fine.
Seriously who are you weird computer vandals going around and breaking everything all the time? What do you do?
I had my first ever “breakage” on Arch recently. Actually two just recently (both on an old Mac):
- the driver for my Broadcom hardware was broken for a day
- with the upgrade to kernel 6.13, the FaceTimeHD camera is not working
Neither issue seems to be present in the LTS kernel (which is 6.12). I have both a current and an LTS kernel installed. So rebooting to LTS had me up and running. If I did not have that, no WiFi would have been a bigger issue os the MacBook Air has not Ethernet. The lack of a camera would be no video meetings without the LTS kernel as well. The problem has existed for a few days.
So, I can no longer say that I have never had an issue on Arch. I can say they have been rare. I can say I had more issues with Ubuntu or Fedora in the past.
I can also say that the only breakage I have had was mitigated by having an LTS kernel to reboot into.
Fair, that's defs breakage that would trip up a novice computer user.
I've been around enough to know that everyone ignores "have backups". Although I think pacman can do rollbacks because it keeps a cache by default? I've never had to and I use snapshots so /shrug.
Still a novice computer user would probably not feel comfortable reading manual pages, and even an expert would be annoyed if this happened.
I tried to run linux on a mac once (work supplied) and it was very annoying compared to a think pad. I can't remember specifically why, maybe the touchpad had low level drag scrolling I couldn't overrule or something like that. How do you find it?
Almost a decade for me (on CachyOS currently) and I also have no idea how people are breaking their systems so much. In that decade, I think my system broke twice due to an update hiccup and both times were easy to fix.
I think people might be saying their system broke when a specific, non critical, application doesn't work after an update based on an interaction here.
That does become more common if you start installing third party software and/or use less common/recommended tools. Personally I wouldn't consider that breaking, but I guess to a casual person it might not be clear that rolling upgrade systems have this risk and the weirder your system gets the more familiar you should be with backups and rollbacks.
sometimes nvidia drivers are in a state that breaks display reinit on wake from sleep
That happens so often that I've just bound a hotkey in Hyprland to poke my monitors config (toggling VRR off and on again) in order to force a mode change and wake up the display.
Timeshift has turned my system breaking updates and tinkering into a non-issue. I just set up all my systems with it right off the bat. One snapshot per day, one weekly, and one monthly.
Since doing that, I've never had to toss a totally borked install.
I really need to set it up, not because I have issues but because having backups feels so nice.
I went from noob to arch about 3 months ago, and only had to reinstall twice after I broke things. Couldn't figure out how to get my vpn and tail scale to play nicely together, even if I only used one at a time. After the 2nd attempt/reinstall I just gave up on tail scale, and haven't had any show stopping bugs/issues since. Sure would be nice if rustdesk played nice with Wayland tho.
I didn't realize archinstall existed until I had to reinstall, so I can see why a terminal based install from scratch might scare some people away.
He's exaggerating, Arch has never broken the system with an update, but it has broken some components in the past. Most of the time you just rollback the package for a couple of days and you're fine to update again, but you can't expect a newbie in Linux to know that. For someone who's already having to adapt and learn a lot of stuff just to get their daily use adding instability to the system is a recipe for disaster.
That depends on what the beginner's goal is. Arch could very well be a nice beginner distro, as could Gentoo or Slackware or any other "hard" distro if you're determined to learn. My baptism of fire was on Slackware in the 90s (which I'm still on), long before "beginner distros". Trying and failing was a big part of the fun. If you're determined to learn, I don't see any issue with starting with a distro that doesn't hold your hand.
Everyday I see people saying they are having issue with Linux and its always because they went straight to arch and used archinstall. They have no idea how any of their system works and when they run into an issue thry do a full system reinstall.
I watched a 9 year old install a fully working version of Arch with no GUI...
I think you're just making it harder than it has to be... lol
EDIT: Or maybe she's 10? Not sure. But either 9 or 10.
Installing is just following directions. It's maintaining it after you Frankenstein the hell out of it that most new users struggle with
That's why you shouldn't Frankenstein it
Now this I can agree with.
Has this kid installed Linux before? Or at least some tech background?
Even without it, you know kids learn really well, right? Can you say the same about a 40 year old?
Has this kid installed Linux before? Or at least some tech background?
No. I sat behind her and encouraged her to read the prompts in their entirety. She asked questions (like the difference between sys/data partitions, etc), that's basically it. I maintain that if a child can do it, anyone can. People don't read as well as they should.
