Repeat after me: it's not only about installing, but also about maintaining your system!
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
-15 points (41.0% liked)
Linux
48228 readers
553 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, if you're not up to the challenge of maintaining your own system, Arch isn't for you.
I'd agree, but this is true of most distros tbh. Like obviously loads of stuff is gonna break on arch just due to the bleeding edge release cycle, but I had fewer issues running arch than Ubuntu, mainly due to PPAs and snap bullshit
obviously loads of stuff is gonna break on arch just due to the bleeding edge release cycle
I keep reading this as if it was fact, but Arch never broke anything for me in several years.
You do need to do a bit more to maintain it, but IMO it's less effort than a release upgrade on a versioned distro. And if you automate it you only need to deal with it once.
Yeah, like 98% of the times something broke while updating, it was something to do with ZFS, because the ZFS drivers aren't in the kernel for licensing reasons, and there's always a specific latest kernel version they're compatible with that's 1-2 versions behind current. Also the initramfs would sometimes get rebuilt without ZFS if there was a version mismatch, which prevents the system from booting properly, but it's Fine because Half the Point of ZFS is snapshots.
Someone using arch in a more sane way than I was would probably have no issues (unless they use proprietary Nvidia drivers, which will VERY occasionally break, but that's nbd).
I agree with the OP. But swap the term "newbie" for "casual user" or "non IT user", and more people would agree. Even the nerdiest IT Pro was a newbie whenever they use a distro for the first time. Avoid the term "normie" too, as people have different ideas of what normal is. There are more non IT, power users who have a deep knowledge of their applications, than all Linux users put together.
So this discussion is all around a sloppy choice of terminology.
I agree that the descriptors have to change. It's insulting to linux beginners when you assume they're illiterate non-it users that can't read the paragraph explaining the install options.
But, for a non IT person, installing Linux, using the typical GUI tools is not specially hard to do. Write an ISO to a USB stick. Boot the PC. Answer the installer questions like language etc. And if something doesn't work, try a different distro. The problems come when people suggest users use unfamiliar UIs, such as the command line or fiddling with config files, where, if you don't know the exact magic words, it fails to work.
While a linux beginner who's been developing apps in proprietary microsoft systems for 20 years might be looking for an OS that's easy to manage from CLI.
Yes. Then the newb is typically happy to learn the Arch ways. Showing that "arch bad for new users" is a bad choice of words.
Most desktop computer users want a system that works out of the box, never breaks, and hides away the complexity behind a "we're doing magic under the scenes, give us a second" style screen.
And it appears that some distros, like Ubuntu, Mint, and PopOS, ElementaryOS, and ZorinOS, have either outright achieved this lofty goal or gotten very close (I am on Artix and haven't used these for any considerable amount of time but from the outside it looks like they've done so).
From my limited perspective, it appears the main reason behind noob friendly distros being even possible is the long release cycle of their base distro, Debian. Thusly configuration scripts for these variants are easier to upkeep than on Arch based distros because there simply isn't this rapid fire bleeding edge schedule that needs to be kept up on Debian.
I'm not opposed to recommending Arch for computer savvy noobs to Linux, even those that aren't necessarily familiar with the command line. As long as they show a genuine willingness to learn it over time. Especially if they want to be an engineer/ developer of any kind, they should become familiar with the command line regardless of which OS they use.
But if they're a normie, who just wants to try Linux because they're tired of MacOS or Windows and just want a simple OS that they can use for basic office tasks, browsing the web, answering emails, playing video games, watching videos, etc., then don't send them down the Arch rabbit hole. They'll simply not want to spend the time figuring it out and they'll just go back to Windows or MacOS. Recommend they try ElementaryOS, Linux Mint, Ubuntu, ZorinOS, or PopOS depending on their use case.
Arch requires constant maintenance and a bit of discernment/vigilence to keep going and that's something most users aren't willing to go through.
It's like getting people to learn how to drive vs becominng your own mechanic. Sure, people are willing to learn to drive, they can immediately see the value in it, they want to get to places and have their own autonomy. But Arch is becoming your own mechanic (with Gentoo being like also being your own machinist). Most people don't want to be their own mechanic, most of the time they just want to drive from point A to point B.
