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?
-
I agree, there's a lot of people in this thread who seem to know exactly what is good or bad for a new user. But I don't see many being sensitive to what the user might actually want to achieve. New users are not a homogeneous group.
If the user wants to both use (stably) and learn (break stuff) simultaneously, I'd suggest that they start on debian but have a second disk for a dual boot / experimentation. I don't really use qemu much but maybe that's a good alternative these days. But within that I'd say set them self the challenge of getting a working arch install from scrath - following the wiki. Not from the script or endeavourOS - I think those are for 4th/5th install arch users.
I find it hard to believe that I'd have learned as much if ubuntu was available when I started. But I did dual boot various things with DOS / windows for years - which gave something stable, plus more of a sandbox.
I think the only universal recommedation for. any user, any distro, is "figure ourt a decent backup policy, then try to stick to it". If that means buy a cheap used backup pc, or raspberry pi and set it up for any tasks you depend on, then do that. and I'd probably pick debian on that system.
-
Counter-counterpoint: Newcomers have enough things to learn and worry about without having to worry about unfucking a broken Arch installation.
-
every one of the Linux users that wants to be elitist about their distro runs arch based on how hard it is.
Which always makes me laugh because I use Arch mainly because I'm a lazy ass and want something easy to maintain.
-
It's about as unhinged as someone assembling their own bicycle really. Most people (well, in a reasonably bikeable place, i.e. not in the US) just use their bikes for commuting or whatever, and don't want to assemble a bike (I sure don't). Some people like tinkering with their bikes though. That's totally fine.
If you're not prepared to get your hands dirty, don't buy bike parts you have to assemble yourself. And don't install Arch. You are correct in the assessment that Arch isn't for you (or me).
There are bicycle repair shops, but there are no Arch repair shops. You have to be able to fix it yourself. OP is correct: Don't recommend Arch to people who can't do that. Recommend something that doesn't push bleeding edge untested updates on its users, because it will break and the user will have to fix it themself.
tl;dr: Arch existing is fine, in the same way any tinker hobby is fine. What is not fine is telling people to use it that just want to get work done or won't know how to fix it.
-
it's a good beginner distro because getting thrown into deep water is how one learns to swim.
It's exactly like getting thrown into the deep end, if you don't know how to swim you'll drown. No one learns to swim by getting thrown to the deep end, and you're more likely to have a bad experience and be discouraged from trying it again.
-
That's a problem and I remember talking about it in the 2000s when everything started to become user friendlieness. plug and play, just works and so-on, worst part is stuff being locked down and harder to jailbreak.
It'll be fine though, I'm sure AI will install their OS for them, I won't have a clue how it did it, but it'll probably be better than I could do.
You'll just add "without backdoors" to the prompt and it'll be secure too.
-
Yeah that latter part of "it was easy for me" in particularly stinks of the elitist attitude i was mentioning. I think its a sign of someone thats not really trying to help but rather to make themselves seem smarter.
If you see lots of it here then I guess this post is fair. But i will standby my remark that if you're seeing a lot of this kind of mentality then you need to reasses where you are hanging out...
Maybe go to a local LUG instead. People are a bit more desperate to actually help others at those usually.
-
That was solved in about 10min with a liveusb and replacing grub with systemdboot
Try explaining that to a newbie
-
I use Debian on a regular basis and have for years, but I wouldn't recommend it as the starting distro unless I knew that the user would have very ordinary hardware and no special software needs. It's just annoying if you have to learn how to install Chrome, or your wireless drivers, for example.
It's almost simple enough, but not quite, in my view. But if I were helping them get it installed, then after that they would probably be good to go.
-
Not sure about forks, but I agree with what you said before.
Manjaro is great.
-
On the contrary, I'd still argue it's a good distro for beginners, but not for newbies. people who are tech-sawy and not hesitant to learn new things.
I jumped straight into EndeavorOS when I switched to Linux, since arch was praised as the distro for developers, for reasons.
Sure, I had some issues to fight with, but it taught me about all the components (and their alternatives) that are involved in a distro.
So, once you have a problem and ask for help, the first questions are sorts of "what DE/WM do you use?... is it X11 or wayland? are you using alsa or pipewire?".
Windows refugees (like me) take so many things for granted, that I think this kind of approach really helps in understanding how things work under the hood. And the Arch-wiki is just a godsend for thst matter. And let's be real, you rarely look into Arch-wiki for distros other than Arch itself, since they mostly work OOTB.
-
Admittedly, the installation for Arch Linux is not that difficult.
It's the General Recommendations that become bullshit.
-
I had my first ever “breakage” on Arch recently. Actually two just recently (both on an old Mac):
- the driver for my Broadcom hardware was broken for a day
- with the upgrade to kernel 6.13, the FaceTimeHD camera is not working
Neither issue seems to be present in the LTS kernel (which is 6.12). I have both a current and an LTS kernel installed. So rebooting to LTS had me up and running. If I did not have that, no WiFi would have been a bigger issue os the MacBook Air has not Ethernet. The lack of a camera would be no video meetings without the LTS kernel as well. The problem has existed for a few days.
So, I can no longer say that I have never had an issue on Arch. I can say they have been rare. I can say I had more issues with Ubuntu in the past.
I can also say that the only breakage I have had was mitigated by having an LTS kernel to reboot into.
-
I came in as a modestly computer-literate Windows refugee willing to learn
That's like 2% of the people who want to switch to Linux
-
Android looks at SteamOS from the distance
-
I struggled to find things to learn because I installed it and had an out-of-the-box windows experience
And that's a good thing! Non-technically-inclined ppl are wary of instability issues and having to work with the terminal to fix their daily driver. If the OOTB experience is good and the UX is comparable or better than Windows - they will be more likely to stay.
If someone is accepting the fact that shit might go sideways, is willing to learn through experiencing issues first-hand or simply likes to spend time fiddling with their OS to find the perfect setup for them - that should be the Arch- and Arch-derivatives audience.
-
What the fuck are you on about? Jesus christ, we get ragebait in here too now?
Know your usecases. Thats it. Linux isn't hard if you do.
But no, let me recommend the jet engine service manual to my 6 year old that is learning to read. You're going to have a bad time.
For the record, since this post and most comments irked me, arch is fine. I'm using arch on my workstation/personal rig for years. Fedora on the laptop because I need a stable work thing. Alpine VMs on the homelab because it needs light and stable.
USECASES!
-
idk I'm kind of a fucking idiot and I started with Manjaro.
-
Exercise is fascism
-
Clearly you've never used it for an extended period, or If you have you never installed packages from the AUR.