Even without it, you know kids learn really well, right? Can you say the same about a 40 year old?
This is the worst excuse in the history of excuses... Quite literally pathetic.
The point of Arch is not that it's hard to install the point is that it's modular and you can choose exactly what you need. So in order ton maintain it you may need to know about pipewire, bluez, Wayland, synaptic, tlp, ...
Once you know the name of most modules and graphical application it's indeed pretty easy because Arch's wiki is great. But I don't think it's a great way to discover the ecosystem and you would probably not benefit from Arch specificities compared to another distro.
I think the only person I would recomand this to would be a computer scientist who needs to learn as much as possible about Linux in two months.
Uff, great, so I still have 3 to 4 years to teach it to my son
Thanks for that age recommendation 🫡
Was feared he’s already behind
IMO learning the basics of computing, go for as early as possible. Especially with this new generation of kids.
2 months ago she didn't even know how to use a mouse properly, and now she's a whiz. The funniest is when you try to show her something on the screen and she tries to click it like it's a touch-screen and I have to be like "no, use the mouse!"
It's a struggle to get started, but once they have that foundational knowledge they pick things up so quickly.
why are you making shit up tho, whos install bricked, mine has no issues, neither does any other linux newbie ive talked to, it has an easy to use gui to setup and then it just works?
He's exaggerating a little bit, but he's not entirely wrong. Arch does have bleeding edge packages, and if you haven't ran into an issue because of that you probably haven't been using it for long. Now, it almost never is system breaking bad, but it might be GUI breaking bad, or it might require editing configs by hand, and I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people complain that an update broke something only to be a pacsave/pacnew file. Arch philosophy is incompatible with people who're learning the system now and just want stuff to work. Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it will for others.
Forsure, if i do run into issues I'll switch to Bazzite. I always have windows to return to if I need to, still using it for some programs and im keeeping most files that cant be just be reinstalled when I need it on an external ssd.
My main issue with linux rnow is davinci, and houdini, davinci is easy to pirate, but no redgiant, etc. The effects I use can be remade following tuts or with other addons, symbol bitmapping, and pixeldither. But houdini specifically is just so expensive for hobby use, im addicted tho. I will never make money off that shit if I magically do ill spend 2.5k on the perpetual license. Cant find anyway to pirate an up to date version.
I thought piracy would be easier on linux but it seems to be much harder to find resources if they even exist. Nice for foss stuff tho.
Used to have Slackware as a daily driver in 2005ish, will arch be similar or more difficult?
I'd say they are similar, but they have somewhat different philosophies. Slackware maintains a KISS philosophy and comes as a full system. It has its ncurses interface for installation. Some might find that helpful. Arch is purely CLI, so you need to know the commands (or write them down) to set the keyboard layout, set up a network connection, time/date, and so on. You build your Arch system from the ground up, but Pacman handles dependencies for you. Slackware comes as a full or minimal installation (or you can choose individual packages at the risk of breaking dependencies). Slackpkg does not handle dependencies for you. Both will require you to have some sense of what's going on under the hood. You'll need to edit config files and be a sysadmin of your own system.
Arch's package manager, pacman, manages dependencies for you and is quite robust. Arch is much simpler to run and maintain than Slackware, I think.
I never see Fedora recommended enough, but it's really good for beginners. And by that I mean people new to computers, not just Linux. GNOME is a good looking by default, intuitive to use, simple DE.
it wasn't my choice but i recently installed Fedora for a beginner. (They made their research, read about different distros and chose Fedora.) It was surprising to see how intuitive everything is. A beginner can indeed start using Fedora with no previous Linux experience.
By "beginner" i mean somebody who used one or some of these: windows, macos, ios and android. It's especially easy, i think, for tablet users.
GNOME is explicitly what kept me exclusively on Windows for about a decade - and what made me gunshy about Android & iOS. It's totally impossible to drive anything important, doing anything of value required a DOS prompt and arcane commands that had no relation to their exact counterpart in Windows, and it's just utterly revolting to me.
Cinnamon is the only DE that made me feel comfortable daily driving Linux.
I mean, you are right, and way more people should be using openSUSE :P
I will say Arch-derived distros are a good experience if you want to learn how the terminal and other systems work. They're engineered to be configurable; the documentation is great. But if you just want to use your computer without opening too many hoods, it's fundamentally not an optimal system.
