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 think mint is crazy better these days compared to 10 years ago, and it probably just came down to "we want to be user friendly to those who need their hands held" crashing into "actual users who need their hand held are trying it out." 10 years ago, I think there simply wasn't enough interested in Linux outside of Linux circles to properly test and figure things out, not to mention the strides the software itself has made in supporting more hardware more seamlessly.
The thing about RTFM is that users don't, and the users that stuff like Mint is geared towards is those who when asked to read a wiki page, will simply give up. Windows has a cottage industry of people who do various things to make it easier for that kind of user. For example, just installing Windows on a device for you (albeit with bloatware usually) complete with all the drivers for your hardware. For most of the hardware on a laptop (audio, internet, HIDs, USB), that'll have you set for life without having to touch anything and for the graphics that'll at least have you set for several years without having to touch anything. And it's not like Linux doesn't have this level of support, it's just that Windows has this level of support for consumers and Linux typically has it relegated to the enterprise sphere.
That being said, it's insane how easy it is now to just install Mint, or PopOS, or even Ubuntu and have a working system. But most users don't even install their Windows, much less a completely foreign OS.
-
We, long-time users of Linux, all have our opinions based on various preferences. The thing is that a lot of these preferences are pretty technical, like Ubuntu having snaps, Fedora and Mints' flat pak policies, etc...
For the average user, they will not know what this is or even see a difference between the systems at first. The linux community would do better if we could have a unified front on distro recommendations. People will switch distros as they learn and their curiosity grows.
I think, we should ask people to pick based on their DE preference. If they want something like windows, let them have Mint or Kubuntu, if they want something closer to mac, let them have Ubuntu. I say this as someone who likes Fedora Plasma spin.
Everything else, is just information overload and will give users decision paralysis.
Our goal should be conversion of users. Once our numbers start growing, then things will pickup. Just imagine if we had office and adobe products here. How many people would be able to switch. I still use windows on my work computer as there is a single app holding me back.
-
I think their documentation is pretty solid, for everything else the reddit/internet searches can solve it. But as with EVERY DISTRO on this planet, the archwiki can be applied! You just need to know what are the differences from void to arch. (no systemd for example)
-
I'd say they are similar, but they have somewhat different philosophies. Slackware maintains a KISS philosophy and comes as a full system. It has its ncurses interface for installation. Some might find that helpful. Arch is purely CLI, so you need to know the commands (or write them down) to set the keyboard layout, set up a network connection, time/date, and so on. You build your Arch system from the ground up, but Pacman handles dependencies for you. Slackware comes as a full or minimal installation (or you can choose individual packages at the risk of breaking dependencies). Slackpkg does not handle dependencies for you. Both will require you to have some sense of what's going on under the hood. You'll need to edit config files and be a sysadmin of your own system.
-
Even when you removed the french language pack?
-
Please, do not bring adobe and office pack there for god sake...
-
It makes sense because if you are a veteran, you probably already have your workflow streamlined, so you don't need new software in the repositories.
-
For novices Void is worse because it does not have the Arch wiki. The Void Docs are brief and you will inevitably end up reading the Arch wiki anyways, except you will run into Runit specific bs.
-
I'd argue the demographic that writes posts about switching their OS is more likely to be happy switching to Arch than most of the people who switch. The way I imagine the average Linux noob is a university student who installed Ubuntu for their coding class.
-
Good to hear that you're slack-curious!
Gentoo is a fantastic distro, so great choice! I run Gentoo on my second computer. I've always loved it, but Slackware was my first linux experience, so it has special meaning to me. Maybe try Slackware in a VM? You'll be compiling a lot from source on Slackware too if you need stuff that's not included in the base system, but without portage for deps management it's a lot more cumbersome. You can of course use sboui, slpkg or some other tool that can manage deps, or use flatpaks, appimages, distrobox or whatever to keep your base system clean. -
People want to switch from baguettes to bread. So they get flour, water, yeast and salt and are asked to bake their own bread. "I never saw what was so hard about baking bread, the seller says." Well the issue is not the difficulty of baking bread. They simply don't want to spend time baking bread. They are used to going to the store to buy an already baked baguette.
-
Why? A lot of people specifically do not use Linux for this reason. Like it or not, those apps are ingrained in the business world.
People are not going to sacrifice their income to use Linux. That is why I have a second computer just for windows for work.
If it weren’t for that, I could just use one computer with 2 user accounts.
-
I think the difficult with Arch is not about using the compand line, but about knowing the Linux ecosystem.
People coming from OS X or Windows probably don't know the difference between a WM, or a DE or what Display server they should use.
They don't know if they need to install a network manager or setup sudo on a new system.
These things come from experience of using a Limix system even a mainstream one like Ubuntu.
-
while you do have a point, i'm still having issues with taskwarrior printing it's update notifications, even after opening an issue and the maintainers patching it.
The thing is, i use arch on 3 different devices, and i don't need to see every news entry 3 times, so yes in my case having it as default in pacman would indeed be bloat.
That said, there is PLENTY of places where I think arch could have saner defaults. but the beauty of arch is that it is made to be configured exactly the way you like it, so you really can't fault arch as much in this case, compared to other distros that try to take all decisionmaking away from the user.
-
Runit specific bs? You mean being simple and sane? lol And yes reading documentation is true for both.
-
funnily enough, i see it as one of the advantages of arch, and a reason i'll keep putting up with the constant updating for the forseeable future - nvidia support has gotten way better recently, and since arch has very recent packages i haven't had nvidia issues in quite a while now.
Once it all lands in debian i'll consider giving debian another shot on desktop... but that'll take a while.
-
hard disagree on this... while for people who don't know it it might look like programming, it's really not much different than editing config files (which people who don't know it will assume is programming too).
Sure, the language used by bash can be used to write massive programs. But in 99% cases using the CLI is like using a gui with a button and a text field - type some text into the field and then click the button, letting whatever software you're running take the content of the text field and do something with it.
way closer, in fact, to executing a discord bot command, than to actual programming as in software development (what i'd argue people think of when talking about programming)
-
I started with real arch and loved it. Different strokes different folks
-
Nope, you're missing the point entirely. It's about versions not frequency. For example Ubuntu 16.04 used python 2, despite python 3 having been released for 8 years at that time and other distros like Arch having migrated to python 3 years before. Now, Python 2 still got regular updates that Ubuntu released, but Ubuntu 16.04 was maintained until 2021, whereas python 2 reached EOL in 2020, that means that for 1 year Ubuntu was using a deprecated and unmaintained version of python.
One could also make the argument that Arch broke a lot of stuff when they did that upgrade, and there's an argument there, but it's not as simple as receiving less frequent updates.
-
then someone comes along with a bread making robot. so convenient! unfortunately the documentation is on a 300 foot long paper scroll.
