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?
-
He's exaggerating a little bit, but he's not entirely wrong. Arch does have bleeding edge packages, and if you haven't ran into an issue because of that you probably haven't been using it for long. Now, it almost never is system breaking bad, but it might be GUI breaking bad, or it might require editing configs by hand, and I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen people complain that an update broke something only to be a pacsave/pacnew file. Arch philosophy is incompatible with people who're learning the system now and just want stuff to work. Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it will for others.
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'm not completely up to speed with the core principles of Arch, but I think it revolves around KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!).
Meaning that Arch doesn't hold your hand with nice GUIs. Instead, it tries to make the command line interface as easy to understand and use as possible.
So if you run into a problem, you're more likely to understand how to fix it, or at least what the root cause is. Which is not a given when you're used to distros with more abstraction like Ubuntu.
Then again, this design concept is not for everyone.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.
-
Again, stable doesn't mean what you think it means. An unstable system is not one that breaks, but one that doesn't keep a stable base. For example, Debian will not update a major version of almost anything, since that could potentially break dependencies, so it is stable even if it released patches as fast as Arch. On the other hand Arch is unstable, even if upgrading your system never broke anything because it can at any point change the version of any library you have installed.
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.
-
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)
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.
-
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".
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.
-
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 would, however, recommend Arch if you're a Linux novice looking to learn about Linux in a more accelerated pace.
-
MX is better than Mint.
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.
-
I'm not sure a newcomer will notice the difference between xorg and wayland?
If you have multiple monitors with different refresh rates, you'll notice immediately.
-
I would, however, recommend Arch if you're a Linux novice looking to learn about Linux in a more accelerated pace.
I would argue Gentoo is better suited for that. It is just compilation that can take a long time.
-
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.
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.
-
This post is a little cringe. Endeavor OS is a great Arch Experience for those who want a little preconfiguration and a GUI install. I've since moved onto doing it the arch way, but EOS was a great foot in the door and I know for a fact I'm not alone. Ive learned more about Linux in 2 years going from EOS to Arch (and running a proxmox server) than I would have running some "beginner friendly" distro. Really wish folks would stop gatekeeping.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
In 9+ years of literally never reading the changelog the ONLY time ive had arxh break was when grub did that unbelievably retarded update where it broke compatibility with itself and they did not put a goddamn hook to automatically update the install on bootloader.
That was solved in about 10min with a liveusb and replacing grub with systemdboot, which honestly I should have done a long time ago anyway it has a nice, easy, clean, simple configuration file instead of whatever the fuck they call that absolute monstrosity grub uses
I stopped using grub after that pain in the ass
-
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".
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
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
-
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)
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.
-
I would argue Gentoo is better suited for that. It is just compilation that can take a long time.
Linux From Scratch or Slackware too.
-
I'm not sure a newcomer will notice the difference between xorg and wayland?
I did, before I knew what wayland is, I did some distrohopping (see path below), and recognised that sometimes it feels more nice than other times. First I thought it was just GPU driver stuff, but later learned that it was something called wayland that does something underneath your desktop management (didn’t know that there is another layer below at that time)
(mint->manjaro->manjaro(after it died once)->Opensuse TW(after manjaro died again)->Arch(because I liked installing from AUR more than from suse community hub)->EndeavourOS(because I don’t have time to do Arch manually and archinstall was to difficult/time consuming with dualbooting macOS)
-
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
Ubuntu or one of its variants
Even Mint? Seems to be the go-to recommendation for newbies.