Another thing is that many people just want their new laptop to work, and for it to game on linux. Sometimes it does not just work. If you start pulling in fixes and packages that are not supported on your distro, you can screw up any distro very quickly (and this includes the AUR, unofficial Fedora repos and such). If the community packages these, stages them, tests them against all official packages, and they work out-of-the-box... that's one less hazard.
Counterpoint: if you have the ability and willingness to learn how Linux works, un-fucking a broken Arch installation will teach you more about the system than spending months with a stable distro. I know because my first serious daily driver was Manjaro.
Counter-counter point: people don’t get a Mac or windows laptop to learn about osx or windows. They generally want to run software or at least browser to do what they need to do.
Counter-counterpoint: Newcomers have enough things to learn and worry about without having to worry about unfucking a broken Arch installation.
Agreed. I've learned most of what I know about computers by fixing broken stuff. Like you, my first serious daily driver was Manjaro. And after dealing with broken systems time and time again, I'm tired, boss. My daily driver for the last 2 years has been Mint and I love it to death for how stable and functional it is. But the lessons I learned along the way with other distros have been invaluable.
Honestly Arch is fine as a beginner distro for the right person - The benefit of arch is the rolling release model and the fact that it's closer to edge than other distros. No; I don't want to use that package that's 6 months out of date -- Compile it myself? Well, then why would I run a 'stable' distro then?
Someone being on Linux instead of Windows is enough of a win for me. I'm going to praise whatever way they want to approach it, none of this purism shit.
Likewise, SteamOS is based on Arch because of the way it's architected in the first place. It's fine to want that. Now...if this were Gentoo on the other hand...
Gentoo is great. If you want that level of control over your system. But it is not a beginner distro. There are too many nebulous choices and not enough clarity.
It's the best beginner distro for those beginners who want to learn about linux.
Just like the ocean is the best body of water for children who want to learn about swimming
I agree, there's a lot of people in this thread who seem to know exactly what is good or bad for a new user. But I don't see many being sensitive to what the user might actually want to achieve. New users are not a homogeneous group.
If the user wants to both use (stably) and learn (break stuff) simultaneously, I'd suggest that they start on debian but have a second disk for a dual boot / experimentation. I don't really use qemu much but maybe that's a good alternative these days. But within that I'd say set them self the challenge of getting a working arch install from scrath - following the wiki. Not from the script or endeavourOS - I think those are for 4th/5th install arch users.
I find it hard to believe that I'd have learned as much if ubuntu was available when I started. But I did dual boot various things with DOS / windows for years - which gave something stable, plus more of a sandbox.
I think the only universal recommedation for. any user, any distro, is "figure ourt a decent backup policy, then try to stick to it". If that means buy a cheap used backup pc, or raspberry pi and set it up for any tasks you depend on, then do that. and I'd probably pick debian on that system.
AMEN!
Fucking hell this is what I've been trying to hammer into people for a long time
If I hit my Alex Jones InfoVape™ hard enough I can probably weave a conspiracy theory on how Micro$oft started the "arch btw" meme in order to hurt Linux in the eyes of new users
I never saw what was so hard about arch. But not doing anything weird so maybe I missed all the bad stuff? Wiki is nice.
Nixos, now there's a distro for beginners, lol.
People want to switch from baguettes to bread. So they get flour, water, yeast and salt and are asked to bake their own bread. "I never saw what was so hard about baking bread, the seller says." Well the issue is not the difficulty of baking bread. They simply don't want to spend time baking bread. They are used to going to the store to buy an already baked baguette.
then someone comes along with a bread making robot. so convenient! unfortunately the documentation is on a 300 foot long paper scroll.
NixOS is theoretically great but fucking hell they need better docs.
People are recommending arch to beginners? This is genuinely the first time i hear of this trend and Ive been into linux for over 20 years now.
Not once have I heard arch pushed to beginners at my local LUG or any LUG ive attended in other cities or countries.
People usually recommended Ubuntu in the past or Mint. Occasionally Fedora. Then Elementary had some steam. Nowadays the landscape is much more diverse I think.
Maybe there is some folks on the internet who get a kick out of recommending hard things to people who need easy things. To gatekeep and create an exclusive feel. But i think if youre seeing that regularly then you need to reasses where youre spending time. Because core Linux culture has never been that since i can remember. We have always embraced that different distros are appropriate for different use cases. And that has always been our strength.
Unfortunately it's not, on Reddit and now on Lemmy I see lots of people recommending it, they think the installer is the problem so they recommend something that has a GUI installer but is Arch afterwards, without realizing that creates more problem than it solves. And when pressed they even say stuff like "I started with Arch and was fine".
