You learn more about the components of your system, and therefore learn more about fixing things or debugging what could be wrong. Arch is only difficult once.
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
Arch Linux
7721 readers
2 users here now
The beloved lightweight distro
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
If you just want to fire up your system with arguably sane defaults and use it, no there really isn't. Where Arch shines is in providing a mostly blank slate for people with opinions about how their system should be set up. It provides the tools and documentation then mostly stays out of the admin's way.
Single most concise description of Arch on the internet right here.
Arch is a rolling release that gets the newest software once it's available. Ubuntus is Debian-based and it's also following the principle of stability over modernity so there's a big difference between how recent software you're gonna run on those two types of distros. But if you want to try the rolling approach you doesn't have to go directly for arch, you can use some Arch-based distro like Manjaro. I know there are also Arco, Artix and Garuda that are arch based but I don't tested them. You could use them, experience pacman and aur but without struggle of setting up arch and once you get comfortable you may want to give arch a try
No recommending manjarno :(
-
DDOSed the aur: 2 times
-
Let their SSL certificate expire: 3 time
I might have got my numbers wrong
Stuff that actually affect users:
Manjaro holds back regular packages by one day but not aur packages, leading to dependency issues
Good call out I'll update the comments. From my reading it also seems like they take a lot from arch sources but don't really contribute so another downside here
Their devs also broke asahi linux by pushing untested code, swapping out a part, which broke XORG. This, after trying to ship the project with a random dev build when the developers were clear, it's not working. All while claiming "manjaro finally works on the m1 macbook" This could have broke users systems. Also, their ssl 3xpired at least four times. Something which should not have happened once, auto renewal takes about 10 minutes to set up.
Also, they don't properly convey the danger that the AUR poses. It's the linux equivalent of randomly downloading an exe from sourceforge but every time you update. We've seen fork bombs, malware, and on a large package hateful callouts to people who can "go fuck themselves" before calling an IP logger twice. All I wanted was to play wii fit man. The AUR is powerful, awesome, but ultimately dangerous. You need to read, and understand, the pkgbuild. It absolutely should not be enabled right next to flat packs.
I could go on. They're not good at helping new users, they damage the open source community, they suggest dangerous things to new users, they ship broken tools without dev knowlage or consultation, etc.
To reiterate your comment, do not reccomend manjaro
I want to point out that stable in this context doesn't necessarily mean less buggy but means that the system changes less.
I think there's benefits with more recent packages, the package manager (pacman) and the AUR. But if you're new or don't have much experience then something like Ubuntu or Mint is a more sensible distro to begin with. At least they start with some applications and such so you know what's out there and how some things work.
Nothing is enabled after installation. While it can be a daunting task to manually hook up your PC to the wifi manually, this philosophy lets you hand-pick the services which you actually want to run, catering for a very personalised and clearly defined system.
Seems like you answered your own question. Arch is not for people who want something that works out of box. If you want a GUI, suspend on lid close, sleep on idle, etc. by default, don't do Arch. You have to be prepared to debug issues, configure lower level OS features, and read a lot through the wiki and web searches of you are going to use Arch.
Archwiki is probably the best Linux documentation in existance. It greatly lowers the barrier of entry.
I started using Arch a few months ago. Before I would always go for Ubuntu or Fedora, then saw a video of a guy on YouTube installing Arch using archinstall and setting up his HyprLand setup. It was super thorough so I gave it a shot, and came to the conclusion that even though distros like Ubuntu and Fedora are easier to install and get going, once you get to a program or utility that doesn't have a maintained package for your distro, you're no better off than anyone else, maybe even worse off as you'll probably be using an old guide or trying to follow some post that isn't 100% relevant to their case. The AUR is incredible and there's something truly awesome about installing that fresh git version with no fuss.
Hyprland. :)
it is. But that's a good thing, you learn a lot along the way!
If you want something that comes out of the box just working it's the wrong place to start though.
It depends what you want out of your system. If you just want a "plug and play" machine that will do most things reasonably well, by all means stick with Ubuntu.
If you want complete knowledge of exactly what you've got installed (and just as importantly what's not been installed) and how it's been set up, and tuned and tweaked to your ideal requirements, Arch is a great choice.
view more: next ›