Indeed, besides most linux distributions are fairly equally lightweight and can be customized. I tried 4-5 distros this past January (Arch being one) when I got my new gaming laptop and they all booted in ~9.5 sec for example, and perform equally well in general, they had fairly similar RAM load with the same desktop environment.
Arch is about managing the system as a hobby, which is fine.
One problem here is that new users install Endeavour/Garuda but don't know how to manage updates safely about pacnew/pacsave/etc. So the system might slowly "rot" without them knowing about it because new components use old configs, etc..
I also recommend Mint to new users. I don't use Mint, nor do I use Arch.
Tbf I don't think many people know about pacdiff. The way I found out about it was by looking up a warning about pacnew/pacsave during an upgrade, because I was bored. Very random.
As a seasoned distrohopper, can confirm. When I try something new, I always ask myself: Would a noob be ok with the fact that in this distro you have to do things this way. In Fedora, Debian, Manjaro and so many other I always end up saying “no” more than a few times. With Mint, you just don’t bump into these situations very often. IMO, Mint is the best starter distro for most users. If you know your friend is very technical, you can recommend something else.
I finally tried out Linux Mint this year at work (we use Fedora for some of our different tasks). It arms like such a nice experience out of the box, and I’d put it on a family computer in a second.
Isn't archwiki one of the most comprehended wikis for Linux distros out there? If anything, the arch-wiki (to me) has often too many answers for the same problem than the other way around.
I switched like ten years ago because I wanted to learn the details, but in all honesty I still feel like I barely understand anything. Not sure how normal this is, maybe I'm unusually dumb, but I feel like what I've really learned is how to troubleshoot and solve issues by reading documentation and tinkering, rather than understanding what I'm actually doing. I've had a stable system for years but I kind of feel like if a typical arch forum poster looked my system configuration for five minutes they'd be like wtf are you doing.
It is most comprehended, but for newbie it is too comprehensive. Its overwhelming, I tried to troubleshoot why I boot to black screen even the installation said its successful and there's no error. I saw solutions that want me edit grub, edit xorg ... and some other file that I never understand.
I understand the wiki is very good and very important, its just not newbie friendly.
The Arch wiki is one of the most impressive documentation resources I've seen and I've only [needed to] scrape the surface so far. Almost every minor unexpected issue I ran into along the way had a detailed solution and the only issue I haven't been able to resolve is getting all the buttons on my mouse to work...but did find out it's Logitech's weird receiver codes that are the issue and they don't release drivers for Linux.
A lot of new users are coming to Linux not because they like tinkering with their setup but because they are tired of Microsoft tinkering with their setup. For these people Arch will probably never be the answer. That's ok, we should encourage all Linux adoption and the best way to do that is to start with the simple and familiar.
I mean, who doesn't love to have candy crush and facebook automatically bundled with their OS? I mean, I had a fantastic two years waiting for the never combine taskbar feature to be released. The never-ending prompt to make edge my default browser is also utterly refreshing. m$ is so ahead of the game, they even anticipated my needs by shoving onedrive prompts in my control panel. How about that Office 365? Have you tried it yet? No? Well you're missing out my man, in case you change your mind I'm going to put it right there in the front page of settings so you'll never miss it.
I switched a few weeks ago, it was because my computer is slower than a toaster and windows was tanking it down even more I installed xubuntu, well I must say it's ok, after I finished setting stuff up I realised I should've just gone for debian with xfce (I tried to install kubuntu-deskop on my xubuntu installation just to try how would kde run on my pc, it ran as well as windows did, but was just a tiny tiny bit faster, the way I installed it was probably bad and it could've been the way I installed it tho)
And yeah, I definitely love tinkering with stuff so this wasthe obvious choice
heres the thing: as a decade+ software dev, I never want to even think about my distro.
I just want Linux terminal style commands, and Linux style ssh shit to just work in the most middle of the road way as possible. I'm trying to get a job done, not build a personality.
