Arch user here.
My recommendation to noobies is always Linux Mint even though I don't use it.
I use Arch, btw.
Most Arch users (myself included) don't recommend Arch to n00bs or even light seasoned Linux users if they already are happy with their setup.
But the meme is the meme and I like bullying Arch elitists.
Even I wasn't cruel enough to banish my mother to arch. She uses fedora on her desktop (because she liked gnome) and Linux mint on her laptop because I wanted her to make sure she still wanted to switch after trying it for about a month.
She wanted to jump head first but it would have been a pain to go through four installs if she didn't like it.
Indeed, besides most linux distributions are fairly equally lightweight and can be customized. I tried 4-5 distros this past January (Arch being one) when I got my new gaming laptop and they all booted in ~9.5 sec for example, and perform equally well in general, they had fairly similar RAM load with the same desktop environment.
Arch is about managing the system as a hobby, which is fine.
One problem here is that new users install Endeavour/Garuda but don't know how to manage updates safely about pacnew/pacsave/etc. So the system might slowly "rot" without them knowing about it because new components use old configs, etc..
I also recommend Mint to new users. I don't use Mint, nor do I use Arch.
As a Gentoo user currently vacationing in Arch-land I'm not sure whether to feel insulted or affirmed. Imean, it is but some might say that to disparage it or its users 😅
For me: Gentoo is a meta distro, you are the distro maintainer then the power user of that specific distro you created for yourself which can definitely be fun. Arch is more like: let's give you one instance of a Gentoo distro when you are tired of being the distro maintainer.
Tbf I don't think many people know about pacdiff. The way I found out about it was by looking up a warning about pacnew/pacsave during an upgrade, because I was bored. Very random.
Arch is about managing the system as a hobby, which is fine.
Only the installation takes more time, maintenance is no longer than the noob friendly ones.
I so want to join that one :D Brilliant name.
... Then go back to Gentoo and stay anyway >:P
So glad you asked. I'd like to report that I actually do use Arch Linux. Most people can't, so you know, I'm kinda a big deal. I don't have anymore time for questions, though. It's update night.
I remember when this was the joke with Slackware.
I think I’m remembering right.
I’ve never used arch. If I get another laptop one day I’ll give it a go.
I use both, but Mint is strictly better if you want a no-fuss system that just works and will continue to do so
As a seasoned distrohopper, can confirm. When I try something new, I always ask myself: Would a noob be ok with the fact that in this distro you have to do things this way. In Fedora, Debian, Manjaro and so many other I always end up saying “no” more than a few times. With Mint, you just don’t bump into these situations very often. IMO, Mint is the best starter distro for most users. If you know your friend is very technical, you can recommend something else.
I finally tried out Linux Mint this year at work (we use Fedora for some of our different tasks). It arms like such a nice experience out of the box, and I’d put it on a family computer in a second.
Isn't archwiki one of the most comprehended wikis for Linux distros out there? If anything, the arch-wiki (to me) has often too many answers for the same problem than the other way around.
I switched like ten years ago because I wanted to learn the details, but in all honesty I still feel like I barely understand anything. Not sure how normal this is, maybe I'm unusually dumb, but I feel like what I've really learned is how to troubleshoot and solve issues by reading documentation and tinkering, rather than understanding what I'm actually doing. I've had a stable system for years but I kind of feel like if a typical arch forum poster looked my system configuration for five minutes they'd be like wtf are you doing.
If you know where to look and where to tinker, then I think you have at least some understanding of what you're doing.
Is actually great since it forces you to learn which saves you much more time in the long run.
But most people can't see past their nose.
Edit
Can't believe somebody got offended by this...
Is actually great since it forces you to learn which saves you much more time in the long run.
It is great when you have time to learn, but when you are trying to troubleshoot while understand basically nothing of the wiki ... it is not good.
It is most comprehended, but for newbie it is too comprehensive. Its overwhelming, I tried to troubleshoot why I boot to black screen even the installation said its successful and there's no error. I saw solutions that want me edit grub, edit xorg ... and some other file that I never understand.
I understand the wiki is very good and very important, its just not newbie friendly.
