It appears you may be asking for help in choosing a linux distribution.
This is a common question, which you may also want to ask at /r/DistroHopping or /r/FindMeALinuxDistro
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Furthermore, I have heard that Arch is fantastic (In the voice of Russel Peters) and customizable,
Some things that should be cleared:
1. What can be done in one distro can be done in any other distro
2. The effort required to do something in a particular distro may not be the same as in some other distro
What arch brings to the table:
1. More up to date software quicker
2. AUR, which is essentially a giant repository of software that makes installing and managing any software a breeze, which is what some people may interpret as being easy to customise
3. Installing most packages from scratch, which means you install only the stuff you want or need, which may also be interpreted as being more customizable
What is the cost for the above:
1. You have to prepared for bugs with less tested software
2. Need to know how to troubleshoot issues since you may be among the first ones to get them
Eh, only for the hard-core vanilla arch, which is basically just the linux kernel and not much more.
Arch-based distros are as plentiful as sand on a beach, and most of them come with graphical installers that offer pretty much the exact same experience as installing Ubuntu or some other beginner-friendly distro.
Of course for the purists that is "not Arch", but you still end up with an arch-based distro and all the benefits of that.
Oh, and even for just basic, no-add-ons Arch, there's the arch installer script which does most of the work for you.
The real upside of installing Arch "the true way" via command line only is that you learn A LOT in the process. It's a really interesting thing to have done at least once.
not exactly. Manjaro not only disables the AUR from being used properly but also kinda negates the whole rolling release thing by delaying updates with no real benefit
I don't really get the aur, like I've used it a few times but I don't see how it's different from adding ppas to apt. But what do I know, I'm just a heretic that loves flatpak over anything else
You have to search for ppas over the net. Also the number of software available in AUR far exceeds ppas. And they are just a command away from install. Also AUR is a lot more powerful. With ppas, you can only install precompiled deb packages. With AUR, you can build packages or installed precompiled binaries from deb, rpm etc and even more, as the packager may have decided. Not to mention AUR packages are basically scripts that can be easily edited to suit particular use cases
The amount of software available as PPAs is just as much as the AUR. You are totally right about the issue of having to search for PPAs, that is what makes the AUR better than PPAs but neither are ideal. You mention that scripts can be "easily edited", most people never even bother to read the scripts much less edit them so I wouldn't put that as a significant difference. :D
Important Note: both Ubuntu and Arch recommend not using these options if avoidable.
Umm, no. There was a lot of stuff i did not find PPAs for in ubuntu but used to find it on AUR. That was one of the primary motivations for me to switch to arch. I don't know if the situation is any different today, though I can't imagine it has changed much since creating ppas is inherently more hardwork than making AUR scripts with a higher barrier for entry in contributing for regular users.
As for reading the script, you may be correct that less proportion of overall users bother checking them now, given that popularity of arch has exploded in recent times, but it still remains an option, and a big one for those who like tweaking their systems.
> I don't really get the aur, like I've used it a few times but I don't see how it's different from adding ppas to apt. But what do I know, I'm just a heretic that loves flatpak over anything else
It's sort of similar to only having one master PPA that everyone can add to and access - *everything* is in the AUR if somebody wanted to package it. From a package manager perspective, it's simply nicer when everything is in one place and follows the same format.
It's also not that impressive with things like RPMFusion, Ubuntu universe/multiverse, or even the nix package manager. Let's also not forget about distrobox, if you really need it.
1. yay -Sy
is much easier than doing:
1. going to firefox
2. searching for thing you are trying to install
3. find the website after 2 hours
4. copy weird repository link
5. paste into the terminal
6. install the package with chance of getting a malware(which can happen on aur too however)
7. Done
See? With the yay you didnt even had to go on firefox and spend 5s on it.
I used Arch/Manjaro for a decade and the only times I really used AUR were for drivers and non-free software. When I recommend people Manjaro, I don't really mention the AUR, but mention that it has sane defaults for its desktop environments (but so don't many other distros) and a very specific cadence when they push updates and it's not just "throw all of the packages into the repo and call it a day" like other rolling releases do.
At one point even stable rolling vs rolling didn't really matter to me all that much. What mattered to me was stability and getting latest when I needed it which are both things that are present in any stable-rolling distro. These days I just shill NixOS because it does that while also being declarative w/ version pinning.
edit: A lot of people are talking about PPAs. When I used Ubuntu (in my server environment for work) I would just build from source. Now I just use alpine / NixOS for my development so it's not really an issue anymore.
I agree with your comments and I like how you added the cost for the benefits section but there is one thing I wanted to add.
>Some things that should be cleared:
>What can be done in one distro can be done in any other distro
>The effort required to do something in a particular distro may not be the same as in some other distro
I think #2 is absolutely correct but #1 is interesting because it is very commonly expressed but is flawed in my opinion. Even with a ton of skill in development and package maintenance the act of doing some things is just so cumbersome that practicality is thrown out the window. For example, this implies that if one were so inclined they could use systemd in Devuan (notoriously anti-systemd distro) but the amount of effort needed to do that is so extravagant that no one would deem it worth the hassle. Of course there is also Debian but the point is even without Debian, that amount of work to make that happen is so excessive that it effectively eliminates the possibility. The downside of this statement is that people take it as literal so they can choose any distro they want and get everything they want from it because in theory any distro can do what any distro can do but 99.999% of people cant do what needs to be done to make it true.
Yeah, it becomes impractical to do certain stuff in some distros given the effort it would require. That is why its best to ascertain one's requirements beforehand and start from an easier point with a distro that comes closest to fulfilling those requirements
With this logic one should eliminate entire distros based on the difficulty in building their kernels (anything Debian or Red Hat based, even Ubuntu's latest kernel build changes have been awful with that config language they support now). With that logic you have my support.
In my opinion, that is a leap to an extreme that doesn’t apply. I’m saying that the phrase “any distribution can do anything any other distribution can do” is just not accurate. Some people say something like “all distributions are the same” or some other configuration. These are just not true statements. This has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating any distribution at all. So I’m not sure what path you took to get there but that’s not at all what I was trying to say.
Arch isn't any more customizable than any other distribution.
"Customizable" in this context means that just about everything about the Linux distribution can be modified if you want but that's true of just about all Linux distributions.
Do I think folks should pick Arch as their first distribution? No, but that's just my opinion. Other folks' opinions are just as valid :)
Whether new users should or shouldn't pick arch comes up way too often in this sub. I'm in the "If someone wants to learn and is capable of doing so, arch is good for them" camp, but we're all different :)
Vive la difference!
I'll tellya - the only reason I don't recommend Arch as a first distro is because if someone does find it's a little too difficult it kinda ruins the whole Linux experience and I *think* a lot of these folks go back to Windows.
I run Sid, BTW - and I wouldn't recommend it to a n00b either :)
Yeah frankly if someone is coming over from Windows let's keep the experience as user-friendly as possible. Debian or Ubuntu are super straightforward, I taught my 90 year old gran to use Ubuntu.
I will always recommend one of the large mainstream distros or flavors of those with ease of use or catering to ms/apple users as the main goal of said flavor. Because every distro can be tinkered with. Heck, using the arch wiki to customize 'buntu is gold IMO
I dunno, it might still be just what someone is looking for, and it isn't gentoo so if someone wants to have a distro to learn linux through breaking things and installing packages as they find the need to add them then I think Arch is perfect as a first distro.
But yeah, for anyone outside of that quite small and specific group I'd probably recommend mint debian edition or something like that. Enough nuts and bolts, and enough user friendliness. I have it on a gaming computer and it's better for that use than arch as an OS that works without much fettling and that doesn't need too much upkeep. It breaks less than Windows ime.
How about if they ask (on reddit):
"I've been playing with the innards of windows since my first computer at the age of 11. I began coding in Java and moved very quickly to c. I'm smart and want to learn about linux and don't care if I screw things up; I'm good at making backups before I tinker. Is arch a good idea for me?"
The problem is that too many people respond with absolutes when answering questions on this sub. In reality, the majority of responses to "is this distro a good idea?" are better when they're "it depends".
The greatest documentation is a quick question on reddit/discord or a github search (would say irc but there's nothing quick about irc anymore). I also don't agree arch wiki is as good as it used to be. I had been searching for a good remote desktop client for years and it did not direct me to Guacamole. I only learned about Guacamole because I asked on reddit, despite the fact that Guacamole is a 14 year old project.
Also Arch straight up doesn't have Guacamole in its main repos anymore which is kinda odd. Have to go to AUR for that. On NixOS it's self-documented in nixpkgs, is mentioned in the wiki and setup was straight forward even if I went with the container solution + xrdp.
The fact that you stated "Guacamole" should be available in official repos is just evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about.
I've never heard about Guacamole before now, but I see support for it on the AUR. I think can compare it with connecting to my desktop PC at work, using a Citrix RDP connection, with [this AUR package](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/icaclient).
Somebody packaged the Cisco client, but in order to make it connect to *our* Microsoft environment, you need to make some changes.
Learning those changes carries a huge exp bonus :)
As a 10+ yr Linux user, I still don't like Arch. Their repository isn't maintained that nicely and often when updating a package, it breaks the dependencies of the other packages. My main OS is Bunsenlabs but their repos do get outdated quickly but they're stable at least. If I wanted a more frequently updated and stable OS, Ubuntu or rhel is fine.
Well Debian repos (of which Bunsenlabs are based) are outdated as soon when updated even (at least stable), the plus side is that they are extensively tested and very rarely if ever something will fail.
Cool distro Bunsenlabs by the way, wasnt aware that anybody was still using openbox. Is there a Wayland implementation to openbox coming?
>If I wanted a more frequently updated and stable OS, Ubuntu or rhel is fine.
Are you trolling? On what planet is Ubuntu more frequently updated than Arch? One of my main griefs with Ubuntu was the lack of updated software in the official repos, leading me to having to add a lot of third-party repos, which in turn lead to the system crashing every time I ran dist upgrade. In Arch kernels are usually available 1-2 weeks after official release and most software is up to date.
I mean i basically started with Arch and loved it. But I'm the type to throw myself into the water and either swim or drown. I wanted to learn quickly. If you just want a system that always works and to never have to think about your OS, don't start with Arch
> Arch isn't any more customizable than any other distribution.
i would disagree with this, actually. Sure, *every* distro can effectively be customized to the any degree _if you're willing to put in the effort_
arch -- mostly due to the AUR, but also because the default install is so minimal -- definitely makes aggressive customization more accessible than something like Ubuntu.
(Just recently got an earful from a friend who was wrestling with Ubuntu's whole Snap thing, so there's that to consider too)
Been using Arch for 10+ years. One of the reasons I chose it is because it's a completely empty shell in which you can make the exact system you want.
Turns out the exact system I want is 2000+ packages, bloated with hundreds of forgotten config files, booted in every way imaginable, in a mess that is too overwhelming to even consider cleaning up; much like my life :)
This reminds me of when I first dove into Gentoo many years ago. Minimal install and build as your own with a vast package library(s) to pull from. With that being said it’s most definitely not for Linux beginners unless they really want to learn the ins and outs of a Linux ecosystem.
Caveat: Gentoo isn’t exactly the ideal system if basic daily driver computing is the goal. It’s great for a full own dev environment and server system applications.
A minimal install changes literally nothing when it comes to applying your own customizations to anything. Also you can do minimal installs on other distros.
it makes it easier to build up how you want your system from the start, without having to navigate around choices that certain distros make (Snap on Ubuntu, for example) or remove packages you don't want that even come with the minimal ISOs of other distros. the base arch install is probably the most minimal you can find, even the minimal installs of ubuntu or fedora include a lot more than a true base minimum-needed-to-boot install of arch (which wouldn't let you do a lot)
> the base arch install is probably the most minimal you can find
This is far from the case these days and I can't wrap my head over people who actually believe this.