I used Arch for AUR, but with flatpak getting more popular these last few years even the more niche stuff I had to rely on AUR for got a flatpak. So I've been trying out immutable distros like Fedora Kinoite.
I only ever have Mac stuff from employers, but it is nice hardware and linux-like enough for me to be happy.
Probably also helps Mac that every windows machines provided by an employer is some random HP buttbook that looks and preforms like it could be from 2021 or 2012, who knows
?? The arch wiki is one of the greatest Linux resources out there. Sure there may be situations where it doesn't have the answer for something, but for a new user? It has all bases covered.
It's actually really great.. if you know how to interpret and apply the information on it to your situation and adapt as needed. A good new user experience it does not make however.
On one hand, the archlinux bbs had the only exact reference to the issue I was having. On the other hand, no one could replicate it enough to figure anything out. :/
Ex arch btw user here. I noped out and wiped after thinking I had it all nailed down, then I tried to connect my Bluetooth headphones and I came to a grand awakening. I am too old for this shit.
Its probably just one package. I guess for example pacman -S plasma-desktop plasma-meta flatpak fish plasma-wayland-session sddm sddm-kcm && systemctl enable --now sddm does the trick.
Archinstall with the entire plasma desktop is probably also nice, or just EndeavorOS which will be preconfigured
I actually did the whole KDE shebang with archinstall. I never really expected that Arch btw deigned it too opinionated to just provide an audio and Bluetooth interface. Instead I have to choose between pulse audio and pipewire and bluez and a bunch of others. I just didn’t have the patience nor time to look into what and why these options are presented, and this was after I already wasted days figuring how to get my pc to boot with my 12th gen Intel and Nvidia gpu combination.
Turns out there’s a bunch of kernel finagling you absolutely have to do first before it even decides to boot from the gpu and not the igpu. Oh well.
For a total newbie, probably Linux Mint or PopOS are the best options. But EndeavourOS is getting there. There shouldn't be any issues during the installation if one sticks to the defaults. Only thing is, it doesn't come with a graphical package manager out of the box. But once that is installed (I think anyone will be happy to write a single terminal command, at least), I don't see why it's any harder to use than any other distro.
Mint, with any DE, does come with a graphical package manager. It's as easy as any appstore. The only confusion is it suggests both it's original and flatpack versions to install.
I use Ubuntu. It generally tends to be boring stable, which is kinda what I want out of my OS these days. I can still customize it, and even break it if I really get bored, but it's nice to have things just work for the most part.
I had a friend who wanted to try linux but insisted on arch because it's what I used at the time even though I said they shouldn't and gave many suggestions for better distros. They gave up after about a day and went back to windows. I don't know what they expected, multiple people warned them not to use arch.
My IT Bros said the same back when I had to choose W10 or Linux, they haven't used arch and I had 0 Linux experience. I messed up every single step of the installation to a point where I knew from the problems I created what I did wrong. After many tries and a week later I had a working installation with dual boot. Never used windows and removed it a year later. It was rough but I learned how to recover from most errors a user can create.
If learning is the goal arch and arch-wiki is great.
I've been off windows for a long time, and when I was forced to use it, it was enterprise, locked down and stripped by knowledgeable IT teams.
Yesterday, I had my first exposure to Win 11 S mode. What a piece of crap. Not just the way its locked down, but the incessant Onedrive ads, broken settings app with missing features, AI buzzword addons, sloppy UI and general lack of control over your own computer.
Recommending my friend install Linux ASAP with my support. Nobody should have to endure that much cruft and garbage on their owned computer. They can't even install software outside of the MS store? Gross.
Oh yeah no I was not at all saying windows was better, I was just saying arch was definitely not a good distribution for beginners and it was weird how one just insisted on using it. I use arch on my laptop and opensuse tumbleweed on my desktop and have not used windows for anything serious in years because it is so unbearable.
I love Arch but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. In my eyes, the only way one should choose Arch is despite all warnings against it, because they feel confident enough to deal with all the problems they encounter.
