Comment on Screw it, I’m installing Linux
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoI disagree. If you want to use Arch for the first time, install it the Arch way. It’s going to be hard, and that’s the point. Arch will need manual intervention at some point, and you’ll be expected to fix it.
If you use something like Manjaro or CachyOS, you’ll look up commands online and maybe it’ll work, but it might not. There’s a decent chance you’ll break something, and you’ll get mad.
Arch expects you to take responsibility for your system, and going through the official install process shows you can do that. Once you get through that once, go ahead and use an installer or fork. You know where to find documentation when something inevitably breaks, so you’re good to go.
If you’re unwilling to do the Arch install process but still want a rolling release, consider OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. It’s the trunk for several projects, some of them commercial, so you’re getting a lot of professional eyeballs on it. There’s a test suite any change needs to pass, and I’ve seen plenty of cases where they hold off on a change because a test fails. And when it does fail (and it probably will), you just snapper rollback and wait a few days. The community isn’t as big as other distros, so I don’t recommend it for a first distro, but they’re also not nearly as impatient as Arch forums.
Arch is a great distro, I used it for a few years without any major issues, but I did need to intervene several times. I’ve been on Tumbleweed about as long and I’ve only had to snapper rollback a few times, and that was the extent of the intervention.
Learning is good.
I know someone who after years of being told about gentoo, still refused to use the handbook to install it, had someone else install it for them, and gave up after a few months… recently revealed he thought it was a text only operating system. XD
Learning is good.
RTFM! :)
Exactly.
There’s a difference between gatekeeping and being transparent about what’s expected. I’m not suggesting people do it the hard way as some kind of hazing ritual, but because there’s a lot of practical value to maintaining your system there. Arch is simple, and their definition of simple means the devs aren’t going to do a ton for you outside of providing good documentation. If your system breaks, that’s on you, and it’s on you to fix it.
If reading through the docs isn’t your first instinct when something goes wrong, you’ll probably have a better experience with something else. There are plenty of other distros that will let you offload a large amount of that responsibility, and that’s the right choice for most people because most people don’t want to mess with their system, they want to use it.
Again, it’s not gatekeeping. I’m happy to help anyone work through the install process. I won’t do it for you, but I’ll answer any questions you might have by showing you where in the docs it is.
Yeah, there are many people that just want the system to work and not have to become full time geeks like some of us are. There are also plenty of distros, atomic or not, that provide that experience. Perfect match. There’s a distro for everyone, from anti-tech people to full blown rocket scientists.
I 100% agree. If you want the Arch experience, you should have the full Arch experience IMO, and that includes the installation process. I don’t mean this in a gatekeepy way, I just mean that’s the target audience and that’s what the distro is expecting.
For a new user, I just cannot recommend Arch because, chances are, that’s not what they actually want. Most new users want to customize stuff, and you can do that with pretty much every distro.
For new users, I recommend Debian, Mint, or Fedora. They’re release based, which is what you want when starting out so stuff doesn’t change on you, and they have vibrant communities. After using it for a year or two, you’ll figure out what you don’t like about the distro and can pick something else.
starblursd@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
I agree… I went with arch because I like rolling release but wanted to force myself to learn how things work. Anymore, arch has just as much chance of breaking as any other distro, fairly low honestly. It does however have the most detailed documentation and resources available.
Now on CachyOs cause it’s quicker to setup and the team behind it is so damn on top of getting issues fixed asap.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Yes, Arch is really stable and has been for about 10 years. In fact, I started using Arch just before they became really stable (the /usr merge), and stuck with it for a few years after. It’s a fantastic distro! If openSUSE Tumbleweed stopped working for me, I’d probably go back to Arch. I ran it on multiple systems, and my main reason for switching is I wanted something with a stable release cycle for servers and rolling on desktop so I can use the same tools on both.
It has fantastic documentation, true, but most likely a new user isn’t going to go there, they’ll go to a forum post from a year ago and change something important. The whole point of going through the Arch install process is to force you to get familiar with the documentation. It’s really not that hard, and after the first install (which took a couple hours), the second took like 20 min. I learned far more in that initial install than I did in the 3-ish years I’d used other distros before trying Arch.
CachyOS being easy to setup defeats the whole purpose since users won’t get familiar with the wiki. By all means, go install CachyOS immediately after the Arch install, buy so yourself a favor and go through it. You’ll understand everything from the boot process to managing system services so much better.