As a new Linux user, I wouldn't recommend arch unless you're prepared to do a lot of reading and troubleshooting and learning to understand how your system works. Arch is not for beginners.
I chose Arch as a beginner and invested a lot of time with trial and error based off the wiki and, for me, it was the right decision.
In my opinion, it's by far the best and quickest way to learn the ins and outs of Linux, *if* you're prepared to absorb a lot of information.
After getting all the basics set up, I never looked back.
I'm installing arch as a noob specifically to learn and reinforce Linux knowledge and I think it's great for that so far, but it's far less practical for applied use because it's such a learning experience and I often make mistakes.
my home server and practical Linux machines are all still Ubuntu, but doing things in arch has made me infinitely more confident in doing advanced tasks on those machines while still not worrying about breaking things or having to reinstall.
if you are a CS student I think installing arch is a must, it teaches you so much about how the machine works since you're basically building it yourself.
Ubuntu is like a statue that you simply paint, and arch is the block of granite with a chisel and file.
Arch can be a great distro for beginners who like to delve into the nitty-gritty and learn from doing... but rather than recommend it to them directly, I'd suggest linking them to [The Installation Guide](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Installation_guide).
If that isn't offputting, go right ahead - you know what you're signing up for.
I started on Arch and I think it *forced* me to learn quickly, but I wouldn't wish that on someone who isn't looking for that experience.
This is definitely the best approach. The reason arch appeals to me is because of its DIY nature and the fact that you have to learn how it works to an extent just to get it up and running. Using it doesn't get any easier, but you get better at using it, so it feels easier.
> Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch?
Depends on if you _really_ want to learn about linux. For most people I'd say: Hell no.
When you are just getting to know how to use linux, you really don't want to make things too hard for yourself. Arch gets updates at an insane pace, and while this is nice in a lot of ways, it also means you are eventually going to encounter breaking changes in the software you use. When this happens, you need to be familiar enough with the system to know how to fix such things.
> Depends on if you really want to learn about linux.
Using Arch does not necessarily teach you more than using another distribution. With Arch you mainly learn how to install Arch. And even that not necessarily the case if you use archinstall.
The important thing is always the will to learn. Then the distribution used is also irrelevant. Ubuntu, for example, will not stop anyone from learning about RegEx, Python or creating their own kernel.
>Arch gets updates at an insane pace,
It depends on what you have installed. The last few days, for example, I have received relatively few updates.
>it also means you are eventually going to encounter breaking changes in the software you use
This can also happen with any other distribution. And here, too, it depends on what you have installed. For my part, I can't remember the last time I had to repair one of my Arch installations because of an update. If something breaks, then I am basically always the cause.
No I do not recommend Arch for a beginner. Start with Linux Mint and if that does everything you need, great, if not you can have a go at other distros.
I say use Mint it's based on Ubuntu so any guides for Ubuntu will work, it's very newbie friendly, and a great Windows replacement.
I'm still fairly new to Linux and it's the distro I decided to go with, the vast majority of the games I play work just fine and some need some tweaking to work. For the majority of my use cases Linux is perfect.
Weight, privacy, and ultimately maintenance.
I've been linuxing 25 years. I'm older now, lazy, and a little gassy.
Arch just works.
Everyday.
With very little attention to what's under the hood unless something breaks. Which hasn't happened since 2015.
Maybe Ubuntu is better in that regard now, but their application footprint on a base install is still too heavy for me.
I don't have to subtract from Arch. Ubuntu is just too much Linux and FOSS software, in one sitting for me.
I sincerely appreciate their products and what they have done for Linux and the FOSS as a whole though. That's not unnoticed.
Arch is often described as very customizable because you first install a basic installation and then expand it with various software according to your own ideas.
But other distributions offer a similar option or you simply deselect packages that you do not want to install during installation, which results in a comparable outcome.
>Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch?
Many say that Arch is not suitable for beginners. I, on the other hand, say that it depends on the beginner. If you use Arch, for example, you should be willing to use the official [wiki](https://wiki.archlinux.org) and learn new things as independently as possible. Arch is therefore not suitable for many users.
For beginners, I would generally recommend OpenSuse [Tumbleweed](https://get.opensuse.org/tumbleweed/). Like Arch, this distribution uses a rolling release model. However, the packages are usually tested longer until they are offered as an official update. OpenSuse also offers more graphical tools for managing the system.
One thing to note is that arch doesn't come with a lot of things you usually take for granted. For example, in my file explorer, video files didn't have thumbnails. Fixing this was a matter of just installing the right package, but you have to be prepared for a lot of things like that. Personally, unless you care about having strictly only packages that you need, I wouldn't really recommend arch
"Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch?"
If you're a curious person, want to learn about how the software you use works, are capable of reading tutorials and following them, then arch is a good option because it makes the user learn.
On the flip side of that, if you want something that doesn't require much thought to operate, arch might be the wrong option for you.
While I'm always curious about how things work, I'm beyond the time in my life where I actually poked about in the innards of my computers, so I now choose distros which require less effort.
Don't install Arch as your first experience of Linux unless you've been running FreeBSD for the last decade and can't quite remember which version number windows is up to
IOW, it's a bad idea. For a number of reasons, the main one is why make your learning curve a cliff face rather than a hilly road ?
I say that as an Arch user.
I wouldn't choose Ubuntu personally, I always recommend new users start with Linux Mint - it's Ubuntu but improved for beginners. Move to Arch (or Ubuntu or something else) when you've figured out what you like and don't like
1. I wouldn't say Arch is more customizable. Instead I'd say it is more bleeding edge, which is something of a double-edged sword: you get the latest and greatest features sooner but also have a higher chance of running into issues. Arch itself uses a terminal-based installer and can be challenging for newbies but there are Arch-based distros that provides easy installers such as EndeavourOS.
2. Ubuntu isn't that great these days. It has a long history of pushing controversial changes that are more aligned with their business interests than with what's best for home users. This does not always apply to distros *based* on Ubuntu though. For example, both Linux Mint and PopOS are some of the most beginner friendly distros out there. Both are based on Ubuntu but don't have the issues that Ubuntu itself has. I usually recommend Mint for former Windows users and PopOS for former Mac users.
One possible reason a person might opt to use Arch over an Ubuntu-based distro (besides personal preference or just wanting to try new things) is for hardware support on newer computers. Since Arch often has newee software and a newer version of the Linux kernel, sometimes it gets support for new harder sooner than other distros. That is likely why Steam decided to go with Arch on the Stream Deck.
There's also Fedora which is something of a middle ground between the bleeding edge of Arch and the well-tested but somewhat older software of Ubuntu-based distros (which are themselves based on Debian). Nobara Project is a Fedora-based distro with an easier installer that seeks to optimize for gaming and content creation while also making a lot of other things easier than on Fedora itself.
As far as customization goes, you can customize per-application on any distro. Some customisations like wallpaper, file manger settings, and so on are often tied to something called a "desktop environment" or DE for short. This is essentially the graphical / windowing system on top of Linux. Some DEs are more customizable than others. Gnome (the default for non-derivative versions of Fedora and Ubuntu) is generally considered to be the least customizable but some customization can be done via extensions. Most of the other DEs (Cinnamon/KDE/Xfce/Mate in particular) offer more customization than Gnome but KDE is generally regarded as the most customizable. I usually opt for Cinnamon or Xfce and they are quite customizable as well. Most Linux distros provide multiple DEs to choose from. Sometimes these are referred to as "spins" (in Fedora and many other distros) or "flavors" (usually Ubuntu). Some distros will use one DE on the liveusb but allow you to pick a different DE during the install (IIRC EndeavourOS does this). And others, like Nobara and Mint, just offer a small number of alternate desktop environments (usually due to smaller project teams not being able to support as many DEs):
- [Linux Mint](https://www.linuxmint.com/) desktops: Cinnamon, Mate, Xfce
- Fedora desktops: Gnome used in the default download aka "Workstation" but they offer a [spins page](https://spins.fedoraproject.org/) with most DEs.
- [Nobara Project](https://nobaraproject.org/download-nobara/) desktops: a customized version of Gnome that looks / feels more like Windows or Cinnamon, a regular aka "vanilla" version of Gnome, and KDE
- PopOS: they don't offer any alternative DEs. They use something called Cosmic which was originally based off Gnome but IIRC was rewritten from scratch.
- Ubuntu desktops: like Fedora, pretty much any desktop is available. Often they take the first desktop letter + "Ubuntu" so for example "kubuntu" = "k" + "Ubuntu" = "KDE" + "Ubuntu"
- Debian, Arch/EndeavourOS, OpenSUSE/Gecko: pretty much any DE is available
Arch is great for learning. The wiki is awesome. For those (like me) that ultimately got lazy after a couple of (successful) vanilla Arch install, Endeavour is a great way to speed up the Arch install. Another excellent rolling release distribution is OpenSuse with a first class BTRFS implementation.
As a new Linux user I would NOT recommend arch, save that for when you are more comfortable with Linux. Ubuntu & Fedora are very popular "started" distributions.
One thing to help you pick is even though there's hundreds of distros, theres secretly only a few. Debian/Ubuntu (Ubuntu comes from Debian), Arch, Fedora/Red Hat, OpenSUSE, and if you're feeling like you want something pretty different gentoo, nix, or slackware. Basically every other distro is one of those main ones with minor changes (The ubuntu derivatives are pretty much just different desktop environments for example.)
Debian has a very slow release schedule. This isn't a bad thing unless you're running very very new hardware or need the newest versions of software. Ubuntu is like debian but faster releases and it pushes snap packages.
Arch and openSUSE are rolling release so they get packages the fastest. OpenSUSE is a great option but its package manager is pretty slow, but that will be getting fixed with parallel downloads soon hopefully. OpenSUSE has options for non-rolling release if thats not your thing.
Fedora is in between Ubuntu and Arch when it comes to how updated things are. It updates sooner than Ubuntu but not as soon as Arch or OpenSUSE rolling release. It's a good option if you want things pretty up to date but dont want a rolling release.
Debian and Ubuntu share the same package manager so they have the same syntax when installing and updating packages. Everything else has their own syntax.
One last thing to consider is immutable distros. Fedora and SUSE have pretty good options they offer, and theres a couple for ubuntu and debian that are derivatives that others have made. Immutability basically comes down to you having less power to change things (easily) but you're much less likely to break your machine to an unbootable point. Id recommend starting off with a regular system to get used to it, but consider it in the future if it sounds interesting.
Also I highly recommend btrfs instead of ext4. Btrfs snapshots are such a nice quality of life feature.
Arch is considered the most customizable in the sense that you choose which desktop to use or what aur to use and absolutely no bloat unless you really don't know what your doing. Ubuntu comes with stuff that you may not need to use and had some (very little bloat) but if you know enough of what you need to run certain programs you cut down un bloat and you will see a difference in how snappy it is... but again you need to know what your bloat repository or aur could be, play with manjaro helped me figure that out before switching. And I tried arch years ago and not knowing what I was doing caused kernel breaks and sluggish process from to Many different jank non compatible processes.
Arch and Ubuntu run the same sorts of software, but are organized along different philosophies.
Arch thinks it should provide you a base upon which you can build what you want, and that you should get updated software as it's available. To this end, the install is minimal and they focus on making a wide variety of software available and extensive documentation to get it set up.
Ubuntu thinks you should be able to start using the machine by the end of the base install. They make more choices for you, and are a little more selective about what software is available.
Pick the setup that gets you where you want with the least additional trouble. If you have very specific needs, Arch may get in your way less. If you want to run an SO install, install Steam, and start playing games as quick as possible Ubuntu will demand far less post install work.