The Arch wiki is one of the most impressive documentation resources I've seen and I've only [needed to] scrape the surface so far. Almost every minor unexpected issue I ran into along the way had a detailed solution and the only issue I haven't been able to resolve is getting all the buttons on my mouse to work...but did find out it's Logitech's weird receiver codes that are the issue and they don't release drivers for Linux.
That's the issue. Arch and it's wiki are labyrinths for beginners.
For anyone not interested in tinkering all-day long they're better off using fedora, debian or suse.
A lot of new users are coming to Linux not because they like tinkering with their setup but because they are tired of Microsoft tinkering with their setup. For these people Arch will probably never be the answer. That's ok, we should encourage all Linux adoption and the best way to do that is to start with the simple and familiar.
I mean, who doesn't love to have candy crush and facebook automatically bundled with their OS? I mean, I had a fantastic two years waiting for the never combine taskbar feature to be released. The never-ending prompt to make edge my default browser is also utterly refreshing. m$ is so ahead of the game, they even anticipated my needs by shoving onedrive prompts in my control panel. How about that Office 365? Have you tried it yet? No? Well you're missing out my man, in case you change your mind I'm going to put it right there in the front page of settings so you'll never miss it.
I switched a few weeks ago, it was because my computer is slower than a toaster and windows was tanking it down even more I installed xubuntu, well I must say it's ok, after I finished setting stuff up I realised I should've just gone for debian with xfce (I tried to install kubuntu-deskop on my xubuntu installation just to try how would kde run on my pc, it ran as well as windows did, but was just a tiny tiny bit faster, the way I installed it was probably bad and it could've been the way I installed it tho)
And yeah, I definitely love tinkering with stuff so this wasthe obvious choice
Weird shot at the Arch wiki, which is truly great. I turn to it regularly despite not using Arch.
heres the thing: as a decade+ software dev, I never want to even think about my distro.
I just want Linux terminal style commands, and Linux style ssh shit to just work in the most middle of the road way as possible. I'm trying to get a job done, not build a personality.
Exactly. That's why i use Mint. I don't want to think about my operating system, I want to get stuff done.
I only ever have Mac stuff from employers, but it is nice hardware and linux-like enough for me to be happy.
Probably also helps Mac that every windows machines provided by an employer is some random HP buttbook that looks and preforms like it could be from 2021 or 2012, who knows
I interpreted "middle of the road" as doing nothing special, just normal tasks done a normal way and therefore hoping everything just works so you can focus on work
Wiki do not have answer
?? The arch wiki is one of the greatest Linux resources out there. Sure there may be situations where it doesn't have the answer for something, but for a new user? It has all bases covered.
It's actually really great.. if you know how to interpret and apply the information on it to your situation and adapt as needed. A good new user experience it does not make however.
On one hand, the archlinux bbs had the only exact reference to the issue I was having. On the other hand, no one could replicate it enough to figure anything out. :/
Ex arch btw user here. I noped out and wiped after thinking I had it all nailed down, then I tried to connect my Bluetooth headphones and I came to a grand awakening. I am too old for this shit.
Installed Tumbleweed and been happy ever since.
I just installed Nextcloud on Arch and the official packages caused the most headaches I ever had within my 3 years of arch. In contrast I installed the official Jellyfin and Prometheus Server packages and they ran OOTB.
I ended up with not using the official packages but extracting the tar.bz2 into /var/www/nextcloud and slightly modifying the nginx config from their site. I had to move the inclusion of the MIME-Types file to a different block for nextcloud to deliver its CSS, SVGs and images. It wasn't exactly straight-forward too considering permissions. I found it a beast compared to many other server software.
ngl, I love how "I don't give a fuck" the slackware authors are, they didn't even bother with https on their official website.
lmao this is exactly the image that would pop into my head if I imagine a Slackware user in 2023.
You don't need SSL if you're not exchanging sensitive information.
If they aren't exchanging sensitive information, then it's less not giving a fuck and more not using technologies 'just because' everyone else is.
It's a smart move.
I mean… I would consider anywhere that you might download software from sensitive. This isn’t really a smart move. And sure, the mirror’s page they link to uses https, but if the regular site doesn’t a man-in-the-middle could change the url and serve an official looking malicious version… I wouldn’t consider putting your users at an elevated risk when it’s relatively easy to set up TLS “a smart move”.
but if the regular site doesn’t a man-in-the-middle could change the url and serve an official looking malicious version
What do you think is stopping someone from doing this?
