Who tf is out there recommending new people Arch? What a non-issue!
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
-5 points (0.0% liked)
Linux
48029 readers
916 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
I might recommend something Arch-based that's opinionated and feature-complete, like Manjaro or Garuda, but I'd recommend pure Arch to the same people who would equally enjoy NixOS.
I've seen it a handful of times and find it pretty wild. It's certainly not some widespread thing.
I do agree with the point, though.
Its a good way to learn how different parts of Linux work
After you install arch a couple times you won't be making posts asking why your grub is broken, youll already k ow how to fix it.
I'd recommend something that guesses how to install grub onto your system correctly for beginners, and let them figure this stuff out when they're used to basic Linux usage TBH
I had many problems with installing grub in a dual boot configuration, so much so that I moved to systemd-boot and never had problems after. I don't know why, but it's config file approach felt more intuitive.
I'm actually not sure why GRUB is such a popular boot loader that comes packaged with so many distros. Maybe GRUB does something more complex than just bootloading, but I don't know if most users would care...
The last time my grub was broken was around 2012 when I ran Arch. After that I have rarely thought about grub at all.
OK so just dont learn the fundamentals I guess.
Really lazy attitude
I'm not watching some rando groyper's clickbait. What is the reason?
drops video link
refuses to elaborate
Well I personally think that Fedora is a bad recommendation too. It's not just about Arch.
Just switched to fedora after 4 years of archi. LUKS broke, the h264/h265 aren't there, and it has redhat's repo of flatpak selectioned by default rather than flathub. But hey, at least printers work OOTB!
I'd disagree with that, mostly.
The media codecs is bloody annoying, yes. Sure it's only a command or two, but it really should just be a tickbox in the installer like it is on, say, Ubuntu. So big agreement there.
As for the Flatpak repo, Fedora switched to Flathub as the default a while ago. IIRC it only doesn't if you choose to have no non-foss software during the installation (in which case of course you'd expect to not get full Flathub access!)
I think Fedora is an overall pretty great distro for beginners aside from their media codecs bone-headedness and their god-awful installer (which is getting replaced).
I will always recommend people to research their choice of distro. Use the right tool for the job.
What one person needs may differ from what another person needs. Take into account what the use case is for the machine you are using.
I use Arch BTW but I don't run Arch for any of my servers. I use Arch where it makes sense for me.
I wouldn't tell someone switching from Windows to just go balls to the wall and go for something blerding edge and arguably more maintenance or manual intervention needed.
I will give my suggestions but always implore them to research what theyt3 looking for.
I never see people recommend Arch any more. New users should research the distro they should use instead of choosing the distribution they've heard of the most.
I would recommend Arch, but only to users who want to learn and understand linux and have the time to do so.
I strongly disagree, they should go in with an absolute baby beginner distro first, learn all about how it works from a user's level, and then they can go back and start building up from scratch with arch.
first steps would be to stop calling a distro baby beginner been running debian for 24 years. Linus runs Fedora the exclusive idea I run a hard distro with a custom window manager and use CLI for everything Is pure ego and toxic. Now don't get me wrong there is no issue with using Arch or a window manager vs DE. But the idea that as you advance it's a foregone conclusion you will used that config or distro.
This is the same discussion as with learning programming languages. In the us, most universities start with python, to make to easy by avaoiding memory management. In Europe, most universities start with C and C++ to teach the basics to the core. Both approaches can be appropriate depending on the student.
Eh, archinstall is a thing nowadays -- there is nothing to "learn" on arch anymore.
I would recommend they follow the full installation guide instead, which is probably one of the best pieces of technical documentation in existence at the moment. The amount of detail, context, and instruction provides both an invaluable learning experience and introduction to Linux.
archinstall is not foolproof; that's why I wouldn't recommend it to an absolute beginner. IMHO, It's more valuable for people who are familiar with the process and want a shortcut.
As great as archinstall is, it can't possibly account for every contingency. Troubleshooting a bootloader issue, for example, is easy if you've installed one before. If a noob managed to navigate the TUI (with all of the confusing questions and settings) and complete the installation only to have something go wrong there, they're off it, maybe for good.
new users should just try out distros in vms and decide for themselves
I mainly recommend Universal Blue distros to newbies, like Bazzite or Aurora. The immutable nature more or less means users don't have to worry about performing maintenance of system apps like they might on some distros, mostly don't have to worry about dependencies, and are less likely to irreversibly break the system themselves or in an update.
That said, these distros are Fedora-based, and I think that's fine. No idea who out there is recommending Arch of all things.
Looks like open suze is going to experience more corporate bullshyt
The parent is suggesting the non corporate part is going to need to be renamed
I lost interest in open suze after I was dead ended on version 15
SUSE also has multiple controversial pacts with Microsoft, and has for a long time. Such as the Novell-Microsoft agreement.
There was a time when it looked possible that MS was going to sue lots of Linux projects, and SUSE immediately jumped into a cosy relationship with MS so that if it did happen, they'd be shielded. This was interpreted as a fuck you to other FOSS projects by much of the community. (Was a long time ago though)
SUSE isn't owned by Novell anymore though. So this isn't particularly relevant.
They aren't, no. But SUSE has continued working with MS, and many of the people that were there are still there.
Perhaps their close relationship is an irrational thing to point at in the current year. Perhaps it isn't. I don't really know tbh.
But it's certainly something some people are still a bit iffy about. And I'm sure some people will still be similarly iffy about RedHat in 10 years too for their recent licencing controversy.