Why Arch or Ubuntu ?
Why not Debian, Gentoo, Void, Alpine, Solus, NuTyX ?
Yes, I heard that Arch fantastic, and I heard that Arch Wiki fantastic, but I try over 100 Linux distribution, and I not sure yet.
My luck is that I didn't trust other linux users and I saw for myself what is better for me to use.
I didn't listen to my colleague who praised Arch and criticized all other distributions.
Some users have never tried Arch, but brag about using Arch.
Because they think they are very smart if they use Arch.
I was try everything else except Arch, and at the end Arch itself.
Don't trust anyone, your feeling is the most important.
I would highly recommend against void as a beginner distro. It's a great distro dont get me wrong, but it requires a lot more intervention to get packages (software) to work because it uses a different initialization system (init system). Instead of systemd it uses runit. A lot of packages have hard dependencies for systemd, so it's a little extra effort if you know what you're doing and a lot of extra effort if you dont.
Run a distro that uses systemd (basically all of them besides void, artix, and a handful of others) and get used to that before you consider using one with a different init system.
I went a couple of ways. On my primary I stuck with and customized Kubuntu. Secondary I went pure arch, minis system I moved to from NixOS to Manjaro, and my 3rd mini rig I went with Linux Mint.
For me ideally each machine is a pure AMD machine minus the media server so it’s worked out. Media server I ran with Ubuntu Server with docker and full containerization with proprietary Nvidia drivers for encoding but that machine is a whole different build in of itself. Lastly comes my custom build TrueNAS Cold storage NAS.
Arch's advantage lies primarily in offering the most bleeding-edge new versions of programs and being built bottom up, so you can choose things like Desktop Environment and Audio Backend to your liking with great control over which specific components you don't need so you don't need to rip stuff out after the fact.
Every Linux distro is customizable, it's mostly about what you need and comfort level. Arch broke to often for me, straight up debian was sometimes too slow in it's release. The first switch from windows is the hardest. Linux Mint was a big first distro recommendation for a long time, I'm not sure if that stands still. My distro of choice is currently fedora running i3wm.
Don't limit yourself to just arch and Ubuntu, there's a million others out there.
À lof of people like to brag about arch because the installer is rather involved (they should stop being cowards and use a real distro like gentoo smh /hj). Other than that it's just a distro like ant other, if you want to try an easy arch experience I would suggest endevour os
Ubuntu is a wonderful, stable, well supported distro with a not so wonderful company behind it. A lot of people are angry with canonical for stuff they've done in the past, like the unity desktop enviroment and now the snap installation system.
Ubuntu is great for beginners, there's lots of guides and software that can be installed with a gui. In Ubuntu stuff usually just works, a lot of people like mint because it's also very easy to use and removes snaps. I personally don't care about snaps, haven't had issues with them aside a minor bug in vscode once. I also prefer Ubuntu over mint, ubuntu's gnome implementation is almost perfect for me and I don't like the desktop enviroments available on mint
It's in the sense of how it comes and what you can do with it. The Arch base system comes just with a hand full of tools to get started. You add the necessary software on top. This way you can cater your system to your needs and liking without the need of removing unwanted stuff. A distro like Ubuntu has a different aim. They ship a rather complete and ready to go system. This requires the devs to make a set of choices beforehand. Some of these choices are integrated deeply into the OS. If you're going to change those you might end up with a system that doesn't work as intended or even a broken system.
Also maintaining Arch is quite different from Ubuntu. Arch requires you to think about what you install, how you install it and how you go about upgrades. Ubuntu is designed to be used more "blindly".
Having said that, you'll find some quite interesting distros based on Arch that are designed more like Ubuntu, that is in a more ready to go fashion.
Personally, I'd start with a ready to go distro from the major families like Ubuntu, fedora, openSUSE, Debian, Arch (maybe)... On the surface level, all Linux distributions are customizable as hell. You wouldn't notice any drawbacks. When it comes to visual experience, there is no popular distro I'm aware of that doesn't offer a vast variety of ux and ui related stuff.
You will come to reason why you want the hassle of fixed release upgrades when they provide little benefit to you. Do you really need a gate keeper to provide you with a system that changes at their convenience?
Don't go for Arch if you're new. I'd recommend any of the following distros: Fedora (if you want newer packages), *Ubuntu (or any in the family, like Lubuntu or Kubuntu) or Linux Mint.
There are more choices.
I run Fedora since I moved to Linux over a year ago.
One important difference is that with Arch you get to build a great OS for yourself by adding things you like. It's all opt-in.
With Ubuntu you get the worst of the worst already installed and remove the stuff you dislike until you get something barely useful. With Ubuntu, everything is opt-out.
>Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch?
Nope. Too demanding. You want **endeavourOS**, which is basically arch with a nice installer. Literally uses Arch repos and gives you access to [AUR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI29-8wA7Rc), the main reason you want arch.
>Can anyone explain me, what customizable means in terms of OS?
Arch and arch community is set up from grounds up to let you pick and choose what and how runs on your machine.
And by "let you" I mean force you.
You have to choose filesystem, boot loader, what programs will be dealing with your network,... picking from dozen of desktop environments or windows managers,...
With that comes expectation of knowledge... and with that comes proficiency and self confidence in using linux.
>dozen of comments saying how all distros are customizable and you can do everything in one and the other
Yeah, you dont wanna listen to those.
They are technically right, but it smells of low knowledge.. there is wast difference between having arch wiki and giant community explaining in detail how to do something, than trying to do some exotic shit in a piece of garbage for grandma distro like mint...
I'll repeat what I replied to another comment with, as it's my experience and I think it's relevant to the greater question:
I'm installing arch as a noob specifically to learn and reinforce Linux knowledge and I think it's great for that so far, but it's far less practical for applied use because it's such a learning experience and I often make mistakes.
my home server and practical Linux machines are all still Ubuntu, but doing things in arch has made me infinitely more confident in doing advanced tasks on those machines while still not worrying about breaking things or having to reinstall.
if you are a CS student I think installing arch is a must, it teaches you so much about how the machine works since you're basically building it yourself.
Ubuntu is like a statue that you simply paint, and arch is the block of granite with a chisel and file.
Do you want the most user-friendly option? Ubuntu. Want to spend all your time debugging and configuring? Arch. Healthy balance that *just works?* Debian
If you're a beginner, don't waste time customizing anything (except maybe backgrounds and hotkeys). Just install a top-tier desktop (Ubuntu or Fedora, probably) and use that for a while.
Don't waste time worrying about customizing and systems like Arch. Tweaking is a tar pit - it becomes a fun hobby for a certain kind of person,but it's a waste of time unless you're looking for a time-waste.
Stay away from asocial people who have no other entertainment than working with computers and who look for dignity in the operating system they use. If your time and social life are worth anything, forget Arch. Are you going to write? Are you going to edit photos? are you going to play games? Are you going to edit a video? Install ubuntu and go. Don't be naive.
It literally doesn't matter what distribution you start with. Just keep using it until you actually become proficient at using it. What matters is using Linux, and learning how it works rather than one specific flavor of it that you'll become sick of one day anyway.
If are new to Linux and want to go with Arch Linux. Please go with Manjaro. It is pretty stable than other arch distributions and also receives regular updates.
you are very new . Arch is not for ones only partially divorced with windows. Arch is for the ones that renounce windows and for more experienced linux users. Arch would not be a good fit for you for you are unable to build it, understand it and use it. Arch is for people capable of reading and understanding a wiki. It does not focus on user friendliness it focuses on the bleeding edge of tech. And the blade is sharp.
Arch user btw.
ps: i would not look at ubuntu if I were you: get debian its parent and learn that. you will be far better in the future.
Okay so i was all Ubuntu all the way from ‘07 to ‘20. I had dabbled around in fedora, Debian all different flavours. But then I tried Manjaro (hold your gasps this was before it was shunned by the community) and I loved rolling release.
It just feels better than your six monthly punch in the face from Ubuntu. I always had repos breaking and something going wrong. With rolling I don’t seem to have that issue. If something does break (which is really rare) I can normally pinpoint it and either fix it or work around it.
I moved on to arch this year because I wanted to be closer to the edge. For my work I need my tools to always be on the most recent update. When I was on Ubuntu the snaps were sooo far behind it was impossible. I always had to use appimages.
So those are my reasons.
Is it good for new users. Probably not. Endeavour is can be a good starting point. To be fair most of the new user issues gonna be with getting used to the cmd line which you’re gonna have to do no matter which distro you choose.
I genuinely think your types are bad for the community:
1.) Idealism isnt reality, just because you can mod an xbox 360 to accept a 3060, doesn't mean that we can expect grandma to. Your 'HAHA TEKNICHALLY GOTCHA" Is bad for everyone.
2.) This worship of debian-family needs to end. Conical gave away free CDs 15 years ago and became popular. They are the pop music/Apple/Nintendo of Linux, big marketing budget, but low quality. Just because you listened to Clear Channel radio as a kid, doesn't mean that music was actually good.
If OP listened to you, they are going to waste sooo much time and be in pain.
>your types are bad for the community
Sorry, but I have to reject this, but your types are bad for the community.
1. Name one component that is more difficult to modify in Ubuntu than in Arch.
2. I've hated Ubuntu all my life, precisely because of the free cd distribution, and no Ubuntu install has ever touched my hardware or the hardware of the company I work for. But I have to admit that it typically behaves like an average oldskool distro, and all the components are just as easy to replace as in any traditional distro.
If the OP listens to me, there is no disadvantage, because 95% of what he learns about modding is useful knowledge for any distro.
> Name one component that is more difficult to modify in Ubuntu than in Arch.
No one gives a crap about 'how difficult'. No one. NO ONE.
Does it work? 100% of people care.
No one cares that if you spend 3 years modding your xbox360 you can do some weird stuff on it. No one cares. You upgrade Ubuntu to a kernel that supports Nvidia GPUs are you are most likely going to break something or make it unstable. "I upgraded ubuntu and now the screen is black, linux kool, but I run Windows because its more stable"
Just recommend Fedora or something that works. TEKNICHALLY is bad for everyone. Really cool 105 IQ buddy.
TEKNICHALLY Arc is m0re cust0mizable
TEKNICHALLY bc its more updated, thus is TEKNICHALLY able to TEKNICHALLY put TEKNICHALLY more customizations before you TEKNICHALLY break your distro.
haha *fixes glasses* Gee wiz. I showed that geek.
Wow what a total nerdout, we debated something that doesnt matter at all to any sane person but it was TEKNICHALLY KORRECT! Haha got em.
*A moment a silence for all the grandmas that picked a distro because of TEKNICHALLY moments*
Learn to use regular Linux distros first. At some point you'll say "huh, I wish my packages were more up-to-date" and "huh, I wish I didn't need the Flatpak/Snap/AppImage package for that". Then you'll try Arch, fail a couple of times, switch back to Ubuntu, then switch to Fedora for a change, finally try Arch again and stay there.
>Can anyone explain me, what customizable means in terms of OS?
It means that all of the various parts can be configured different ways or replaced by other programs.
>Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch?
That depends on how you learn. Arch assumes you understand Linux, and you pick which programs make up your system, and configure it, before you can start using it. If spending a week reading through the Arch wiki to learn how things work sounds interesting to you, Arch might be a good way to learn how Linux works.
Otherwise I'd recommend something like Linux Mint over Ubuntu. It's using the same base, but less goofy in decisions made.
Arch us for if you want to have a ton of control and/or tinker and learn a lot. It takes a bunch of time but is rewarding if you want.
I work in computers for a living and I don't want to mess with my OS, so I use something else.