Who says it hasn’t happened? :P
If it hasn’t I would just assume that Slackware isn’t a big enough target and that anybody in the position to man-in-the-middle a large number of people would have better targets. I mean, to be clear TLS is not a silver bullet either, but it goes a long way for ensuring the integrity of the data you receive over the internet in addition to hiding the contents.
Distros usually sign their ISOs with PGP as well (Slackware does this), so it’s a good idea to verify those signatures as it’s a second channel that you can use to double check the validity of the ISO (but I’m not sure many people actually do this). Of course, anybody can make PGP keys so you have to find out which key is actually supposed to be signing the iso, otherwise an attacker can just make a bogus key and tell you that that’s the Slackware signing key (on the official website too, because it doesn’t use tls!). The web of trust arguably helps some (though this can be faked as well unless you actually participate in key signing parties or something), and you can hope that the Slackware public key is mirrored in several places that you trust so you can compare them… but at the end of the day for most people all trust in the distribution comes from the domain name, and if you don’t have TLS certificates you’re kind of setting up a weak foundation of trust… Maybe it will be fine because you’re not a big enough target for somebody to bother, but in this day and age it’s pretty much trivial to set up TLS certificates and that gets you a far better foundation… why take the risk? Why is it smart to unnecessarily expose your users to more risk than necessary?
Its probably just one package. I guess for example pacman -S plasma-desktop plasma-meta flatpak fish plasma-wayland-session sddm sddm-kcm && systemctl enable --now sddm
does the trick.
Archinstall with the entire plasma desktop is probably also nice, or just EndeavorOS which will be preconfigured
I actually did the whole KDE shebang with archinstall. I never really expected that Arch btw deigned it too opinionated to just provide an audio and Bluetooth interface. Instead I have to choose between pulse audio and pipewire and bluez and a bunch of others. I just didn’t have the patience nor time to look into what and why these options are presented, and this was after I already wasted days figuring how to get my pc to boot with my 12th gen Intel and Nvidia gpu combination.
Turns out there’s a bunch of kernel finagling you absolutely have to do first before it even decides to boot from the gpu and not the igpu. Oh well.
For a total newbie, probably Linux Mint or PopOS are the best options. But EndeavourOS is getting there. There shouldn't be any issues during the installation if one sticks to the defaults. Only thing is, it doesn't come with a graphical package manager out of the box. But once that is installed (I think anyone will be happy to write a single terminal command, at least), I don't see why it's any harder to use than any other distro.
Mint, with any DE, does come with a graphical package manager. It's as easy as any appstore. The only confusion is it suggests both it's original and flatpack versions to install.
I think you are talking about EndevourOS there.
Reading it in a linear fashion, you drop one distro after another without much distinction. I believe it'd be better if you serve EndOS it's own paragraph since it's so different.
What 'bruh'?
It isn't hard to drop a <br> before one starts explaining a completely different OS.
I will always recommend Debian or Debian based distros to anyone new to Linux. They'll find their way to arch eventually
Arch btw
I will not stand slander of the arch wiki.
Also start with Linux Mint XFCE (unless they've fixed the stability problems with cinnamon)
I use Ubuntu. It generally tends to be boring stable, which is kinda what I want out of my OS these days. I can still customize it, and even break it if I really get bored, but it's nice to have things just work for the most part.
I had a friend who wanted to try linux but insisted on arch because it's what I used at the time even though I said they shouldn't and gave many suggestions for better distros. They gave up after about a day and went back to windows. I don't know what they expected, multiple people warned them not to use arch.
multiple people warned them not to use arch.
My IT Bros said the same back when I had to choose W10 or Linux, they haven't used arch and I had 0 Linux experience. I messed up every single step of the installation to a point where I knew from the problems I created what I did wrong. After many tries and a week later I had a working installation with dual boot. Never used windows and removed it a year later. It was rough but I learned how to recover from most errors a user can create.
If learning is the goal arch and arch-wiki is great.
That's right. It's a great recommendation for learning about Linux.
For anyone who needs something that just works, there's a lot better options.
I've been off windows for a long time, and when I was forced to use it, it was enterprise, locked down and stripped by knowledgeable IT teams.
