Linux

I'd just like to vent that these kind of discussions are one of the big turnoffs of the Linux community in general. People speak "in absolutes".

You either do it this way or you're a dumbass. You either use the distribution I like or you're doing it WRONG. You shouldn't use Arch because you're not experienced enough, you should use Mint for an arbitrary amount of time before you graduate to the good stuff.

You friends get way too worked up over other people's personal preferences and push your biased and subjective views as facts.

Is Arch Linux the right fit for a newbie to Linux? The right answer is "it depends", not "never". Would I recommend Arch to my mom? No. Would I recommend it to my programmer colleague who already lives in the Powershell? Sure, why not.

Meanwhile random people just using SteamOS and being happy.

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.

I would, however, recommend Arch if you're a Linux novice looking to learn about Linux in a more accelerated pace.

I started with mint more than 10 years ago because a friend of mine told me it was one, if not the best, distro for newbies (that was a fucking lie). Idk how mint is doing today but back then was kind of a mess and dealing with it wasnt easy, so i dont really know how or why i switched to debian for a while. With debian i had a lot of problems with some software, mostly proprietary drivers for esotic hardware i was running back then due to me buying the cheapest laptops available, so i started distro hopping for a while. Every distro but fedora was debian based so it felt a lot like a more of the same experience and I felt stuck in a loop where i was eventually gonna reinstall my whole system after breaking something i didnt even know existed.

Then one day i found arch. Installing it wasnt as easy as clicking install on the live system's guy, but just by following the wiki general instructions i didnt have any issues the first time. It felt good. Building the system block by block helped me understand how things work, the package manager was the best i had seen and the newbie corner basically had the solutions for all my screw-ups, even more than ask-ubuntu did. Everybody in the community was super helpful (even some of the devs). Then there was the AUR, with almost every piece of esotic or proprietary software i needed, much easier than adding some random guy's repositories to apt or enabling backports on debian. Also i found out that i prefer having a rolling release. With arch i learned how to use and maintain my system, and i just stuck with it.

That said, just how some use linux just to brag about it with their normie friends, many many people use arch to brag about it with other linux users (like my friend did), mostly beacause arch has the infamous reputation that it is hard to install, hard to maintain, easy to break. Which is actually not that bad considering that all these people are gonna end up posting in the newbie corner lol.

Truth is that arch is not harder than any other distro. It only comes down to your will to learn and RTFM What i think worked for me was the transparency. Nobody said it was as easy to use as windows, but nobody in the wiki said "dont do this unless you are an experienced user". Arch is not another fork of ubuntu pretending to be "even more user friendly", it's just arch.

I think the problem is about distros like antergos (rip), manjaro, garuda, endevour trying to oversimplify something that only needs you to RTFM only ending up breaking something they tried to automate and hide behind a curtain that wasnt meant to be automated and was meant to be learned to manage, by hand

EDIT: spelling. I'm a non-english speaker, if you find any more errors just tell me and i will correct them (or clarify something better)

There’s a good reason why there is no GUI installer in arch (aside from being able to load it into ram).

This is the dumbest conceit of the arch community. I learned Linux using Fedora back when regular usage required more know how than installing arch does and it was enormously helpful to have something you could click and install and THEN learn in a functional environment. Also following the guide isn't THAT hard its just a waste of effort for a million people to do so.

"I didnt read the changelogs"

I have never read the changelogs and I have never broken my EOS install ever.

Weak bait.

SteamOS

I'll tell you, nothing bricks as hard or as irreparably as Windows. I have never had to actually reinstall Linux due to some problem (though it's a good practice security-wise).

On the contrary, I'd still argue it's a good distro for beginners, but not for newbies. people who are tech-sawy and not hesitant to learn new things.

I jumped straight into EndeavorOS when I switched to Linux, since arch was praised as the distro for developers, for reasons.

Sure, I had some issues to fight with, but it taught me about all the components (and their alternatives) that are involved in a distro.

So, once you have a problem and ask for help, the first questions are sorts of "what DE/WM do you use?... is it X11 or wayland? are you using alsa or pipewire?".

Windows refugees (like me) take so many things for granted, that I think this kind of approach really helps in understanding how things work under the hood. And the Arch-wiki is just a godsend for thst matter. And let's be real, you rarely look into Arch-wiki for distros other than Arch itself, since they mostly work OOTB.

2 requirements for arch:

1. Not fearful of CLI
2. Able to RTFM.
3. Willing to spend a whole day on your first install

that's it. That's also not MOST PC users. Just suggest popos or mint or that one "gaming" distro and let them enjoy it.

If they want to nerd out after they're used to Linux they will learn the CLI. If they want to, they'll find Arch or whatever DIY/rolling whatever distro.

Veterans will always go back to Debian. It is inevitable.

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 started with EndeavourOS, which is basically Arch, and had a great experience.

I did have someone knowledgeable help guide me a bit at first, but eventually I learned how to find solutions myself on google, and use the Arch wiki.

I must have broke my installation a dozen times, but used Timeshift to bring it back from the dead... And I learned so much about how Linux works in the process. Wouldn't have done it any other way.

I was not technically a newbie since I had previously used ubuntu in the distant past (as if ubuntu would truly prepare someone for a more advanced distro), and probably a few others I can't remember, but I came back with EndeavourOS and I'm having a great time. I did have a few challenges though I am fairly tech savvy and I knew what I was getting into so I was definitely not a regular novice.