Yeah that latter part of "it was easy for me" in particularly stinks of the elitist attitude i was mentioning. I think its a sign of someone thats not really trying to help but rather to make themselves seem smarter.
If you see lots of it here then I guess this post is fair. But i will standby my remark that if you're seeing a lot of this kind of mentality then you need to reasses where you are hanging out...
Maybe go to a local LUG instead. People are a bit more desperate to actually help others at those usually.
What the fuck are you on about? Jesus christ, we get ragebait in here too now?
Know your usecases. Thats it. Linux isn't hard if you do.
But no, let me recommend the jet engine service manual to my 6 year old that is learning to read. You're going to have a bad time.
For the record, since this post and most comments irked me, arch is fine. I'm using arch on my workstation/personal rig for years. Fedora on the laptop because I need a stable work thing. Alpine VMs on the homelab because it needs light and stable.
USECASES!
Exercise is fascism
If your distro can't be forked into a "beginner distro" then it's fundamentally flawed IMHO.
To be clear, I've used Arch as my daily drivers for a while, and while it's not the best fit for my needs (I use Debian mostly), there's nothing that I experienced that was incompatible with a "beginner" distro.
Arch can be forked into a beginner distro, just look at SteamOS, but one of the major advantages of Arch is the AUR and to be able to use it you have to have packages in the same (or similar) enough version to Arch, and THAT is not beginner friendly. But having an Arch fork that can't access the AUR loses most of the reason people would want to use Arch, so you end up with distros aimed at beginners that are also running bleeding edge packages which is a recipe for disaster.
Cachyos can access aur? Thats what Paru is for? I could be mistaken, still very new
I'm sure you could make a "beginner" Gentoo distro but it's really so counter to its purpose I don't see it happening.
(something something ChromeOS)
Haha yeah that was the counter example I was thinking of. I agree completely --- you could make a Gentoo from source beginner distro, and I think you could make it reasonably "idiot proof," but it would still be a bad user experience most likely (too much time spent compiling).
This is funny. I feel like I see a "which arch is better" post almost everyday now.
A lot of people I think would be well suited to be on Bluefin or Bazzite. I really can't sing the praises of it enough. It has a ton of well developed resources and the Appstore is flatpak centric. It really does give you that ChromeOS like experience for the average user.
End users should really be nowhere near package management. They should just be able to run the apps they want and expect them to work.
My job is literally to make Linux distros using Yocto for various boards. I'm constantly writing new build scripts or updating build scripts, debugging the kernel/systemd/glibc and whatever libraries are on the system.
All of my work and personal desktops run some version of Fedora Atomic or a uBlue variant right now.
With distrobox/toybox/brew and using podman/docker/KVM+qemu, even as a tinkerer, it's great
Not sure about forks, but I agree with what you said before.
Manjaro is great.
Clearly you've never used it for an extended period, or If you have you never installed packages from the AUR.
I mean, Manjaro wasthe first distro I truly used regularly.
But I'm no stranger to command lines, so there's that.
I was one of the lucky users who used Manjaro on my old laptop for over a year and never had any real problems.
I was very confused when I started getting more involved in the Linux community and kept hearing about how terrible Manjaro was.
For me, vanilla Fedora has actually been the most consistently problematic distro. I've had more random issues getting it set up and working properly than any other distro.
God bless Mint though, it has been basically flawless for years.
I think that one's experience with Manjaro is often heavily dependent on how many AUR packages one has installed. Were you using many AUR packages?
Manjaro was my first distro for a year and it was fine. The occasional AUR dependency blockage was irritating for me but did not break anything.
Man, I'm just glad to finally see someone else saying they have issues with Fedora. Everyone seems to think it's amazing and stable but it never lasts more than a few months for me. I don't do any tinkering or hacking or anything, just web browsing, Python coding, some light gaming with Steam. Arch and Debian both hold up great for me doing the same stuff.
And I started with Gentoo...
did it go well? I have been running gentoo for a month and think I'm done distro hooping but holy hell it took me multiple attempts to properly install it.
That was in 2004. So yeah, it went well, as I'm still running Gentoo.
The installation went ok, but it took ages. I had Compaq Armada E500: Single core 900MHz Pentium III and 256MB of RAM. I had help from my friend who explained in detail what we were doing and why during the installation process.
Next time I needed to install Gentoo I did it by my self. I had the Gentoo Handbook open on other machine and I followed it carefully. I was surprised by how smoothly the install went.