Hell if someone seemed like they didn't want to read the wiki or learn some bash and it was case of a youtube-machine, then I'd not recommend arch. But I do think some newbies are smarter and willing than the community will give them credit for.
I wish I was recommended arch off of the bat as I kept dipping my toes in Debian based distros for years before I'd face the darksouls boss. It was detrimental to my transition to Linux. Some people move from windows wanting that control over they're systems.
Anyway I posted this as an IT professional posted earlier about there unsuccessful and painful transition to Linux through Ubuntu and distros alike and a commenter mention arch and instantly got chewed out.
"Arch isn't for noobies" is a catch phrase at this point and I see people repeat it mindlessly
I'm in general agreement on that. If the person is coming from a somewhat technical background, or is simply curious about learning the ins and outs of their system, then Arch is as good a choice as any imho.
In some cases, Arch is a better choice if you need more up to date software (although 3rd party packagers like Flatpak appear to solve many of these issues on scheduled release distros as well).
There sadly is a lot of gate keeping in the Linux community which leads to a lot of blanket statements that pervaid discussions, especially when it comes to how best to grow the Linux community. And "don't recommend Arch or Arch bases distros to noobs" is one of them.
Should you recommend Arch to a new Linux user? The answer is never a direct "yes" or "no", but rather, as always, "it depends."
@squid_slime but it is a pretty bad experience for them I use it just for hyprland and that's not what most new users want to see they just want a system that just works
I struggle to understand what wouldn't work, if I was to download a pre configed GUI arch iso, load it up on my PC I'd be met with plasma/gnome/or any other wm/dm and would most likely have working networking, a GUI application installer and a browser...
Some functionality is missing, like USB plug and play, certain network file sharing capabilities, printing...so in addition to learning pacman, having to learn all the package names, you have to look up how to give the OS certain functionalities...it's a lot as a newbie. If you don't love working on computers, you may not make it through that phase.
And I say this with all due respect, as an Arch user myself.
EndeavourOS might help with all of this but even then I wouldn't put a newbie who just wants to try Linux on it. Arch doesn't even have a proper GUI-based way of installing packages and there's not really an incentive to (Arch users say it's because PackageKit is shit, Arch developers say it's because PackageKit doesn't work with Arch's rolling package releases). PackageKit isn't actually supported on Arch and KDE Discover will go out of its way to tell people that it's not supported on Arch. Maybe someone who has experience with the command line I'd recommend Arch/Endeavour for, since you WILL be using it on Arch, no way around it.
Same could be said if I told someone to use Debian, but we tell people to use mint and its all taken care of. Manjaro had no issue with USB, and pacman in my opinion is the easiest package manager ive used but even so if it is that difficult then they can use a GUI package manager that would come pre installed on most GUI arch based distros
pacman in my opinion is the easiest package manager ive used but even so if it is that difficult then they can use a GUI package manager that would come pre installed on most GUI arch based distros
Recognizing that's your opinion, in my opinion it's the hardest I've used. The commands are all flags, so you have to remember letters instead of "install" or "upgrade" if you want to use any packages outside of the like 4 in the official repos, you have to enable AUR, which is effectively just installing from source from some random person's GitHub repo, in which any number of things can go wrong. I mean, there's a reason there exist a bunch of different wrappers for pacman.
sorry it doesn't click for you, I grow up with severe dyslexia unable to read and write till the age of 18 which coincides with when I became interested in computers, so maybe for me flags are easier then apt get install update commands and the orders they go in
And I stopped using git commands once I found yay
And every GUI app store ive dealt with has an option to enable aur packages
Well even a bare bones install of Debian has USB plug and play, networking, printing...they include a bit more than Arch, even if you do have to install your own programs.
I've been an Arch user for over a decade, and I wouldn't recommend it for newbies. It's not about the installation, in fact, installation is the easy part now, what with the official install script, pre-configured dot files, and the likes of EndeavourOS etc which provide a friendly GUI installer; the problem isn't installing Arch, it's what comes after.