After a single serious oopsie that bricked my system but I was able to fix I've been running a very stable system. I've kept with it for nearly 2 years now on my initial install with practically no issues, at least none I wasn't willing and able to solve. I troubleshot an issue I was having with a package installation the other day without finding any help online and that made me proud of myself.

I would have considered myself a decent power user on windows, and I feel like a sub average arch user, but hey I get to learn and improve more now.

Petulant counterpoint: SteamOS 3.0 is based on Arch and is a good newbie distro

IMO every distro should have a rolling release option. Kind of like how OpenSUSE has the normal version and Tumbleweed. You have normal version for when you need the OS to work (you're new to Linux, it's your main personal/work computer, it's a server, etc) and then you have the rolling release option for when you're willing to give up stability for the newest versions of everything as soon as possible.

I wonder if there is something like a graph or diagram that shows the different parts that comform a distro.

Like a visual aid where you can see what combination of parts or components you are choosing on a distro.

Does something like this exist?

I mean, I'm just one reference point, but here we go. I started with Kubuntu -- I liked KDE, and Ubuntu is a stable, LTS distro. What could go wrong?

But my PC is Intel/Nvidia, so I'm constantly facing driver issues, and not to mention, snap is completely fucked. Ubuntu is supposed to be LTS but I've somehow still got 2-4 GB of updates every day or two. I've also got random bugs here and there and no real idea of how to troubleshoot them because the support is disparate or doesn't address my specific issue.

Meanwhile, on my Chrultrabook, I decided to go with Arch, which of course presented its own set of issues. The archinstall script was straightforward, and debugging it was also fairly easy since the Arch wiki and forums were a trove of information. But debugging and tinkering, even when I accidentally bricked my laptop and had to do a clean slate (don't ever interrupt pacman, I've learned!), has been a great learning experience. It's made me feel like I actually understand a little more of what goes on under the hood. Ubuntu could do that as well, but it isn't meant to be design.

Neither is good nor bad on its own, but different people enjoy different things. I didn't think I would be the type to enjoy Arch, but it gave me valuable experience and a fun project (even if I did end up staying up until 3 or 4 AM on work nights). I've got EndeavourOS on my laptop now and still Kubuntu on my PC, but I'm wondering if I shouldn't just switch over. Arch/eOS being a rolling release feels nice too, as I'm doing all these updates on Ubuntu anyway, but I'm slightly more worried about fucking something up.

I started with Arch

And no, it doesn't run worse

Flatpaks that aren't official products of the source project sometimes have interesting issues pertaining to their permissions, are harder to set as the handler for files, harder to enable usage of system tools, don't follow system themes, are harder to start or use from the command line, and yes start slower than native apps.

I like the idea that even stable distros can have latest stuff easily or distros which don't package a given project. I use a few myself. It is certainly annoying that it ends up teaching people about what dirs they need to share with flatseal, flatseal, desktop files, and the command line for something which is supposed to simplify things.

Kinda feels like less work to use rolling release with a more comprehensive set of packages.

It's a good beginner distro if you want to stumble, fall, and learn things. It's not a distro where everything is all good right out the box. For that, maybe try something like Linux Mint Debian Edition or Bazziteos

Literally never had EndeavourOS break in any way.

Last time might have been the GRUB issue that affected all of Arch. If you use GRUB that is, since it's not the default on EndeavourOS. Next time might be old package repos being shut off, but only if your install is older, plus there's already the second announcement with simple instructions regarding that on Arch News. Also, it will just block updates.

I've put two people without any prior knowledge on EndeavourOS, didn't hear any complains either. I myself had no prior knowledge in Linux and hopped from Kubuntu to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed to Garuda Linux in short succession. I only switched to EndeavourOS after Garuda repeatedly broke. Been on it for 2 years without an issue I think.

I know this is not a representative study and as a computer scientist, I do grasp things quickly, but I strongly oppose the notion that EndeavourOS is not beginner friendly.

Thanks! Found Garuda is from this thread! You're a real one!

That depends on what the beginner's goal is. Arch could very well be a nice beginner distro, as could Gentoo or Slackware or any other "hard" distro if you're determined to learn. My baptism of fire was on Slackware in the 90s (which I'm still on), long before "beginner distros". Trying and failing was a big part of the fun. If you're determined to learn, I don't see any issue with starting with a distro that doesn't hold your hand.

LINUX IS AN EXPERIENCE NOT SOMETHING TO ENDLESSLY DEBATE ABOUT.

Mint has been nice

I went from Windows to Mint, to Pop-OS, to EndeavourOS and haven't left EOS.

My time with Mint and Pop were about a week each. I switch from Windows to Linux 2 years ago.

For my experience, jumping into Arch feet first has been a great learning experience. My desktop PC is a gaming PC first, so having the most up to date packages has been great. It's helped 'de-mystify' Linux for me. I've had to troubleshoot issues, but thanks to Arch's excellent and extensive documentation, with some light reading I've manages to make it work.

I'm now moving on to setting up my own Homelab/Server, which will NOT be Arch based (...unless...?), because the experience with learning how to navigate Linux with Arch has given me the confidence to tackle something I have absolutely no experience in (NETWORKING).