Few weeks ago I once again installed Gentoo onto a new machine. 36-cores (two Xeons) and 256GB of RAM. It's always funny to compare how much more powerful my newest machine is compared to my first Gentoo machine. ;)
Oh and welcome to Gentoo. ;) If you need any help the forums are a great place to ask.
P.S.: A great username btw. 😁
it's a good beginner distro because getting thrown into deep water is how one learns to swim.
archinstallmakes it easy enough to install. some configuration may be needed, but that's the point of Arch as a learning process! still, i'd recommend Fedora, Tumbleweed, or even Debian (it's out of date but some people prefer UIs that don't change very often and it still offers 32-bit for your grandpa and his old laptop that's now too slow for Windows 10/11) over Arch.Arch is good for beginner sysadmins/programmers/CS students. Fedora and Tumbleweed for enthusiasts who want the latest software but aren't trying to be that hardcore. Debian for people who have old laptops and only want to learn GNOME/XFCE once and never have to re-learn it with every update.
Gentoo is a good example of a distro that's absolutely not for beginners. Arch, on the other hand, really isn't all that bad.
it’s a good beginner distro because getting thrown into deep water is how one learns to swim
That's... not how it works, for distros or for actual swimming. Usually when someone who can't swim is thrown into deep water, they drown and/or reinstall Windows which is much the same thing.
I don't think archinstall is drowning sysadmins/programmers/CS students. What it will do is teach them to swim.
it's a good beginner distro because getting thrown into deep water is how one learns to swim.
It's exactly like getting thrown into the deep end, if you don't know how to swim you'll drown. No one learns to swim by getting thrown to the deep end, and you're more likely to have a bad experience and be discouraged from trying it again.
For people who are beginners when it comes to computers in general, yeah. But for people who are new to GNU/Linux but experienced with CS/math, it'll really not be that hard to run archinstall and configure from there. It's not that different than many other distros, which also have an installer and then post-install configuration to contend with. I'd just argue arch has newer packages and better documentation which some beginners (in the sense they're coming from macOS/Windows but know how basic software concepts) might appreciate.
As someone who wanted to jump in with both feet on my journey to using more than just Windows & mobile OSes, I actually started from Arch. Well, sort of. If you have a beginner who wants to try Linux and actually wants to know the discomfort they'll experience, give them Archbang.
It works on very basic hardware requirements, does very well as a live distro, and was honestly an important step in my personal journey that has ended me up in a place where I keep two systems - one with Windows 10, and a separate computer with Linux Mint.
Obviously, I'm not in the place many people are. But I just wanted to toss in my 2 cents. Arch itself is not for beginners. Archbang can be, especially if you have a user who's open to a live distro and doesn't want to try dual-booting yet (and only has one computer). I think that the project deserves more visibility and support than it gets.
Oh man that original image always sets me off, every single time. It's so funny. The way the bear POV is just this absolutely mental canid abomination is just too funny, goes against the notion that the wolf should be afraid and creating comedy therein with subverted expectations.
I've been using Garuda, and though I'm not a beginner, it's been great. It's a simpler experience than I had with Fedora, and better than Mint or Ubuntu, though those were about a decade ago. Arch is a fantastic base. Pure Arch is probably bad for beginners, but there are great Arch-based distros out there. SteamOS as another example of this. This post is bad.
Those guys should just role with a Tumbleweed
No scary terminal required
Just do not get scared by YaST
And don’t forget Packman repo
And always use either flatpak or search here to find “single click” file that needs to be double clicked (lol) to install it using YaST
Debian is the best distro for newbies, it may require setup and reading some documentation but afterwards you get a stable distro.
Stable doesn't mean what you think it means. Stable means not updated.
i wouldn't wish apt on my enemies. terrible habits with all the ppas and piping curl to bash in every forum post
I literally consider Debian to be less functionally stable than arch because of Apt. I've had apt completely eviscerate systems and then just bail out leaving you with a system that has a completely empty /bin with seemingly no easy way to recover.
Meanwhile pacman has literally never done that, and even on systems that became horrifically broken due to literal data corruption I was able to just chroot in, download a static built pacman, and reinstall all native packages with a single command... It's nuts how much more reliable and repairable arch ia but people act like it's frail just because it gets updates more than once every century
Debian stable is always outdated and testing is not stable enough. I think Debian is good for servers but not for desktop.