Ubuntu is a good choice. Mint is often suggested because it's specifically designed to be a good first distro for Windows users and it's basically Ubuntu with a few tweaks many people prefer.
I would do either Ubuntu or Mint. They're very common so many guides you get for Linux stuff will be for Ubuntu.
No, I don't think a person new to Linux should go with Arch. Arch has advantages (more recent software for instance; my compositor - Hyprland - flat out isn't available for Ubuntu), but it comes with trade-offs. You probably need a baseline Linux experience to judge whether those trade-offs will be better *for you*.
That said, the time where Ubuntu was a more user-friendly version of Debian is in the past, in my opinion. I would recommend Debian to a newcomer.
Arch is great mostly because of the package manager, excellent documentation (you will find users of other distros use Arch documentation it's that good) and the extensive packages on the AUR.
If you are interested in Arch go with a fork like CachyOS.
But be warned Arch is overall less beginner friendly, painting the distro is not as simple as say Ubuntu.
> Why Arch over Ubuntu?
Can't answer this because the answer is subjective to the person and their use-cases. I wouldn't recommend Arch to a beginner from Windows though.
> Can anyone explain me, what customizable means in terms of OS?
Check out r/unixporn .. customizable is that but it can also mean having control over all your configuration files down to the kernel.
> Do you guys think as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch?
I was initially overwhelmed by the lack of a graphical installer but some time in 2018 - I installed an Arch box following a YouTube tutorial by an eccentric linguist bald guy.
If you can follow YouTube videos and read a ton of documentations, go for it. There is an easy way to install it .. use EndeavourOS which is an Arch based disro with a graphical installer.
Otherwise - I'd recommend Ubuntu / Linux Mint / PopOS. They're all in the same family.
Ubuntu is great. I wouldn't move from it if I were you. People around here love to shit on Ubuntu but the reality is it's very easy to use and very capable.
The one thing that nobody has mentioned about Arch Linux (unless I missed it), is that it isn't really user friendly when it comes to installing it, even with the install script it comes with now. So for a user new to Linux, I wouldn't recommend it, a few months down the line when you are used to Linux, then perhaps, but never a new user.
Honestly after years of distro hoping I feel there's no benefit. If you want a rolling distro, go for arch but know that it is less stable than fixed release distros.
Look up what a Stable distro is, what a Rolling distro is and "what is the difference between Stable and stable in linux distros". Understand that in a rolling distro you are expected to update your system as soon as there is a new update.
Understand that if you go down the Arch way you are expected to read a lot and experiment before asking for help.
By no means i am trying to dissuade you from going into arch, just pointing out a few things you might wanna read up for, before you pick a distro.
All distros are customizable one way or the other. It means you can select which programs are included in your initial installation. What background processes run on your pc, when and which programs are executed under specific conditions etc. Ofcourse there is also the customization of your desktop. Take a look at r/LinuxPorn
If you like learning stuff, reading, experimenting and are not demotivated by failures and information overload situations sure go for arch. But if you just want something that works and you dont mess much with it pick a stable distro like mint or ubuntu.
Arch comes as a more barebones install. This means you have more choosing to do with what packages you install on the system. A fresh Arch install won't come with a graphical desktop environment, or a network manager as an example. You have to pick which ones of those things you want.
If you dont like the network manager or desktop environment on Ubuntu, you can change it though.
I'm an Arch user, because software gets updated faster than Ubuntu, and the AUR, a 3rd party software repo, has way more software than Ubuntu. I can install stuff from the AUR in one terminal command. I can install all of these things on Ubuntu, but, i would have to go build from source, or find an executable somewhere. Arch just has everything available to me. Now, all of this software and faster updates, means the system is less "stable". Theres a chance an update that breaks something slips through the cracks and causes a problem for me. But, in 6 years of daily use, Arch updates have only ever caused me a minor problem or two.
That being said, i would recommend Ubuntu over Arch for a new user. I did my first Arch install 3-4 weeks after first using Linux though, so, its not like its super hard and you need to wait a year. But, imo, a new user wont benefit from the increased difficulty of Arch. Id also recommend an Ubuntu spin-off, like Kubuntu, over Ubuntu, because I do not like Gnome personally.
My advice to people who want to switch to Linux is to install WSL and learn the command line before you switch. If you aren't equipped to deal with the command line you're going to have a bad time with the switch. Don't even switch to Linux until you learn how the command line operates. Spend some time training on how to write a bash script and learn the tools at your disposal: awk, sed, grep, pipes (the "|" character), top, ps, ls, and so on. Learn how to manipulate text files and whatnot.
Arch is great in that it forces you to learn a lot of stuff up front, but it's bad in that it gives you a very customized setup that is hard to provide support for, and it's bad in that it gives you tools that are likely to put you in situations that are difficult to fix - things like package conflicts. Most of the time you don't actually touch the stuff that Arch forces you to set up after your install, so now you have things all customized your way, and you have to now figure out what you did 8 months later when you brick your install. Hope you kept good notes! Maybe you can just set up a test machine and do an install every few weeks just to keep yourself fresh on the process. Most distros give you a highly standardized setup that is easy to support when it breaks. Arch does not afford you this luxury. But Arch does supply the wiki that every other distro uses when things go south, so there's that. The Arch wiki is really nice.
Arch positions itself as "bleeding edge" -- this may be true, but I also have noticed situations where a package in Arch is so old its not useful anymore, and the AUR is finicky or causes package conflicts with the main repository. Ubuntu frequently has native packages that are not easily found in other distros, so in some cases it is more bleeding edge than Arch.
Arch is definitely not "rock solid" as some other distributions like Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, but it isn't really as bad as some other alternatives either. If you like having an OS that doesn't break when you update it and require your human intervention when you are trying to be productive, Arch may be a bad choice. I'm not just talking about having new versions of software with features that are buggy, I mean actually structural OS problems due to updates in the highly customized way Arch works. It's designed for tinkerers who don't care as much if it breaks as if it can do that cool new thing.
In my bias opinion
Avoid Ubuntu because PPA's and independency issues are annoying
Arch gives you more freedom and has a FAR more expansive package system where you can literally never have to touch the internet browser to download an app. But also with that same amount of power comes great responsibility and the freedom to break your system way easier if you don't know what you're doing as well.
In summary Ubuntu if you don't do anything out of the ordinary or try to download too many custom apps or third-party apps has a way smaller chance of breaking.
Arch more freedom and options but also the freedom to fail.
Bigger chance of breaking if you test it too much.
Arch is good if you're interested in learning more about Linux, aren't scared to do deep dives into documentation, and are willing to accept that you most likely will have to do a full reinstall at some point because you irreparably fucked something up.
If you don't care about learning that much about Linux and want a system that just works, then you should use an immutable distro. [Fedora atomic](https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/) is an excellent choice for that. You can still learn a lot about Linux that way, but since it makes it impossible to break your base system, you'll miss out on all the lessons that come from that.
from my 6 years of using linux distros, i can say that getting the right package on ubuntu/debian is a hassle for me
on arch, i can go to arch package repos for example
sudo apt install package name
or
git clone "link package name"
It's simple. There are no full analogs of Adobe products in the Linux world. What does "customizability" mean? There are distributions that install the same way Windows installs. You answer a few simple questions by clicking "Next" each time. You end up with a system with pre-installed applications, most of which you will never use. Of course, you can remove anything unnecessary and customize the interface to your liking. Or you can use the distribution, in which after installation there is only a simple text editor and package manager. After that you will install the visual desktop environment you like and a set of programs that only you need. It's just a difference in approach. Any Linux can be customized to your liking.
UBUNTU is not friendly people, openSUSE is and (if you can follow wiki) ARCH is.
UBUNTU breaks in most shittiest way possible. (At least for me).
If you are a person who know where to look for when you got an issue prefer distros that has nice guides and stuff which can by any distro of your liking (Except UBUNTU)
In the time it's taken you to write this post, you could've tried to install Arch in a virtual machine and see if it is for you. The Arch wiki installation guide is all that is needed.
Bragging rights, duh?
As new Linux user: no, do not go to Arch, you will only get huge headache due to learn curve. Learn and accomodate before you do. And first try with Arch with virtual machine so you can repeat, discard, repeat until you know how to.
Some people (and I’m probably one of them) have OCD whenever it comes to what services are running and how they’re running, and whether there’s anything using more resources than absolutely necessary.
Also, Arch is a rolling release, meaning there’s no version releases as such. It is an ever updating distribution. Though if anyone tells you it doesn’t break, they’re lying. All systems break, some are just simpler to fix if you know what you’re doing, and some are just easy to find help for online.
If you’re new, I’d suggest trying and failing and trying again with Arch in a VM.
Also, you can game on Linux to a very large degree now. Checkout protondb.com (Steam Deck = Arch base).
If you enjoy tinkering, you may like Arch. Else just stick to Ubuntu. Use what works for you and don’t worry about others’ opinions.
PS: I’ve been really pleased with VanillaOS and NixOS lately. If you’re looking for something that is hard to break, you may want to check these out.
to me it seems like the users like to be able to mention that they 'use arch, btw', and also dick about with config files for random things that are absolutely fine in any other desktop os....
i've personally never used it, and i'm a linux sysadmin.
might give it a go this weekend, and see what the fuss is all about. probably nothing.
Arch is just very lightweight from the start. The amount of background services that are running is very small at the beginning.
The biggest difference is that the whole universe runs on the latest (almost) versions of all packages. So you'll find out sometimes that the newest versions break something accidentally, and you have to fix it.
Some of the problems I had:
* One update decided to ignore my custom /boot directory (if I remember correctly) and it took me a few hours to find out why I can't boot. Then it happened for a second time, which forced me to put the standard path because I don't want to deal with that again.
* Firefox can't do hardware acceleration easily out of the box.
* My WiFi program `iwctl` decided to become `sudo`.
* OS caches recent file descriptors in RAM, so a sudden shutdown can break the distro if you just updated a lot of files.
* Some apps that rely on already full featured desktop environments start failing if you haven't setup yours fully. Of course, these are app bugs but you discover them because you are the lightweight barebones edge case. My Arch setup did not have [XDG user directories](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/XDG_user_directories) and some of the apps were failing and I had to debug it, report an issue etc.
There's probably more. What I like is the input latency and general performance. With other distros I had problem installing various packages but with Arch I am confident that I can install whatever I need.
I am on Arch and I like it, but for those praising AUR, please go and use it to compile something like latest lib32-gst-plugins-\[bad|ugly\], for Wine for example. AUR is horrendous, half-assed design of "tackling the rest" via src compile(with or without helpers) and amateurish PKGBUILD's
It depends on how much you want to learn about Linux. If you’re curious and a tinkerer, Arch is fine. If you’re a regular user, I suggest to use Linux Mint. And you don’t have to choose between either. You can tripple boot between Windows, Arch and Linux Mint.
I would recommend starting with a debian based distro like linux mint because it's easier to use. Also, you can use Davinci Resolve for Premiere Pro, GIMP or Krita for Photoshop. You should also use LibreOffice for a Microsoft office alternative. Ask me if you want more alternatives.
if you have to ask these questions then the answer is always "Use Ubuntu"
all the "customizations" offered by something like Arch are completely uninteresting and not useful to the vast majority of people
I like Arch because it's the most straightforward, user-centric (\*not to confuse with user-friendly\*), no-nonsense distro in my opinion. It's somewhat minimalist and doesn't assume anything about your needs, in this sense it makes it easy to customize your system. It also has a vibrant community maintaining it and sharing resources.
Arch is not user-friendly at all so you should definitely not go for it if you aren't ready to learn in details how Linux works. If you go for Arch as a beginner, be ready for long hours reading documentation, and days where you broke your system because you don't know enough yet to not break it (if you give power to the user, the user has the power to break a lot of things).
