Linux

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?

Thanks! Found Garuda is from this thread! You're a real one!

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.

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.

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.

Petulant counterpoint: SteamOS 3.0 is based on Arch and is a good newbie distro

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.

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.

Tbh I think endeavor os is a pretty nice beginner way to get into arch--it was my introduction to arch and the aur.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The install guide is not 50 pages-long, common!

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.

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.

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 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.

Mint has been nice