Newbies can not handle apt and just random deb they find in the internet and wonder why linux is so tedious to update
Most noobs I know did not understand what repo management means and are just copy pasting terminal cammands like a madlad or running random bash script with sudo because the developer thought it was the easiest way to get noobs to add their repo
I prefer giving noobs a single place of truth, if no flatpak available, like:
https://software.opensuse.org/packages
Or
AUR
That very setup is why I do not recommend it to newbies who don't have someone experienced around. Debian, even Debian 12, is not holding your hand and directing you. You'll have to figure a lot out by yourself, and this adds to the steep learning curve.
Also, a very slow update cycle means the newbie will be stuck with outdated packages (sure, flatpaks are there, but the base system will be old, like, very old). And new hardware might face issues.
To me, the perfect pipeline is something like Linux Mint, then Fedora, then either Arch derivatives or Debian, depending on what serves you best. Alternatively, if you don't mind some challenge after an easy entry, start out with Manjaro and then get another Arch. But that one's more controversial.
I use Debian on a regular basis and have for years, but I wouldn't recommend it as the starting distro unless I knew that the user would have very ordinary hardware and no special software needs. It's just annoying if you have to learn how to install Chrome, or your wireless drivers, for example.
It's almost simple enough, but not quite, in my view. But if I were helping them get it installed, then after that they would probably be good to go.
It's a really simple system meant to 'just work' and provides an idiot sheet you can copy and paste from for those who don't ever want to RTFM
as long as the system isn't doing anything important Arch is great for noobs fucking around, it's high grade spoonfeeding and doing what you are told.
Power users use RHEL, Ubuntu, Gentoo. Governments, armies, tech giants and that kinda stuff, Arch is more for newbies karma farming on r/unixporn for lolz
I'm pretty sure "Power users" don't use Ubuntu.
I dunno, I used ubuntu (or some flavor of it) for 15 years before Arch. I will say that the first time I installed Arch, I did it solely to prove to myself that I could. After that, I fell in love with it as a daily driver for a lot of reasons. The AUR is a big one, and the fact that it's so well documented also helps. But really, once it's installed, Arch isn't any more complicated than any other distro to keep running.
I did switch to EndeavourOS, though, because once one has installed Arch the "Arch way" a few times I don't reallly see any benefit in doing it again.
Mamma says you're ornery bcz you have all them teeth and no toothbrush.
Very bad post. And Tumbleweed has OBS (Open Build Systems), although I dont even know if that is the right name for its AUR equivalent.
The package manager way of delivering distro management, updates and upgrades is an archaic and dumb idea. Doomed to fail since inception and the reason Linux never broke the 1% of users in forever. It's a bad model.
Atomic and immutable distribution of an OS is the preferred and successful model for the average user who wants a PC to be a tool and not a hobby on itself. I don't think the traditional package manager will ever go away. But there are alternatives now.
Wait, immutable distribution don't have a packet manager? But you can still install flatpaks?
They still do. But projects like bluefin are striving to get rid of it entirely. Flatpak installation is not package management, they are containerized applications.
Larger downstream distros like manjaro (and steamOS for that matter) can be stable. I wouldn’t call manjaro a beginners distro though, like mint would be (No Linus, there’s no apt in manjaro) but it’s very daily-driveable.
Although, if you’re most people, just stay away from rolling release distros. There’s so little benefit unless you’re running bleeding edge hardware…
If it‘s your first time trying linux, go with mint. It’s stable and almost every tutorial will work for you. If you know your way around a terminal already, the choice is all yours. I personally like Fedora.
this guy is so damn right i cant argue. arch isnt hard to use, whats hard is experiencing different things and learning
Arch is good but tbh if you arent prepared for having to keep everything up to date and if ur a beginner in general u are not gonna have a good time
Arch users are the sanctimonious vegans of the linux world. Bacon is delicious, and you are not special.
Damn why did you have to bring vegans into this lol
Because vegan bashing and arch bashing have in common having broadly stupid opinions ;)
My other thought was "obnoxious American tourists," but the bacon thing sealed it.
I can not agree more not everyone that uses arch is like this but every one of the Linux users that wants to be elitist about their distro runs arch based on how hard it is.
If you want to be low level to learn you run Linux from scratch. If you want bleeding edge you run tumbleweed or debian sid. If you want to run a distro that is only mildly harder to configure than a debian bootstrap install but less hard than running debian or redhat back in the 90s just for bragging rights you run arch.
I pretty much just don't help arch and arch derivatives users any more despite using it for over a decade now. It's not worth the time nor effort.