For starters, because you've cheated and skipped installing the hard way aka "the arch way", you know little to nothing about how your system is setup and works, particularly around the bootloader, what goes into your initramfs, the DM config, and most importantly: how to deal with pacman issues. pacman isn't exactly newbie friendly:
- You'll need to know how to deal with pacnew files and merge new parameters into your existing config files
- Ocassionally you'll run into issues like the PGP signature not being accepted (which requires a manual import), or issues where you may need to update the keyring and pacman first before you upgrade anything else, or there may be a dependency issue where you may need to hold or rollback a package etc.
Obviously, none of the above requires you to have a rocket scientist-level IQ to figure it out, a couple of Google searches or the Arch wiki can sort you out - but the point is, it shows that you need to have some basic understanding of your OS internals, package mangement, and most importantly you'll need to be comfortable with using the terminal and CLI apps.
As a seasoned Linux user, the terminal is home for many of us, but believe it or not, it actually scares away many newbies - and pushing Arch onto these newbies only perpetrates the misconception that you have to use the terminal and punch in some hackerman™ style commands to use Linux. And we know that's NOT the experience at all with actual newbie friendly distros such as Zorin, Pop!_OS, Elementary etc, where you don't need to touch the terminal at all, you don't need to babysit the package manager or know any special commands or OS internals.
So please, please do not recommend Arch or any Arch-derivatives to newbies: you'd be doing them a massive disservice and potentially put them off Linux forever. Unless of course, you know that person well, and you know for a fact that they're tech savvy and won't shy away from using the terminal and getting their hands dirty.
But ive had to import ~~gpg~~ pgp into Debian based distros to install applications
Which distros exactly, and for which applications?
For the Debian based distros that I mentioned before (Pop, Zorin, Elementary), I've never heard of any normal user having to fire up the terminal. And by "normal" as in someone who doesn't have any special software needs and just uses Facebook, email etc, maybe ocassionally prints and scans stuff or plays games from Steam. And you can ask my elderly mother - she's been using Xububtu and Zorin for almost a decade now and never had to touch the terminal.
Motioneye was one application and yea its not for a regular users but the only time ive imported pgp keys on arch was for mullvad VPN, and on a few more niche applications. Maybe I am just incredible lucky.
I first arch. Been using it for a couple of months. I used the installscript ofc. And I've not encountered a problem where I needed to know all those funny words that you said. I learned concepts as I needed them. Yet the things I strugle most is how tf git works (and tar magic args).
It's only been a couple of months, give it time. You'll surely run into one of these issues sooner or later, 100% guaranteed. But you don't have to take my word for it though, just browse the Arch forums and you'll see the kind of issues people run into - and so will you, eventually.
well, more opportunities to learn. Anyways, real quick question, for you, caz you said you've been using it for a long time. My mouse reports different mouse wheel events when using it wired or wireless. It's with high res wheel that's the problem. Does this ring any bells for you? Caz it's really annoying to have a wireless mouse and I need to use it wired.
I'm not really a mouse person, but I recall there was a change made in kernel 6.1 which broke hi-res scrolling for some folks, but I believe it was fixed in kernel 6.3(?) Here's a thread discussing this: https://old.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/1032x5q/linux_61_update_screws_up_the_mouse_wheel_of_my/
FWIW, I just tested this with my Logitech G900 (kernel 6.6.14, KDE Wayland) - the scroll events reported using both the wireless (dongle) and USB are identical - they generate one REL_WHEEL and one REL_WHEEL_HI_RES event, which would seem to be the behaviour prior to 6.1. Not sure if any of this helps though sorry.
I update my kernel so if it would be fixed, I wouldn't have the issue. I tried downgrading just to see, and went even further back then 6.1, and if I recall correctly it still wasn't working. I fear it could be a mouse problem. I found an aur package that claims to disable high res mouse events, I might try that one out.
Thanks for your time none the less. Is there any way to replace my mouse's software, like jailbreaking or something, I'm guessing that's mouse dependant. Is there any FOSS mouse driver?
