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?
-
That's arguable, but I get where you're coming from.
-
i wouldn't wish apt on my enemies. terrible habits with all the ppas and piping curl to bash in every forum post
-
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Debian stable is always outdated and testing is not stable enough. I think Debian is good for servers but not for desktop.
-
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.
-
Mint has worked consistently for me on the PC it's installed on.
-
Windows 10 doesn’t feel like a modern OS…
-
Just like the ocean is the best body of water for children who want to learn about swimming
-
Stable doesn't mean what you think it means. Stable means not updated.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm not sure a newcomer will notice the difference between xorg and wayland?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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
-
The install guide is not 50 pages-long, common!