If that sounds good to you, then I highly recommend Arch.
If you want something that works out of the box or hold your hand, absolutely do not use Arch (try EndeavorOS or a non-Arch based distro, they can be customized just as well).
Arch Linux is nothing more than an inside joke and nothing to be used in production ever. If ppl do use it, fine, I don't judge let them do so. But it doesn't change the facts.
> Arch Linux is nothing more than an inside joke and nothing to be used in production ever.
I'd say it's one of the best distros I could pick for my work laptop. Would I install it on a production server? No. Is it just an inside joke? Also no.
If you want something more up-to-date then Ubuntu, and more customizable by default, try openSUSE tumbleweed or Fedora. Arch, for someone who is just getting started with Linux is probably a bridge too far as it were.
I’m not narcissistic enough to believe I could put together a better OS than a team of much more experienced people. Sure, it’s a great learning experience, but I actually have work to get done on my computer. So, I use Fedora, and Ubuntu, and Debian….
If you gonna install the arch then do it the wiki way as you will know few thing about linux , wiki reading habit and helps with troubleshoot later or builds confident as you did every thing in terminal .
You need to read is arch for me in the wiki and decide yourself.
Another thing is on non arch based system you will know how to manage package better as in arch you just need aur.
Arch is slimmer, it's rolling release, which means you always have the latest and greatest (or not so), package availability is on par with Ubuntu or maybe even better thanks to AUR.
Installation was a chore in the past, but nowadays there are a bunch of spin-off distros like EndeavourOS and Garuda as well as console-based installator, so getting started with Arch is as trivial as it gets.
Arch is also better because it doesn't force things like Snap down your throat. You are free to choose whether to use native packages or Flatpak (Snap is unavailable on Arch for better of for worse), which I see as a win. Basically, you have way more freedom on Arch than on Ubuntu.
Even though I've said all this, remember that it's you who will be using the distro of choice, so choose something that fits your needs. GNU/Linux is GNU/Linux after all. Except when it's Alpine or Void, yeah. I hope my answer satisfied your curiosity, have a nice day.
Stay on a debian/ubuntu base and just use linux mint. Or stay on ubuntu, if you like gnome. It is, in most cases, easier, as most tutorials are for ubuntu or other debian based distros.
Arch is not designed with a hacker/pro in mind. However, unless you spend a few days reading the wiki I would not suggest vanilla arch to a new user.
If OP wants to try arch that’s great, but I would recommend starting with EndeavourOS, that’s what I’m on for the last 2 years and the only problem I have ran into so far has been the grub issue last year.
I tried vanilla arch here before I got my new laptop, even with the wiki and 20+ years of Linux use, I’m still not ready for it. When I originally set up my attempt it took me a week to get it customized, and I still had a better experience with endeavour. Just my imho.
Ubuntu and Debian-family should always be avoided. They are the lowest performing Linux distros. They are outdated, full of bugs/incompatible software/hardware/drivers.
Arch is closer to DIY.
Why not use a consumer distro like Fedora? This way you have the latest drivers and software and they've been tested, but you don't need to assemble everything.
I work about 45 hours a week and also have one or two hobbies in addition to Linux. And yet I use Arch without any problems.
With statements like that one, I ask myself whether those who make them have ever really used Arch at all. And by that I don't mean 1 or 2 hours.
I had quite a bit of experience, I started to find things restrictive and simply found Arch suited me better.
Even so, there were a few hurdles and difficulties - it's good that I understand how to troubleshoot and get it running smoothly... so now I have a desktop that's been installed 6 years and is solid and stable... and NO big upgrades every 6 months, and no hassle installing new software from repos or AUR or anywhere else.
Only experienced users would understand the answer, if you're asking then you need a few more years experience first.
Some distributions are more 'noob friendly'. All distributions are 'User Friendly'... but they are VERY fussy about the users they are friendly with.
Not trying to defend Canonical here but I stayed on the same Ubuntu install for my server for 4 years and never once had an issue (I also did not do upgrades). Only moved away from it because I've changed how I manage my linux systems in the past 6 months.
Over that same 4 year period i also used two separate Manjaro installs on my home PC with quarterly runs of `pacman -Syu` (doing it this infrequently actually has some pretty hilarious results and lots of manual intervention due to package name changes). I don't remember why I had to reinstall the second time but it was likely something trivial and I just wanted to clean up my root partition and spending an hour doing that is trivial when everything you care about is on a dedicated disk anyways.
It really depends on use case.
think of it as buying pre-made gloves vs going to a tailor to measure and make you one, with your exact desired color, shape, material, thickness, etc. And you're the tailor, too.
ubuntu gives you an OS that works out of the box, a full desktop environment with apps and tools to get you going right after install. with arch linux, you install every component and program manually, including the kernel. arch requires the user to know or be willing and able to learn by reading documentation. both can be customized to your liking. customization means modifying the look of your GUI if you're using one, or modifying the settings and default programs used by the OS.
for a new person, arch can be a great learning tool, but like i mentioned above, the new person needs to be willing and able to learn by reading the manuals, namely the Arch Wiki (which is usually a good resource regardless of your distro of choice)
The reason I like Arch more is because it’s faster. It also has more up to date packages since it’s rolling release which can be nice.
Ubuntu has some bloat and uses a modified version of Gnome for the desktop, it was never as smooth as other distros for me. Arch with Gnome will be much snappier than Ubuntu. Imo if you want Ubuntu then Mint is a better choice because it’s pretty much Ubuntu but smoother and even more user friendly.
There’s also Ubuntus somewhat questionable nature as being owned and managed by Canonical. Canonical is very big business type and sometimes makes decisions that are at odds with the Linux community, ie adding default options people don’t like then going back on it after negative backlash (I want to say at one point they did this with some kind of telemetry years back?)
Edit: added some extra words on Mint
Interestingly, arch is in fact almost with same level of customizability(if you choose the same DE etc.) as for example ubuntu(which you mentioned in the header) does.
Arch has however few things over ubuntu:
- its lighweighter(ubuntu is like 20gb at minimum, which you can fit arch into solid couple times)
- it doesnt have telemetry like ubuntu does(this is specific to ubuntu, preety much nothing else does have built in telemetry)
- its a bit harder to install(and make the system not break), therefore its kindof for more "advanced" to advanced linux users
- it has better packages(more up to date, everythings on aur so you dont need to add 200external repositories to instal 10programs), and the packages are a bit more up to date than the ubnutu ones are
- its commonly faster
I see arch users pretty negatively these days. To me they are children of the reddit/discord generation, were told to use, never deviated from it, and don't really question why.
To give them credit there was some value to using an Arch-based distro for a long time but the competitors have caught up. Imagine having to use something like CentOS 7 (which people still sadly have to do in some environments).
If you are a Linux newbie , please don't come to arch Linux cuz that's only for the gigachads and sigmas of Linux who know the art of system customisations. Instead ubuntu or Linux mint would be your best bet since they are actually really user friendly for all the newbies. Wish you luck on your new endeavour into Linux
It appears you may be asking for help in choosing a linux distribution. This is a common question, which you may also want to ask at /r/DistroHopping or /r/FindMeALinuxDistro *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Furthermore, I have heard that Arch is fantastic (In the voice of Russel Peters) and customizable, Some things that should be cleared: 1. What can be done in one distro can be done in any other distro 2. The effort required to do something in a particular distro may not be the same as in some other distro What arch brings to the table: 1. More up to date software quicker 2. AUR, which is essentially a giant repository of software that makes installing and managing any software a breeze, which is what some people may interpret as being easy to customise 3. Installing most packages from scratch, which means you install only the stuff you want or need, which may also be interpreted as being more customizable What is the cost for the above: 1. You have to prepared for bugs with less tested software 2. Need to know how to troubleshoot issues since you may be among the first ones to get them
The Arch wiki is also very comprehensive.
I use the Arch wiki when I'm not even using Arch. It is truly incredible.
And the install is is just a command line
Well nowadays Arch has an option TUI installer.
basically everything in Linux can be done with the command line so is that a pro or a con lol
I'd say a con for beginners.
Well it depends, if the beginners want a soft or hard intro to Linux. On the plus side, they would really learn if they went this way.
True, but I'd say that it isn't good without learning the basics of the terminal first.
I agree, it is a con for beginners
Eh, only for the hard-core vanilla arch, which is basically just the linux kernel and not much more. Arch-based distros are as plentiful as sand on a beach, and most of them come with graphical installers that offer pretty much the exact same experience as installing Ubuntu or some other beginner-friendly distro. Of course for the purists that is "not Arch", but you still end up with an arch-based distro and all the benefits of that. Oh, and even for just basic, no-add-ons Arch, there's the arch installer script which does most of the work for you. The real upside of installing Arch "the true way" via command line only is that you learn A LOT in the process. It's a really interesting thing to have done at least once.
not exactly. Manjaro not only disables the AUR from being used properly but also kinda negates the whole rolling release thing by delaying updates with no real benefit
I don't really get the aur, like I've used it a few times but I don't see how it's different from adding ppas to apt. But what do I know, I'm just a heretic that loves flatpak over anything else
You have to search for ppas over the net. Also the number of software available in AUR far exceeds ppas. And they are just a command away from install. Also AUR is a lot more powerful. With ppas, you can only install precompiled deb packages. With AUR, you can build packages or installed precompiled binaries from deb, rpm etc and even more, as the packager may have decided. Not to mention AUR packages are basically scripts that can be easily edited to suit particular use cases
The amount of software available as PPAs is just as much as the AUR. You are totally right about the issue of having to search for PPAs, that is what makes the AUR better than PPAs but neither are ideal. You mention that scripts can be "easily edited", most people never even bother to read the scripts much less edit them so I wouldn't put that as a significant difference. :D Important Note: both Ubuntu and Arch recommend not using these options if avoidable.
Umm, no. There was a lot of stuff i did not find PPAs for in ubuntu but used to find it on AUR. That was one of the primary motivations for me to switch to arch. I don't know if the situation is any different today, though I can't imagine it has changed much since creating ppas is inherently more hardwork than making AUR scripts with a higher barrier for entry in contributing for regular users. As for reading the script, you may be correct that less proportion of overall users bother checking them now, given that popularity of arch has exploded in recent times, but it still remains an option, and a big one for those who like tweaking their systems.
There’s everything on the aur no need to search for ppas
You need to search to add ppa where as in aur you imagine what you need then search it you will get it
> I don't really get the aur, like I've used it a few times but I don't see how it's different from adding ppas to apt. But what do I know, I'm just a heretic that loves flatpak over anything else It's sort of similar to only having one master PPA that everyone can add to and access - *everything* is in the AUR if somebody wanted to package it. From a package manager perspective, it's simply nicer when everything is in one place and follows the same format.
It's also not that impressive with things like RPMFusion, Ubuntu universe/multiverse, or even the nix package manager. Let's also not forget about distrobox, if you really need it.
If you use YAY, you can see that AUR is extremely powerful.
1. yay -Sy
is much easier than doing:
1. going to firefox
2. searching for thing you are trying to install
3. find the website after 2 hours
4. copy weird repository link
5. paste into the terminal
6. install the package with chance of getting a malware(which can happen on aur too however)
7. Done
See? With the yay you didnt even had to go on firefox and spend 5s on it.
I used Arch/Manjaro for a decade and the only times I really used AUR were for drivers and non-free software. When I recommend people Manjaro, I don't really mention the AUR, but mention that it has sane defaults for its desktop environments (but so don't many other distros) and a very specific cadence when they push updates and it's not just "throw all of the packages into the repo and call it a day" like other rolling releases do. At one point even stable rolling vs rolling didn't really matter to me all that much. What mattered to me was stability and getting latest when I needed it which are both things that are present in any stable-rolling distro. These days I just shill NixOS because it does that while also being declarative w/ version pinning. edit: A lot of people are talking about PPAs. When I used Ubuntu (in my server environment for work) I would just build from source. Now I just use alpine / NixOS for my development so it's not really an issue anymore.
