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?
-
it’s a good beginner distro because getting thrown into deep water is how one learns to swim
That's... not how it works, for distros or for actual swimming. Usually when someone who can't swim is thrown into deep water, they drown and/or reinstall Windows which is much the same thing.
I don't think archinstall is drowning sysadmins/programmers/CS students. What it will do is teach them to swim.
-
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.
For people who are beginners when it comes to computers in general, yeah. But for people who are new to GNU/Linux but experienced with CS/math, it'll really not be that hard to run archinstall and configure from there. It's not that different than many other distros, which also have an installer and then post-install configuration to contend with. I'd just argue arch has newer packages and better documentation which some beginners (in the sense they're coming from macOS/Windows but know how basic software concepts) might appreciate.
-
::: spoiler spoiler
"Fortunately, the charging one has been solved now that we've all standardized on mini-USB. Or is it micro-USB? Shit."
:::Fair enough!
I very much appreciated the xkcd, gave a good chuckle.
-
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)
A beginner to what, to pacman, to arch, to rolling distro, to linux, to unix, to a PC, to using man-made tools ...
I made an installation to an old pc once, I though it would last a while, and since the users could barely understand what an on/off button does, they just wanted google and facebook, so it was a wm with two browsers, daughter already knew what chrome was, and in the login shell I wrote a script that each new day it booted it attempted pacman -Suy --noconfirm then once a week the cache was emptied and the logs trimmed.
That was before covid, a couple months ago I met her, she said it has been working fine every since.
So there is your dinner
PS Actually it wasn't arch it was artix with runit but that is about the same
-
I am not a newbie and wouldn't even know how to do it without using a manual (archwiki)
You would, it's very very straightforward they made it very simple. I literally walked multiple non-technical users through it when it happened because I have moved some of my friends and family to Linux. I won't say that it wasn't tedious and that it wasn't annoying for them but they got through it just fine
-
I'm in the void.
quick, quick, explain in one sentence whether the newb should go with musl of gliMBc ... hurry ... the screen is about to turn black and the installer will be gone
-
I started with real arch and loved it. Different strokes different folks
Once you learn pacman is hard to go to anything substandard and slow, so you are hooked.
-
Veterans will always go back to Debian. It is inevitable.
I'd rather use windows 7 than ever go back to Debian ... something with 7 being the last good version of anything
-
The Arch-wiki was my main reason for switching to arch. When I used an ubuntu based distro I felt like I had to rely on forum posts to figure out anything whereas with arch everything is documented incredibly well
True, between arch and gentoo wiki you can hardly find any other information that is worth your while.
-
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)
What kind of beginning you mean? If you start to learn linux than use Arch or Archman specifically. If you just want to use Linux as desktop go other alternatives.
-
quick, quick, explain in one sentence whether the newb should go with musl of gliMBc ... hurry ... the screen is about to turn black and the installer will be gone
go musl with no hassle wink wink
-
I think that one's experience with Manjaro is often heavily dependent on how many AUR packages one has installed. Were you using many AUR packages?
Manjaro was my first distro for a year and it was fine. The occasional AUR dependency blockage was irritating for me but did not break anything.
Good point, I only a had a few AUR packages installed, so that probably made things more stable.
-
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.
Yeah, ironically Arch overall has been more stable for me than Fedora lol.
Debian of course is amazing.
-
Runit specific bs? You mean being simple and sane? lol And yes reading documentation is true for both.
Not talking about the quality of the software. I mean that some guide on Arch wiki will not work because some software expects systemd or the guide is just more difficult to follow with a system using runit. My point is that a new user does not have "the context", so for a new user Void is a worse way to learn linux quickly than Arch or honestly even Gentoo. Even Gentoo has its own wiki so it's likely that if an Arch wiki guide does not work for you, you will likely find the Gentoo specific detail on their wiki. You don't have such luxury with Void.
-
Not talking about the quality of the software. I mean that some guide on Arch wiki will not work because some software expects systemd or the guide is just more difficult to follow with a system using runit. My point is that a new user does not have "the context", so for a new user Void is a worse way to learn linux quickly than Arch or honestly even Gentoo. Even Gentoo has its own wiki so it's likely that if an Arch wiki guide does not work for you, you will likely find the Gentoo specific detail on their wiki. You don't have such luxury with Void.
So basically because Archwiki doesn't cover runit related stuff (I am not even sure about that) Void is not recommended as distro for learning more about linux. Makes no sense to me sorry.
-
So basically because Archwiki doesn't cover runit related stuff (I am not even sure about that) Void is not recommended as distro for learning more about linux. Makes no sense to me sorry.
It's not recommended because there are better options ie. Arch, not that it would be impossible to learn linux using Void. Arch simply has better documentation than Void. Which is important when you want to learn fast. My previous comments provided examples why the documentation is worse.
Btw arch wiki does provide documentation for runit but only on its runit page, not on every page that mentions managing a service.
-
System shared this topic
