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)
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.
-
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 computer 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.
just because a given person could make it work, doesnt mean they want to. i personally can fix a lot of these issues, but i dont wanna have to bother. i just want to accomplish the inane bullshit and shitposting i turned my computer on for.
i just think an arch recommendation should always come with that disclaimer.
-
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)
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.
-
MX is better than Mint.
That's arguable, but I get where you're coming from.
-
Debian is the best distro for newbies, it may require setup and reading some documentation but afterwards you get a stable distro.
i wouldn't wish apt on my enemies. terrible habits with all the ppas and piping curl to bash in every forum post
-
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
wayland is still too unstable for me to recommend. what is clunky about xorg?
-
wayland is still too unstable for me to recommend. what is clunky about xorg?
Do you use a modern kernel? And, do you use a multi touch trackpad?
That only works on wayland well.I personally see the difference in for example window movement Xorg VS wayland. And I have more artefacts from window manager if use Xorg BS when O use wayland.
-
Debian is the best distro for newbies, it may require setup and reading some documentation but afterwards you get a stable distro.
Debian stable is always outdated and testing is not stable enough. I think Debian is good for servers but not for desktop.
-
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.
-
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
Mint has worked consistently for me on the PC it's installed on.
-
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.
Windows 10 doesn’t feel like a modern OS…
-
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
-
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.
-
Windows 10 doesn’t feel like a modern OS…
Then whatever a modern OS is under your model is not an OS I'm willing to use. I've seen Win 11. I'm going to stick with 10, as I stuck with XP through Vista, had a second machine with 7 through 8(.x), and then surrendered and used Win10 when the 32-bit Win7 machine finally stopped working for love or money.
-
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.
-
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
I'm not sure a newcomer will notice the difference between xorg and wayland?
-
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)
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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, ...
One 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.
-
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)
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 but 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".