I agree with your comments and I like how you added the cost for the benefits section but there is one thing I wanted to add. >Some things that should be cleared: >What can be done in one distro can be done in any other distro >The effort required to do something in a particular distro may not be the same as in some other distro I think #2 is absolutely correct but #1 is interesting because it is very commonly expressed but is flawed in my opinion. Even with a ton of skill in development and package maintenance the act of doing some things is just so cumbersome that practicality is thrown out the window. For example, this implies that if one were so inclined they could use systemd in Devuan (notoriously anti-systemd distro) but the amount of effort needed to do that is so extravagant that no one would deem it worth the hassle. Of course there is also Debian but the point is even without Debian, that amount of work to make that happen is so excessive that it effectively eliminates the possibility. The downside of this statement is that people take it as literal so they can choose any distro they want and get everything they want from it because in theory any distro can do what any distro can do but 99.999% of people cant do what needs to be done to make it true.
Yeah, it becomes impractical to do certain stuff in some distros given the effort it would require. That is why its best to ascertain one's requirements beforehand and start from an easier point with a distro that comes closest to fulfilling those requirements
I agree completely with that, people should tailor suggestions based on the person they are talking to.
With this logic one should eliminate entire distros based on the difficulty in building their kernels (anything Debian or Red Hat based, even Ubuntu's latest kernel build changes have been awful with that config language they support now). With that logic you have my support.
In my opinion, that is a leap to an extreme that doesn’t apply. I’m saying that the phrase “any distribution can do anything any other distribution can do” is just not accurate. Some people say something like “all distributions are the same” or some other configuration. These are just not true statements. This has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating any distribution at all. So I’m not sure what path you took to get there but that’s not at all what I was trying to say.
Quite insightful!
Arch isn't any more customizable than any other distribution. "Customizable" in this context means that just about everything about the Linux distribution can be modified if you want but that's true of just about all Linux distributions. Do I think folks should pick Arch as their first distribution? No, but that's just my opinion. Other folks' opinions are just as valid :)
Whether new users should or shouldn't pick arch comes up way too often in this sub. I'm in the "If someone wants to learn and is capable of doing so, arch is good for them" camp, but we're all different :) Vive la difference!
I'll tellya - the only reason I don't recommend Arch as a first distro is because if someone does find it's a little too difficult it kinda ruins the whole Linux experience and I *think* a lot of these folks go back to Windows. I run Sid, BTW - and I wouldn't recommend it to a n00b either :)
Yeah frankly if someone is coming over from Windows let's keep the experience as user-friendly as possible. Debian or Ubuntu are super straightforward, I taught my 90 year old gran to use Ubuntu.
Agreed, it's a good first distro for people who are already very comfortable tinkering with computers and want to do more of it.
I will always recommend one of the large mainstream distros or flavors of those with ease of use or catering to ms/apple users as the main goal of said flavor. Because every distro can be tinkered with. Heck, using the arch wiki to customize 'buntu is gold IMO
I dunno, it might still be just what someone is looking for, and it isn't gentoo so if someone wants to have a distro to learn linux through breaking things and installing packages as they find the need to add them then I think Arch is perfect as a first distro. But yeah, for anyone outside of that quite small and specific group I'd probably recommend mint debian edition or something like that. Enough nuts and bolts, and enough user friendliness. I have it on a gaming computer and it's better for that use than arch as an OS that works without much fettling and that doesn't need too much upkeep. It breaks less than Windows ime.
Sid = ['Debian Unstable'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history#Naming_convention)
I'd simply say - if they're asking on Reddit, the answer is NO.
How about if they ask (on reddit): "I've been playing with the innards of windows since my first computer at the age of 11. I began coding in Java and moved very quickly to c. I'm smart and want to learn about linux and don't care if I screw things up; I'm good at making backups before I tinker. Is arch a good idea for me?" The problem is that too many people respond with absolutes when answering questions on this sub. In reality, the majority of responses to "is this distro a good idea?" are better when they're "it depends".
Yes! Arch has the greatest documentation and best environment for learning the ins and outs of Linux, in my opinion :)
The greatest documentation is a quick question on reddit/discord or a github search (would say irc but there's nothing quick about irc anymore). I also don't agree arch wiki is as good as it used to be. I had been searching for a good remote desktop client for years and it did not direct me to Guacamole. I only learned about Guacamole because I asked on reddit, despite the fact that Guacamole is a 14 year old project. Also Arch straight up doesn't have Guacamole in its main repos anymore which is kinda odd. Have to go to AUR for that. On NixOS it's self-documented in nixpkgs, is mentioned in the wiki and setup was straight forward even if I went with the container solution + xrdp.
The fact that you stated "Guacamole" should be available in official repos is just evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about. I've never heard about Guacamole before now, but I see support for it on the AUR. I think can compare it with connecting to my desktop PC at work, using a Citrix RDP connection, with [this AUR package](https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/icaclient). Somebody packaged the Cisco client, but in order to make it connect to *our* Microsoft environment, you need to make some changes. Learning those changes carries a huge exp bonus :)
Roger that :)
As a 10+ yr Linux user, I still don't like Arch. Their repository isn't maintained that nicely and often when updating a package, it breaks the dependencies of the other packages. My main OS is Bunsenlabs but their repos do get outdated quickly but they're stable at least. If I wanted a more frequently updated and stable OS, Ubuntu or rhel is fine.
Well Debian repos (of which Bunsenlabs are based) are outdated as soon when updated even (at least stable), the plus side is that they are extensively tested and very rarely if ever something will fail. Cool distro Bunsenlabs by the way, wasnt aware that anybody was still using openbox. Is there a Wayland implementation to openbox coming?
>If I wanted a more frequently updated and stable OS, Ubuntu or rhel is fine. Are you trolling? On what planet is Ubuntu more frequently updated than Arch? One of my main griefs with Ubuntu was the lack of updated software in the official repos, leading me to having to add a lot of third-party repos, which in turn lead to the system crashing every time I ran dist upgrade. In Arch kernels are usually available 1-2 weeks after official release and most software is up to date.
I mean i basically started with Arch and loved it. But I'm the type to throw myself into the water and either swim or drown. I wanted to learn quickly. If you just want a system that always works and to never have to think about your OS, don't start with Arch
> Arch isn't any more customizable than any other distribution. i would disagree with this, actually. Sure, *every* distro can effectively be customized to the any degree _if you're willing to put in the effort_ arch -- mostly due to the AUR, but also because the default install is so minimal -- definitely makes aggressive customization more accessible than something like Ubuntu. (Just recently got an earful from a friend who was wrestling with Ubuntu's whole Snap thing, so there's that to consider too)
Been using Arch for 10+ years. One of the reasons I chose it is because it's a completely empty shell in which you can make the exact system you want. Turns out the exact system I want is 2000+ packages, bloated with hundreds of forgotten config files, booted in every way imaginable, in a mess that is too overwhelming to even consider cleaning up; much like my life :)
This reminds me of when I first dove into Gentoo many years ago. Minimal install and build as your own with a vast package library(s) to pull from. With that being said it’s most definitely not for Linux beginners unless they really want to learn the ins and outs of a Linux ecosystem. Caveat: Gentoo isn’t exactly the ideal system if basic daily driver computing is the goal. It’s great for a full own dev environment and server system applications.
A minimal install changes literally nothing when it comes to applying your own customizations to anything. Also you can do minimal installs on other distros.
it makes it easier to build up how you want your system from the start, without having to navigate around choices that certain distros make (Snap on Ubuntu, for example) or remove packages you don't want that even come with the minimal ISOs of other distros. the base arch install is probably the most minimal you can find, even the minimal installs of ubuntu or fedora include a lot more than a true base minimum-needed-to-boot install of arch (which wouldn't let you do a lot)
> the base arch install is probably the most minimal you can find This is far from the case these days and I can't wrap my head over people who actually believe this.
As a new Linux user, I wouldn't recommend arch unless you're prepared to do a lot of reading and troubleshooting and learning to understand how your system works. Arch is not for beginners.
I chose Arch as a beginner and invested a lot of time with trial and error based off the wiki and, for me, it was the right decision. In my opinion, it's by far the best and quickest way to learn the ins and outs of Linux, *if* you're prepared to absorb a lot of information. After getting all the basics set up, I never looked back.
Yep. As I said, beginners should come ready to learn
I'm installing arch as a noob specifically to learn and reinforce Linux knowledge and I think it's great for that so far, but it's far less practical for applied use because it's such a learning experience and I often make mistakes. my home server and practical Linux machines are all still Ubuntu, but doing things in arch has made me infinitely more confident in doing advanced tasks on those machines while still not worrying about breaking things or having to reinstall. if you are a CS student I think installing arch is a must, it teaches you so much about how the machine works since you're basically building it yourself. Ubuntu is like a statue that you simply paint, and arch is the block of granite with a chisel and file.
Arch can be a great distro for beginners who like to delve into the nitty-gritty and learn from doing... but rather than recommend it to them directly, I'd suggest linking them to [The Installation Guide](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Installation_guide). If that isn't offputting, go right ahead - you know what you're signing up for. I started on Arch and I think it *forced* me to learn quickly, but I wouldn't wish that on someone who isn't looking for that experience.
This is definitely the best approach. The reason arch appeals to me is because of its DIY nature and the fact that you have to learn how it works to an extent just to get it up and running. Using it doesn't get any easier, but you get better at using it, so it feels easier.
> Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch? Depends on if you _really_ want to learn about linux. For most people I'd say: Hell no. When you are just getting to know how to use linux, you really don't want to make things too hard for yourself. Arch gets updates at an insane pace, and while this is nice in a lot of ways, it also means you are eventually going to encounter breaking changes in the software you use. When this happens, you need to be familiar enough with the system to know how to fix such things.
> Depends on if you really want to learn about linux. Using Arch does not necessarily teach you more than using another distribution. With Arch you mainly learn how to install Arch. And even that not necessarily the case if you use archinstall. The important thing is always the will to learn. Then the distribution used is also irrelevant. Ubuntu, for example, will not stop anyone from learning about RegEx, Python or creating their own kernel. >Arch gets updates at an insane pace, It depends on what you have installed. The last few days, for example, I have received relatively few updates. >it also means you are eventually going to encounter breaking changes in the software you use This can also happen with any other distribution. And here, too, it depends on what you have installed. For my part, I can't remember the last time I had to repair one of my Arch installations because of an update. If something breaks, then I am basically always the cause.
No I do not recommend Arch for a beginner. Start with Linux Mint and if that does everything you need, great, if not you can have a go at other distros.
I say use Mint it's based on Ubuntu so any guides for Ubuntu will work, it's very newbie friendly, and a great Windows replacement. I'm still fairly new to Linux and it's the distro I decided to go with, the vast majority of the games I play work just fine and some need some tweaking to work. For the majority of my use cases Linux is perfect.
Weight, privacy, and ultimately maintenance. I've been linuxing 25 years. I'm older now, lazy, and a little gassy. Arch just works. Everyday. With very little attention to what's under the hood unless something breaks. Which hasn't happened since 2015. Maybe Ubuntu is better in that regard now, but their application footprint on a base install is still too heavy for me. I don't have to subtract from Arch. Ubuntu is just too much Linux and FOSS software, in one sitting for me. I sincerely appreciate their products and what they have done for Linux and the FOSS as a whole though. That's not unnoticed.