Honestly I've had so little trouble with arch compared to other things, so I would definitely recommend it to experienced linux users, just definitely not unexperienced users. The aur is amazing and rolling release means you don't have to deal with the horrors of major updates breaking packages. OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is also a great candidate though for people who don't want to set as many things up themself, I'm currently using both arch and tumbleweed on different computers
Bruh, if you're going to insist on someone installing arch, at least sit by their side and walk them through it.
Having installed arch multiple times before, I can get a base system with networking and desktop environment up in half a day to a day depending on which DE.
I'm not saying it's particularly fast, but having someone who knows what they are doing drastically reduces the time.
I could probably make it quicker if I set up a bunch of scripts for initial installation.
That said the whole point of arch is DIY, lightweight - people forget the kinda of people arch is for, then complain about how long it takes to install. If you complain about install times, then the distro is not for you. (For more about the point of arch, see the arch way https://principles.design/examples/the-arch-way)
But it can be a great platform for learning about the inner workings of your typical Linux system, and that's why it's great. If you're willing to learn and look things up it can be the best option.
If you want it here and now with no fuss ,it's the third worst system to use- followed by Gentoo and lastly, LFS.
And heck once it's installed you can be as pedantic or as lazy as you want - my main system has had the same install of arch for multiple years - it's a mess and I havent really maintained it well, I just fix it when it breaks and use it like a regular system. It's just the set up process that takes the most effort.
Or, just use Endeavor OS and be done with it. It uses the Upstream repositories, the only thing in their customer repositories are some desktop wallpapers and a theme so you can safely remove it without breaking anything. It's a great way to get a base system in a known good configuration up quickly and from there the arch Wiki can help you tweak things to your desire it's a much better way to learn than just throwing someone into the deep end of the pool
A Debian blend like SpiralLinux might be better for less technical people. Debian is one of my favorite distros but it's pretty bare bones and requires some configuration to become an everday usage desktop.
The only problem here is that snapshots (and btrfs for that matter) are not the default behaviour. I would really appreciate Endeavour having this as the default setup. It is very likely what you'd want.
I don't get the hate arch gets - it's the perfect distro if you want to choose what programs you want to use, it's not meant to be an out of the box experience. Been using it for 3 years, and sure it might take me a couple of hours to set up initially, but after that I don't really have to do anything.
I fully agree that it's bad for users who aren't that tech-savvy, but I meant it in a more general sense - during my time on Lemmy I've seen a ton of posts bashing arch and commenters pretty much calling it a "good for nothing distro", with the only more hated distro being Manjaro.
I think Arch kind of deserves the hate it gets. I love barebones distros and have been a gentoo user (now on NixOS), and I’ve used arch a fair bit too… I just don’t feel like Arch is a well maintained distribution. There’s all sorts of little things that they can’t seem to get right that other distros do, like that silly issue where they won’t update the arch keyring first, so if you haven’t updated in a while it breaks. In my experience there’s a million little paper cuts like this and I’ve just been kind of unimpressed. If it works for you that’s great! I’ve just been disappointed with it. I get the niche that it fills as the binary “from scratch” rolling release distro, but I think the experience with it is a little rough. I’ve found gentoo more user friendly, which probably sounds bizarre if you haven’t used gentoo, but ignoring compiling stuff, gentoo does an excellent job of not breaking things on updates, and it’s much easier to pin and install specific versions of packages and stuff.
@Chobbes
Looks like you haven't been using Arch for quite some time now. That used to be the case, nowdays it's way better experience. I've been using Arch for about 11 yrs now and I can see that improvement is noticable. Still not THE BEST, but waaaay better.
I have not used it for a long time but it's really easy to fuck the install and potentially your entire system, depending on the fuckup(s).
