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?
-
They have linux versions?
-
I said its easy to pirate on other os not that they arent available on linux?
-
Thats not a strange issue, shits expensive, ppl pirate, lemmydbzer0 is here for a reason
-
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.
-
I don't think arch does much to make commandline easier to use it understand - instead I'd say it aims to teach you how to use it, because it might be easier than you realize, but importantly it tries to tell you why. Instead of just giving you the command to run, the wiki explains various details of software, and the manual installation process tells you which components you need without forcing a specific choice. As a result, hopefully after using arch you'll know how your system works, how to tweak it, and how to fix issues - not necessarily by knowing how to fix each individual issue, but by understanding what parts of your system are responsible and where to look.
-
That’s still exactly what I meant? Sure, arch may never break even though it’s unstable but it being unstable heightens the risk of it (or some program) breaking due to changing library versions breaking dependencies.
Dependency issues happen much more rarely on stable systems. That’s why it’s called stable. And I very much prefer a system that isn’t likely to create dependency issues and thus break something when I update anything.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I would, however, recommend Arch if you're a Linux novice looking to learn about Linux in a more accelerated pace.
-
AFAIK no systemd -> no flatpak -> don't recommend to newbs. Say what you will about flatpak, but it is the official distribution method for some popular pieces of software and large GUI software generally works better through it (in my experience) - think Blender, GIMP etc.
-
If you have multiple monitors with different refresh rates, you'll notice immediately.
-
I would argue Gentoo is better suited for that. It is just compilation that can take a long time.
-
No, you're still not understanding, say libX current version is 1.2.3 and we have two distros A (a stable distro) and B (an unstable distro). libX now releases 2.0.0, A remains on 1.2.3 B moves to 2.0.0. libX now releases 1.2.4 which despite being just a patch breaks everything. A update and breaks, B does not.
Stable just means stable API, it says nothing about system breakage. System breakage can happen regardless of stable API, and it's up to distro managers to not release a package that breaks their diatro, and the Arch ones are excellent at their job. An update breaking Arch is as likely to happen as on Ubuntu, but an upgrade on Arch can break other stuff which on Ubuntu can only happen when doing a version upgrade.
-
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.
-
Ok, so arch doesn’t break because it’s unstable, it just breaks anyways. And it doesn’t break more in general, it just breaks worse more often. Got it.
I’ll still stay away from the bleeding edge.
-
I stopped using grub after that pain in the ass
-
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.
-
How so? I see plenty of posts by folks who recently switched from Windows, and I imagine the ones who are willing to take that leap in the first place lean towards the more tech-literate side.
"Willing to learn" is more subjective, perhaps, but I do not think my case is that uncommon.
-
Well that is fair and I am very glad that Linux still offers you what you need and that you are fine with using X and have (still) more compatibility like this
-
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.