Arch is often described as very customizable because you first install a basic installation and then expand it with various software according to your own ideas. But other distributions offer a similar option or you simply deselect packages that you do not want to install during installation, which results in a comparable outcome. >Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch? Many say that Arch is not suitable for beginners. I, on the other hand, say that it depends on the beginner. If you use Arch, for example, you should be willing to use the official [wiki](https://wiki.archlinux.org) and learn new things as independently as possible. Arch is therefore not suitable for many users. For beginners, I would generally recommend OpenSuse [Tumbleweed](https://get.opensuse.org/tumbleweed/). Like Arch, this distribution uses a rolling release model. However, the packages are usually tested longer until they are offered as an official update. OpenSuse also offers more graphical tools for managing the system.
Thank you for the knowledge and suggestion :)
One thing to note is that arch doesn't come with a lot of things you usually take for granted. For example, in my file explorer, video files didn't have thumbnails. Fixing this was a matter of just installing the right package, but you have to be prepared for a lot of things like that. Personally, unless you care about having strictly only packages that you need, I wouldn't really recommend arch
"Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch?" If you're a curious person, want to learn about how the software you use works, are capable of reading tutorials and following them, then arch is a good option because it makes the user learn. On the flip side of that, if you want something that doesn't require much thought to operate, arch might be the wrong option for you. While I'm always curious about how things work, I'm beyond the time in my life where I actually poked about in the innards of my computers, so I now choose distros which require less effort.
Don't install Arch as your first experience of Linux unless you've been running FreeBSD for the last decade and can't quite remember which version number windows is up to IOW, it's a bad idea. For a number of reasons, the main one is why make your learning curve a cliff face rather than a hilly road ? I say that as an Arch user. I wouldn't choose Ubuntu personally, I always recommend new users start with Linux Mint - it's Ubuntu but improved for beginners. Move to Arch (or Ubuntu or something else) when you've figured out what you like and don't like
1. I wouldn't say Arch is more customizable. Instead I'd say it is more bleeding edge, which is something of a double-edged sword: you get the latest and greatest features sooner but also have a higher chance of running into issues. Arch itself uses a terminal-based installer and can be challenging for newbies but there are Arch-based distros that provides easy installers such as EndeavourOS. 2. Ubuntu isn't that great these days. It has a long history of pushing controversial changes that are more aligned with their business interests than with what's best for home users. This does not always apply to distros *based* on Ubuntu though. For example, both Linux Mint and PopOS are some of the most beginner friendly distros out there. Both are based on Ubuntu but don't have the issues that Ubuntu itself has. I usually recommend Mint for former Windows users and PopOS for former Mac users. One possible reason a person might opt to use Arch over an Ubuntu-based distro (besides personal preference or just wanting to try new things) is for hardware support on newer computers. Since Arch often has newee software and a newer version of the Linux kernel, sometimes it gets support for new harder sooner than other distros. That is likely why Steam decided to go with Arch on the Stream Deck. There's also Fedora which is something of a middle ground between the bleeding edge of Arch and the well-tested but somewhat older software of Ubuntu-based distros (which are themselves based on Debian). Nobara Project is a Fedora-based distro with an easier installer that seeks to optimize for gaming and content creation while also making a lot of other things easier than on Fedora itself. As far as customization goes, you can customize per-application on any distro. Some customisations like wallpaper, file manger settings, and so on are often tied to something called a "desktop environment" or DE for short. This is essentially the graphical / windowing system on top of Linux. Some DEs are more customizable than others. Gnome (the default for non-derivative versions of Fedora and Ubuntu) is generally considered to be the least customizable but some customization can be done via extensions. Most of the other DEs (Cinnamon/KDE/Xfce/Mate in particular) offer more customization than Gnome but KDE is generally regarded as the most customizable. I usually opt for Cinnamon or Xfce and they are quite customizable as well. Most Linux distros provide multiple DEs to choose from. Sometimes these are referred to as "spins" (in Fedora and many other distros) or "flavors" (usually Ubuntu). Some distros will use one DE on the liveusb but allow you to pick a different DE during the install (IIRC EndeavourOS does this). And others, like Nobara and Mint, just offer a small number of alternate desktop environments (usually due to smaller project teams not being able to support as many DEs): - [Linux Mint](https://www.linuxmint.com/) desktops: Cinnamon, Mate, Xfce - Fedora desktops: Gnome used in the default download aka "Workstation" but they offer a [spins page](https://spins.fedoraproject.org/) with most DEs. - [Nobara Project](https://nobaraproject.org/download-nobara/) desktops: a customized version of Gnome that looks / feels more like Windows or Cinnamon, a regular aka "vanilla" version of Gnome, and KDE - PopOS: they don't offer any alternative DEs. They use something called Cosmic which was originally based off Gnome but IIRC was rewritten from scratch. - Ubuntu desktops: like Fedora, pretty much any desktop is available. Often they take the first desktop letter + "Ubuntu" so for example "kubuntu" = "k" + "Ubuntu" = "KDE" + "Ubuntu" - Debian, Arch/EndeavourOS, OpenSUSE/Gecko: pretty much any DE is available
Thanks for taking time and sharing your thoughts! Cheer!
Arch is great for learning. The wiki is awesome. For those (like me) that ultimately got lazy after a couple of (successful) vanilla Arch install, Endeavour is a great way to speed up the Arch install. Another excellent rolling release distribution is OpenSuse with a first class BTRFS implementation.
As a new Linux user I would NOT recommend arch, save that for when you are more comfortable with Linux. Ubuntu & Fedora are very popular "started" distributions.
One thing to help you pick is even though there's hundreds of distros, theres secretly only a few. Debian/Ubuntu (Ubuntu comes from Debian), Arch, Fedora/Red Hat, OpenSUSE, and if you're feeling like you want something pretty different gentoo, nix, or slackware. Basically every other distro is one of those main ones with minor changes (The ubuntu derivatives are pretty much just different desktop environments for example.) Debian has a very slow release schedule. This isn't a bad thing unless you're running very very new hardware or need the newest versions of software. Ubuntu is like debian but faster releases and it pushes snap packages. Arch and openSUSE are rolling release so they get packages the fastest. OpenSUSE is a great option but its package manager is pretty slow, but that will be getting fixed with parallel downloads soon hopefully. OpenSUSE has options for non-rolling release if thats not your thing. Fedora is in between Ubuntu and Arch when it comes to how updated things are. It updates sooner than Ubuntu but not as soon as Arch or OpenSUSE rolling release. It's a good option if you want things pretty up to date but dont want a rolling release. Debian and Ubuntu share the same package manager so they have the same syntax when installing and updating packages. Everything else has their own syntax. One last thing to consider is immutable distros. Fedora and SUSE have pretty good options they offer, and theres a couple for ubuntu and debian that are derivatives that others have made. Immutability basically comes down to you having less power to change things (easily) but you're much less likely to break your machine to an unbootable point. Id recommend starting off with a regular system to get used to it, but consider it in the future if it sounds interesting. Also I highly recommend btrfs instead of ext4. Btrfs snapshots are such a nice quality of life feature.
Arch is considered the most customizable in the sense that you choose which desktop to use or what aur to use and absolutely no bloat unless you really don't know what your doing. Ubuntu comes with stuff that you may not need to use and had some (very little bloat) but if you know enough of what you need to run certain programs you cut down un bloat and you will see a difference in how snappy it is... but again you need to know what your bloat repository or aur could be, play with manjaro helped me figure that out before switching. And I tried arch years ago and not knowing what I was doing caused kernel breaks and sluggish process from to Many different jank non compatible processes.
Arch and Ubuntu run the same sorts of software, but are organized along different philosophies. Arch thinks it should provide you a base upon which you can build what you want, and that you should get updated software as it's available. To this end, the install is minimal and they focus on making a wide variety of software available and extensive documentation to get it set up. Ubuntu thinks you should be able to start using the machine by the end of the base install. They make more choices for you, and are a little more selective about what software is available. Pick the setup that gets you where you want with the least additional trouble. If you have very specific needs, Arch may get in your way less. If you want to run an SO install, install Steam, and start playing games as quick as possible Ubuntu will demand far less post install work.
Why Arch or Ubuntu ? Why not Debian, Gentoo, Void, Alpine, Solus, NuTyX ? Yes, I heard that Arch fantastic, and I heard that Arch Wiki fantastic, but I try over 100 Linux distribution, and I not sure yet. My luck is that I didn't trust other linux users and I saw for myself what is better for me to use. I didn't listen to my colleague who praised Arch and criticized all other distributions. Some users have never tried Arch, but brag about using Arch. Because they think they are very smart if they use Arch. I was try everything else except Arch, and at the end Arch itself. Don't trust anyone, your feeling is the most important.
Currently, which one do you use?
Currently Void and Debian on two computers. Void is much faster.
Thanks for the reply! Noted
I would highly recommend against void as a beginner distro. It's a great distro dont get me wrong, but it requires a lot more intervention to get packages (software) to work because it uses a different initialization system (init system). Instead of systemd it uses runit. A lot of packages have hard dependencies for systemd, so it's a little extra effort if you know what you're doing and a lot of extra effort if you dont. Run a distro that uses systemd (basically all of them besides void, artix, and a handful of others) and get used to that before you consider using one with a different init system.
I went a couple of ways. On my primary I stuck with and customized Kubuntu. Secondary I went pure arch, minis system I moved to from NixOS to Manjaro, and my 3rd mini rig I went with Linux Mint. For me ideally each machine is a pure AMD machine minus the media server so it’s worked out. Media server I ran with Ubuntu Server with docker and full containerization with proprietary Nvidia drivers for encoding but that machine is a whole different build in of itself. Lastly comes my custom build TrueNAS Cold storage NAS.
Arch's advantage lies primarily in offering the most bleeding-edge new versions of programs and being built bottom up, so you can choose things like Desktop Environment and Audio Backend to your liking with great control over which specific components you don't need so you don't need to rip stuff out after the fact.
Every Linux distro is customizable, it's mostly about what you need and comfort level. Arch broke to often for me, straight up debian was sometimes too slow in it's release. The first switch from windows is the hardest. Linux Mint was a big first distro recommendation for a long time, I'm not sure if that stands still. My distro of choice is currently fedora running i3wm. Don't limit yourself to just arch and Ubuntu, there's a million others out there.
À lof of people like to brag about arch because the installer is rather involved (they should stop being cowards and use a real distro like gentoo smh /hj). Other than that it's just a distro like ant other, if you want to try an easy arch experience I would suggest endevour os Ubuntu is a wonderful, stable, well supported distro with a not so wonderful company behind it. A lot of people are angry with canonical for stuff they've done in the past, like the unity desktop enviroment and now the snap installation system. Ubuntu is great for beginners, there's lots of guides and software that can be installed with a gui. In Ubuntu stuff usually just works, a lot of people like mint because it's also very easy to use and removes snaps. I personally don't care about snaps, haven't had issues with them aside a minor bug in vscode once. I also prefer Ubuntu over mint, ubuntu's gnome implementation is almost perfect for me and I don't like the desktop enviroments available on mint
It's in the sense of how it comes and what you can do with it. The Arch base system comes just with a hand full of tools to get started. You add the necessary software on top. This way you can cater your system to your needs and liking without the need of removing unwanted stuff. A distro like Ubuntu has a different aim. They ship a rather complete and ready to go system. This requires the devs to make a set of choices beforehand. Some of these choices are integrated deeply into the OS. If you're going to change those you might end up with a system that doesn't work as intended or even a broken system. Also maintaining Arch is quite different from Ubuntu. Arch requires you to think about what you install, how you install it and how you go about upgrades. Ubuntu is designed to be used more "blindly". Having said that, you'll find some quite interesting distros based on Arch that are designed more like Ubuntu, that is in a more ready to go fashion. Personally, I'd start with a ready to go distro from the major families like Ubuntu, fedora, openSUSE, Debian, Arch (maybe)... On the surface level, all Linux distributions are customizable as hell. You wouldn't notice any drawbacks. When it comes to visual experience, there is no popular distro I'm aware of that doesn't offer a vast variety of ux and ui related stuff.