As a matter of fact, that is exactly why I used it the first time : since it's a nice lightweight distro and it has some interesting gotchas regarding installation, our sysadmin teacher had us all install it and set it up before we could actually use our distro of choice
It's a great distro to learn a lot about Linux. I challenged myself to install it on my Surface Go 2, and make it usable as a tablet, as well as make it boot with secure boot and more. Now it's happily running Arch with KDE, using the linux-surface kernel signed with my own secure boot key and a pacman hook that signs that kernel after every update.
I learned all of this acompanied by a lot of fuckups and reinstalls, until I was able to fix things after breaking them instead of starting from scratch.
Moved from Fedora > Arch > Manjaro > Fedora > Debian.
I consider Arch for learning purposes. For troubleshooting / recoveries , that knowledge will be a great help.
Arch is great, but I'm too lazy to learn how to set it up. Once it's running I think Arch is amazing. I just use Garuda Linux and love it. The Arch wiki is an amazing ressource.
15 minutes from booting the ISO to a Plasma installation is probably average. There are probably people who've done speed runs in 5 minutes. archinstall has gotten so good.
Trying to install a lot of shit, primarily. I figured out that a lot of programs that I wanted were only available (to my knowledge) in .deb format which I couldn't get working in the distro, That and I'm still not used to using the terminal to install anything. Literally the only thing I miss from Windows is using wizards to install things. I understand a lot of this is purely skill issue though.
I Arched for like 4 years or so, and now I NixOS. Got somewhat tired of modifying configs in 100500 places and eventually forgetting what exactly I've changed 😅
Nevertheless, I still think arch is great, and, as a side note, it does provide a good understanding of Linux on the upper-low level (not like LFS or even gentoo, but still very much viable).
About 3, idk what's going on with my system, but sometimes after a big yay update, the kde login fails (something about the plasma environment failing to boot or idk I have not debugged it correctly yet), then after a reboot systemd-boot fails to load it and the efi entry dissapears. I'm forced to arch-chroot and reinstall the bootctl. After doing so, sometimes I have to do it again and other times it logs correctly.
Again, not debugged it correctly but it's not like I did any kind of weird change to any config, just installed some flatpaks, some steam games, and lutris for League, which in the end is basically wine, and a yay update provoking this behaviour is pretty bad.
I've personally encountered mentioned behavior with kde on both arch and kde neon, so I'm inclined to think it's their f-up. As for sd-boot, I'm not sure: I've used it on arch for a short while only, and then just ditched bootloaders altogether for efistub
I could say inability to edit a config file is worth reevaluating of what is a failed piece of garbage here... But it won't be fair. If you don't want to deal with configs, go ahead and use chromeos or something :P
I've kind of come and gone full circle on this one. It fits in the same space as the terminal, way more useful when you know what you want.
Some config files are a lot easier to get the behavior I want, but editing a poorly formatted (or in some some cases pointlessly complicated) config is a quick nope out.
I've got two Linux boxes that I got new, different, wifi cards for recently. Turns out both those cards have the same Intel AX200 chip which has had a variety of problems causing frequent dropouts that the community has slowly nutted out since I've had them, including requiring a kernel patch.
The two big ones are a faulty default power saving mode, and problems talking to a Wireless n router when in WiFi 5 mode.
My Ideapad Gaming 3 with a 3060 didn't have Wifi working out of the box.
For awhile I had to install a kernel module everytime I updated Linux to get Wifi working. Thankfully I found what I needed on Github the day I got the laptop.
I'm wondering why "I use Funtoo btw" didn't become a meme, and arch did. Gentoo is objectively better at letting the user customise everything compared to arch
I'm pretty sure it's because less people use it. They make fun of Gentoo taking longer to compile stuff on install/update, but that's pretty fast nowadays. What really takes up time is making all the choices. I remember hours of selecting obscure kernel options and choosing use flags "what is ncurses? Do i need ncurses? What is sdl? Do i need sdl? ..." I mostly use Ubuntu now, because I got no more time for that.
I honestly had no idea how to do use flags and just gave up on gentoo since a lot of things I wanted to install needed me to tinker with them somehow, but I might try again later on.