Yesterday, I had my first exposure to Win 11 S mode. What a piece of crap. Not just the way its locked down, but the incessant Onedrive ads, broken settings app with missing features, AI buzzword addons, sloppy UI and general lack of control over your own computer.
Recommending my friend install Linux ASAP with my support. Nobody should have to endure that much cruft and garbage on their owned computer. They can't even install software outside of the MS store? Gross.
Oh yeah no I was not at all saying windows was better, I was just saying arch was definitely not a good distribution for beginners and it was weird how one just insisted on using it. I use arch on my laptop and opensuse tumbleweed on my desktop and have not used windows for anything serious in years because it is so unbearable.
I understood you weren't advocating for Windows (as an Arch user? The very idea!), but your mention of your friend returning to Windows got me thinking about my friends laptop and how icky it felt.
Glad there are fewer and fewer barriers to using Linux full time these days.
I mean that Windows in S mode only allows apps through the app store. From their FAQ:
What apps can I use on a PC that's running Windows 11 in S mode?
You can download and install apps from the Microsoft Store in Windows[...]
Note: If you switch out of S mode, you can install x86 Windows apps that aren’t available in Microsoft Store in Windows.
How do I switch back to S mode?
Switching out of S mode is one-way. If you switch out of S mode, you'll need to keep using the standard version of Windows 11.
I love Arch but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. In my eyes, the only way one should choose Arch is despite all warnings against it, because they feel confident enough to deal with all the problems they encounter.
Honestly I've had so little trouble with arch compared to other things, so I would definitely recommend it to experienced linux users, just definitely not unexperienced users. The aur is amazing and rolling release means you don't have to deal with the horrors of major updates breaking packages. OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is also a great candidate though for people who don't want to set as many things up themself, I'm currently using both arch and tumbleweed on different computers
Yup! Same here. Once I've got everything set up, it has been running smoothly and without any issues for more than 5 years in my case. It's literally the most reliable system I've ever set up, but I understand that the entry hurdle is pretty high.
Should've recommended Arch-based distro like Manjaro. It's Arch, and you don't need to use TTY for installation. And they can claim they use Arch btw.
I actually recommended endeavor as an option if I remember correctly but they wouldn't try it
Ive been using Manjaro for 5 years now, I'll try Endevour when I upgrade my laptop. Thanks for the tip!
I'm switching from manjaro to endeavour atm, and i am liking endeavour a lot. I kept having issues with manjaro boot after every kernel update, but otherwise didnt mind it. Probably whatever manjaros build chain for boot is just wasn't working with my hardware, but also the attitude on the forum is that you are stupid if you have to roll the kernel back.
Endeavour really just provides you arch with some maintenance utilities and otherwise lets you do your thing.
No more firefox home page getting constantly reset to the manajro home page so they can market you their laptop partnerships either 😉
I don't have any issue with Arch, everything works. But when I try other distros, they are mostly messed up.
Many distros do their own packaging on their repos, adding dependencies and custom-builds with custom configurations, and this often breaks my OS. On arch, this doesn't happen to me. What's your experience?
Arch also does its own packaging on its repos.
However you are right that Arch tries to stay as close as possible to the source. This is fondamentally different than the debian (and thus all debian-derived distros) way of packaging where they aim for a fully integrated OS at the expense of applying their own patches to many packages.
The patches can sometimes bring issues since they can bring unexpected behaviour if you come from Arch and sometimes will help the end user tremendously since they won't have to configure every piece of software to work on their computer.
This is really two way of looking at the issue: Arch is make your own OS and Debian has a more hands off approach.
Yeah.
Arch also does its own packaging on its repos.
I know, I said "custom-builds with custom configurations", I mean the custom configurations many distros add.
I also feel like Debian is very clean, but I still miss the big community under Arch, their wiki and AUR...
Custom configs is for people who might not want to tinker as much so maybe it's not for you if you prefer Arch.
To answer the question you asked previously, yes I had issues with custom configs from Debian. One I remember is mupdf being launched by a bash script and thus not understanding why did I have two PIDs (one for bash, one for the mupdf binary) when starting.
For context this was important because I needed to know the PID of mupdf to send a SIGHUP to update the view.
Red hat, 25 years ago learned to recompile the kernel to make my sound card/modem work.