Yeah, no. Search the Arch Linux News for “manual intervention”. Once that list is zero except for an unintended bug, you’ll be closer. The newbie friendly distros include significant scripting to avoid those situations. Arch is not a “just hit update” distro.
While it's not as bad as it's used to, it certainly can never beat Ubuntu & Linux Mint regarding user-friendliness.
Do keep in mind that most people might be way less tech savy than us. Even in this platform.
How long have you been using Manjaro? How long had you been using Linux before you tried Manjaro? Were you using it during one of the 4 times they let their SSL certificate expire? Have you been using it for long enough to have AUR packages break because of the planned delay?
Here's the thing, Arch distros are bleeding edge, and they make assumptions about the user behind the keyboard, one of those assumptions is that you will read the arch news, for example just looking at the news in the homepage now, if you had been using budgie desktop you would have encountered a problem preventing you from updating just a few months back https://archlinux.org/news/budgie-desktop-1072-6-update-requires-manual-intervention/ . This is not serious or unexpected, in fact if I saw the error that comes from that I would immediately know what to do without having read that news, but a newbie using Manjaro and their graphical UI would just be frustrated that their system is not updating anymore. And making matters worse if they asked on an arch forum about it they would essentially be told that they're using Manjaro and should ask on a Manjaro forum, and since those are way less active it would be a while before someone told them what to do, if they ever managed to get the output to explain the actual issue. And that's just one example, Arch distros break backwards compatibility daily, it's just not expected that you'll have packages out of date, so anything you installed manually might just break, whereas other distros are a lot more careful about what they upgrade.
I wouldn't recommend manjaro, the devs have made way too many mistakes. Hense I crossed out manjaro in the list.
Did you read the rest? The HTTPS one is the only specific manjaro thing, most points apply to all Arch based distros.
I did but you mention menjaro a lot it felt as if you'd skipped what I had posted.
Ive used Linux since Ubuntu 12 but had no understanding of the deep Linux system so I never stuck with it, then budgie came out (the os) which was great but limited, soon after moved to manjaro where I found out aur packages would brick my machine so move on to arch where I have stayed. Ive not had many issues and when I do I know how to handle them, ive never looked at arch news (maybe a sign of complacency) but even so ive been able to fix what minimal issues ive had (in my experience)
For some people who are new user, having system with more controls is a compelling position, one that the community needs to understand and not repeat the same 3 distros or chew out others for suggesting arch.
If a new user shows genuine interest beyond web browsing then arch and its variant deserve a mention.
Opensuse.
Here is a trick that has been tried and tested over the years: Install another distro, and use that to install Arch. This way, you can rely on an already working linux distro till your Arch install works the way you want.
Gnomes box's is actually pretty great for new users
My experience is that arch isn't for the first time users (with rare exceptions). I think that Arch is the 'wrenchable car' equivalent.
When a is person learning how to drive the aim isn't to immediately train them on how to do mechanical work on the car... It's to learn how to make it do its primary task of transporting people and goods.
Once they have basic competency in driving it's a laudable idea to teach then how to maintain the vehicle so they don't have to spend a large amount of money on experts (mechanics, IT). If the only vehicles they ever drive are super complex then they won't be able to understand how it works. This is where the 'wrenchable car' comes in. Choosing a vehicle that has manageable complexity and isn't hard to do the work on.
Arch requires you to assemble the system as part of the installation. The documentation is fantastic, but it's still written like a service manual. Arch also does poorly if you fail to do maintenance like keeping updated. Choosing a more beginner-focused OS like Pop or Mint is going to set a new user who doesn't have any understanding up for more likely success. Once they know how to get the system out of park and can drive it around the digital block, it might be time to show them how to build that self-assemble kit that lets you change the color of the dash lights.
Arch happened to be the final step I needed to walk away from windows, but that came after flirting with various distributions for more than a decade. One of those attempts was Gentoo, and that was a disaster. I don't think that I would have been successful if I had tried arch much earlier than I did.
I have heard good things about Mabox linux, although it's based on manjaro.
Alternatively one could also try 'Arco linux' it's pretty good.
Artix should be mostly good for even new users, just look past the whole init system thing
Arch is the only distro that grabbed me by the balls.