There are binary versions of heavy stuff at least. Although, yeah, it kinda becomes tedious once you get into more or less obscure options... Mine was compiling everything with musl (for some reason)
Once you learn about Linux, you go faster than any other noob. And that is very useful for programming/hacking jobs, faster than all those noobs with 0 knowledge about what is what.
Archintstall sometimes produces problems(at least I had problems with it). Make sure that you have the current iso version of arch on your stick and try again.
The problem I was facing was manually creating partitions. Should I use Gparted to make them first and then use archinstall, or does it not work with manual partitions?
I'm on like day 2 of Garuda. Ran into corrupted packages during the install which wasn't fun, but it's up and running now. I'm hoping that maintaining it isn't as much of a time suck as it sounds like pure Arch is.
My brother is a Linux first-timer, and he specifically asked me to install Debian after I explained that it's stability-focused, but as such sacrifices functional updates and is only globally updated once every two years.
Some people need latest and greatest (i.e. here's your Arch), some need stability over everything (i.e. here's your Debian), some don't need extremes and strike a balance somewhere in between (i.e. everything else).
I use Manjaro (Arch-based) on main PC and Debian on a work laptop. Main PC should better enjoy all the benefits of all things new (while standing a week or two behind bleeding-edge to not cut itself, which is Manjaro's selling point) while work laptop is mission critical and can work perfectly fine with what Debian has to offer, so, Debian it is.
So if someone starts using EndeavorOS daily, can they claim to be an arch user?
Edit: I'm now wiping my laptop clean and using it as my daily driver from now on. This is probably my first experience with Plasma, and I am loving it way more than gnome so far.
Yup my best Plasma experience was on Manjaro, Arch based KDE is just good. But actually modern KDE at all is just good, so no Kubuntu or damn MXLinux XD
Oh my God the more I use it the more amazing it is already. The customization in the Plasma appearance settings is exactly what I've missed this whole time. I feel like I've wasted all these years now. Better late than never I s'pose.
My first ever distro was EndeavourOS. I installed it when I was 13 or 14 years old because someone on reddit said it's customizable. I never felt like I need to switch to anything else.
I often use Arch in a container, when I need a fhs distro. EndeavourOS is great for desktop use if you don't want to go through the Arch install process.
DeltaChat is an awesome messenger. It's federated, quick and simple to use.
Also, I didn't realize DC was on the fediverse for so many years.
Arch Linux with NVIDIA is definitely not great for newbies, especially for people who can't keep up with the distro. If left unupdated for too long, your system may break. Even if you update every day, you could break something. You just never win with a rolling release distro like this. My only saving grace is that I run with an AMD gpu and so far, that thing has just worked.
My tip for anyone switching to Linux is to switch to AMD. Even if NVIDIA is better overall for performance and features, even if the last time you tried AMD on your windows system it was slow and a bit buggy, on Linux, AMD just works, without extra steps.
My point is less that leaving Arch alone breaks things and more that updating after a really long time can break something. It also kinda defeats the point of using a rolling release distro. I can see how you thought i was spreading misinformation though. My bad for poor wording.
That reminds me, some time ago I tried installing Garuda on a Ryzen 5800H based mini PC but there where so many issues (namely worrisome graphical artefacting, which has never occurred with other distros on the same mini PC) I had to abort and abandon trying it until maybe the next or a future release.
I simply wanted to check out Garuda (arch based, if I recall well). I used the Cinnamon iso with Ventoy (not sure where the issue arose from).
That's weird. I have had zero issues with it so far (talking about distro specific issues) and I am running this with an AMD APU, Nvidia GPU, prime offloading on wayland. Works like an absolute charm. Though granted, this isn't quite out of the box, you may not need to be a wizard to figure it out, but I would not recommended this to a noob.
People try to use Manjaro as Arch when it isn't Arch. Manjaro has it's own repositories that may not match Arch version. You install an AUR package that depends on an up to date Arch package to work and it fails.