25 years into the future and my biggest issue regarding sound is having to tell pipewire to stop going into standby since I do not enjoy the white noise coming from my speakers if it does.
Bruh, if you're going to insist on someone installing arch, at least sit by their side and walk them through it.
Having installed arch multiple times before, I can get a base system with networking and desktop environment up in half a day to a day depending on which DE.
I'm not saying it's particularly fast, but having someone who knows what they are doing drastically reduces the time.
I could probably make it quicker if I set up a bunch of scripts for initial installation.
That said the whole point of arch is DIY, lightweight - people forget the kinda of people arch is for, then complain about how long it takes to install. If you complain about install times, then the distro is not for you. (For more about the point of arch, see the arch way https://principles.design/examples/the-arch-way)
But it can be a great platform for learning about the inner workings of your typical Linux system, and that's why it's great. If you're willing to learn and look things up it can be the best option.
If you want it here and now with no fuss ,it's the third worst system to use- followed by Gentoo and lastly, LFS.
And heck once it's installed you can be as pedantic or as lazy as you want - my main system has had the same install of arch for multiple years - it's a mess and I havent really maintained it well, I just fix it when it breaks and use it like a regular system. It's just the set up process that takes the most effort.
Or, just use Endeavor OS and be done with it. It uses the Upstream repositories, the only thing in their customer repositories are some desktop wallpapers and a theme so you can safely remove it without breaking anything. It's a great way to get a base system in a known good configuration up quickly and from there the arch Wiki can help you tweak things to your desire it's a much better way to learn than just throwing someone into the deep end of the pool
Start with Debian stable (rock solid, well integrated packaging).
When you feel comfortable and have achieved some experience, switch to Debian sid (rolling release, updates very often, be a bit cautious).
Arch is easy to install; it's a headache to manage.
If you want a stable Arch, you need to check the updates and take very granular control over packages and versioning.
While some nerds may like tinkering with their system in all those ways, for regular user Arch is simply too much effort to maintain.
Useful, but still it kinda makes you read through all the update news, which is...why?
I'd like to just hit update and not bother.
Then you're on your own. What the duck 🦆 do you expect to happen if you can't even invest the 10sec to skim over a message (in the few events that there even is one) to see if it affects you and any manual intervention is required.
A fully functional system, just like any other normal OS?
You hit update - boom - you get one, seamlessly, with no breakages and no other user interaction. And that's how it works pretty much everywhere - except, you know, Arch.
If you're fine with it - that's fine, go ahead and tinker all you like. But don't expect others to have the same priorities.
Yeah just like the FORCED Microsoft updates that broke like hundreds of businesses?
Dude go touch some grass
Man that's news from 2016, like, it's a bit rare occasion, y'know. You're way more likely to get borked by Arch even after reading all the instructions, and it did happen numerous times.
Touching grass is what I do when you take steps to intervene in your system to make an update work.
I see you are an Arch maximalist, but that goes beyond reason. Even Arch proponents are normally not as aggressive on the topic, and admit Arch is too complicated in that regard.
You're just going to shift goalposts every time I'll post something.
Not recent enough. Not enough cases. That's different.
And lastly you'll just claim I do it because I'm an arch maximalist, despite not knowing anything about me :)
It is actually very easy:
The only problem here is that snapshots (and btrfs for that matter) are not the default behaviour. I would really appreciate Endeavour having this as the default setup. It is very likely what you'd want.
True, but if snapshots turn from first line of catastrophe response to a regular tool, this is not a good experience.
Also I believe Garuda has enabled snapshots and btrfs by default.
Yes, Garuda does, even with bootable snapshots, but it's otherwise not as clean as Endeavour. As far as I can tell, mkinitcpio/GRUB2 or their setup thereof causes more problems than it solves. My system was bricked multiple times until I switched to a dracut/systemd-boot setup, which works flawlessly since quite a while.
As for the user experience, there are 0 distros you should perform a (major) upgrade on without taking a snapshot first. I had broken systems after apt upgrade
. From my point of view rolling vs versioned release are basically occasional mild vs scheduled huge headaches.
Its not a very good OS. Very opinionated, weird modded GNOME, nonstandard Snap doing weird stuff. But its probably okayish and pretty stable