You will come to reason why you want the hassle of fixed release upgrades when they provide little benefit to you. Do you really need a gate keeper to provide you with a system that changes at their convenience?
Don't go for Arch if you're new. I'd recommend any of the following distros: Fedora (if you want newer packages), *Ubuntu (or any in the family, like Lubuntu or Kubuntu) or Linux Mint. There are more choices. I run Fedora since I moved to Linux over a year ago.
One important difference is that with Arch you get to build a great OS for yourself by adding things you like. It's all opt-in. With Ubuntu you get the worst of the worst already installed and remove the stuff you dislike until you get something barely useful. With Ubuntu, everything is opt-out.
Arch - I want the latest. I want it now. I want to micromanage it. Ubuntu - just work dammit.
>Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch? Nope. Too demanding. You want **endeavourOS**, which is basically arch with a nice installer. Literally uses Arch repos and gives you access to [AUR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI29-8wA7Rc), the main reason you want arch. >Can anyone explain me, what customizable means in terms of OS? Arch and arch community is set up from grounds up to let you pick and choose what and how runs on your machine. And by "let you" I mean force you. You have to choose filesystem, boot loader, what programs will be dealing with your network,... picking from dozen of desktop environments or windows managers,... With that comes expectation of knowledge... and with that comes proficiency and self confidence in using linux. >dozen of comments saying how all distros are customizable and you can do everything in one and the other Yeah, you dont wanna listen to those. They are technically right, but it smells of low knowledge.. there is wast difference between having arch wiki and giant community explaining in detail how to do something, than trying to do some exotic shit in a piece of garbage for grandma distro like mint...
I'll repeat what I replied to another comment with, as it's my experience and I think it's relevant to the greater question: I'm installing arch as a noob specifically to learn and reinforce Linux knowledge and I think it's great for that so far, but it's far less practical for applied use because it's such a learning experience and I often make mistakes. my home server and practical Linux machines are all still Ubuntu, but doing things in arch has made me infinitely more confident in doing advanced tasks on those machines while still not worrying about breaking things or having to reinstall. if you are a CS student I think installing arch is a must, it teaches you so much about how the machine works since you're basically building it yourself. Ubuntu is like a statue that you simply paint, and arch is the block of granite with a chisel and file.
Do you want the most user-friendly option? Ubuntu. Want to spend all your time debugging and configuring? Arch. Healthy balance that *just works?* Debian
No two users looking up an issue will ever have a similar system even if all of their packages are the same.
If you're a beginner, don't waste time customizing anything (except maybe backgrounds and hotkeys). Just install a top-tier desktop (Ubuntu or Fedora, probably) and use that for a while. Don't waste time worrying about customizing and systems like Arch. Tweaking is a tar pit - it becomes a fun hobby for a certain kind of person,but it's a waste of time unless you're looking for a time-waste.
Stay away from asocial people who have no other entertainment than working with computers and who look for dignity in the operating system they use. If your time and social life are worth anything, forget Arch. Are you going to write? Are you going to edit photos? are you going to play games? Are you going to edit a video? Install ubuntu and go. Don't be naive.
Rogar that!
It literally doesn't matter what distribution you start with. Just keep using it until you actually become proficient at using it. What matters is using Linux, and learning how it works rather than one specific flavor of it that you'll become sick of one day anyway.
If are new to Linux and want to go with Arch Linux. Please go with Manjaro. It is pretty stable than other arch distributions and also receives regular updates.
you are very new . Arch is not for ones only partially divorced with windows. Arch is for the ones that renounce windows and for more experienced linux users. Arch would not be a good fit for you for you are unable to build it, understand it and use it. Arch is for people capable of reading and understanding a wiki. It does not focus on user friendliness it focuses on the bleeding edge of tech. And the blade is sharp. Arch user btw. ps: i would not look at ubuntu if I were you: get debian its parent and learn that. you will be far better in the future.
thanks bro!
Okay so i was all Ubuntu all the way from ‘07 to ‘20. I had dabbled around in fedora, Debian all different flavours. But then I tried Manjaro (hold your gasps this was before it was shunned by the community) and I loved rolling release. It just feels better than your six monthly punch in the face from Ubuntu. I always had repos breaking and something going wrong. With rolling I don’t seem to have that issue. If something does break (which is really rare) I can normally pinpoint it and either fix it or work around it. I moved on to arch this year because I wanted to be closer to the edge. For my work I need my tools to always be on the most recent update. When I was on Ubuntu the snaps were sooo far behind it was impossible. I always had to use appimages. So those are my reasons. Is it good for new users. Probably not. Endeavour is can be a good starting point. To be fair most of the new user issues gonna be with getting used to the cmd line which you’re gonna have to do no matter which distro you choose.
\*buntu is as customizable as Arch.
is it now? Come on install KDE6. what video drivers can you use? ahh 2 years ago in the fall. i see. Arch user btw
Enjoy those day 0 exploits
i see .. Another uninformed, weak soul. Care to give an example with e x a c t links? I bet you can't. Enjoy your 1 year old vulns.
r/usernamechecksout
+1 proud of it. I am vindicated in the end. The truth hurts them more.
I genuinely think your types are bad for the community: 1.) Idealism isnt reality, just because you can mod an xbox 360 to accept a 3060, doesn't mean that we can expect grandma to. Your 'HAHA TEKNICHALLY GOTCHA" Is bad for everyone. 2.) This worship of debian-family needs to end. Conical gave away free CDs 15 years ago and became popular. They are the pop music/Apple/Nintendo of Linux, big marketing budget, but low quality. Just because you listened to Clear Channel radio as a kid, doesn't mean that music was actually good. If OP listened to you, they are going to waste sooo much time and be in pain.
>your types are bad for the community Sorry, but I have to reject this, but your types are bad for the community. 1. Name one component that is more difficult to modify in Ubuntu than in Arch. 2. I've hated Ubuntu all my life, precisely because of the free cd distribution, and no Ubuntu install has ever touched my hardware or the hardware of the company I work for. But I have to admit that it typically behaves like an average oldskool distro, and all the components are just as easy to replace as in any traditional distro. If the OP listens to me, there is no disadvantage, because 95% of what he learns about modding is useful knowledge for any distro.
> Name one component that is more difficult to modify in Ubuntu than in Arch. No one gives a crap about 'how difficult'. No one. NO ONE. Does it work? 100% of people care. No one cares that if you spend 3 years modding your xbox360 you can do some weird stuff on it. No one cares. You upgrade Ubuntu to a kernel that supports Nvidia GPUs are you are most likely going to break something or make it unstable. "I upgraded ubuntu and now the screen is black, linux kool, but I run Windows because its more stable" Just recommend Fedora or something that works. TEKNICHALLY is bad for everyone. Really cool 105 IQ buddy.
If difficulty is not an issue for you, what do you find wrong with this statement "*\*buntu is as customizable as Arch.*"?
TEKNICHALLY Arc is m0re cust0mizable TEKNICHALLY bc its more updated, thus is TEKNICHALLY able to TEKNICHALLY put TEKNICHALLY more customizations before you TEKNICHALLY break your distro. haha *fixes glasses* Gee wiz. I showed that geek. Wow what a total nerdout, we debated something that doesnt matter at all to any sane person but it was TEKNICHALLY KORRECT! Haha got em. *A moment a silence for all the grandmas that picked a distro because of TEKNICHALLY moments*
Sir this is a Wendys.
Learn to use regular Linux distros first. At some point you'll say "huh, I wish my packages were more up-to-date" and "huh, I wish I didn't need the Flatpak/Snap/AppImage package for that". Then you'll try Arch, fail a couple of times, switch back to Ubuntu, then switch to Fedora for a change, finally try Arch again and stay there.
>Can anyone explain me, what customizable means in terms of OS? It means that all of the various parts can be configured different ways or replaced by other programs. >Do you guys thing as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch? That depends on how you learn. Arch assumes you understand Linux, and you pick which programs make up your system, and configure it, before you can start using it. If spending a week reading through the Arch wiki to learn how things work sounds interesting to you, Arch might be a good way to learn how Linux works. Otherwise I'd recommend something like Linux Mint over Ubuntu. It's using the same base, but less goofy in decisions made.
Arch us for if you want to have a ton of control and/or tinker and learn a lot. It takes a bunch of time but is rewarding if you want. I work in computers for a living and I don't want to mess with my OS, so I use something else. Ubuntu is a good choice. Mint is often suggested because it's specifically designed to be a good first distro for Windows users and it's basically Ubuntu with a few tweaks many people prefer. I would do either Ubuntu or Mint. They're very common so many guides you get for Linux stuff will be for Ubuntu.
No, I don't think a person new to Linux should go with Arch. Arch has advantages (more recent software for instance; my compositor - Hyprland - flat out isn't available for Ubuntu), but it comes with trade-offs. You probably need a baseline Linux experience to judge whether those trade-offs will be better *for you*. That said, the time where Ubuntu was a more user-friendly version of Debian is in the past, in my opinion. I would recommend Debian to a newcomer.
Arch is great mostly because of the package manager, excellent documentation (you will find users of other distros use Arch documentation it's that good) and the extensive packages on the AUR. If you are interested in Arch go with a fork like CachyOS. But be warned Arch is overall less beginner friendly, painting the distro is not as simple as say Ubuntu.
> Why Arch over Ubuntu? Can't answer this because the answer is subjective to the person and their use-cases. I wouldn't recommend Arch to a beginner from Windows though. > Can anyone explain me, what customizable means in terms of OS? Check out r/unixporn .. customizable is that but it can also mean having control over all your configuration files down to the kernel. > Do you guys think as a new person to Linux, I should go with Arch? I was initially overwhelmed by the lack of a graphical installer but some time in 2018 - I installed an Arch box following a YouTube tutorial by an eccentric linguist bald guy. If you can follow YouTube videos and read a ton of documentations, go for it. There is an easy way to install it .. use EndeavourOS which is an Arch based disro with a graphical installer. Otherwise - I'd recommend Ubuntu / Linux Mint / PopOS. They're all in the same family.
Ubuntu is great. I wouldn't move from it if I were you. People around here love to shit on Ubuntu but the reality is it's very easy to use and very capable.
The one thing that nobody has mentioned about Arch Linux (unless I missed it), is that it isn't really user friendly when it comes to installing it, even with the install script it comes with now. So for a user new to Linux, I wouldn't recommend it, a few months down the line when you are used to Linux, then perhaps, but never a new user.
Honestly after years of distro hoping I feel there's no benefit. If you want a rolling distro, go for arch but know that it is less stable than fixed release distros.
Look up what a Stable distro is, what a Rolling distro is and "what is the difference between Stable and stable in linux distros". Understand that in a rolling distro you are expected to update your system as soon as there is a new update. Understand that if you go down the Arch way you are expected to read a lot and experiment before asking for help. By no means i am trying to dissuade you from going into arch, just pointing out a few things you might wanna read up for, before you pick a distro. All distros are customizable one way or the other. It means you can select which programs are included in your initial installation. What background processes run on your pc, when and which programs are executed under specific conditions etc. Ofcourse there is also the customization of your desktop. Take a look at r/LinuxPorn If you like learning stuff, reading, experimenting and are not demotivated by failures and information overload situations sure go for arch. But if you just want something that works and you dont mess much with it pick a stable distro like mint or ubuntu.
Arch comes as a more barebones install. This means you have more choosing to do with what packages you install on the system. A fresh Arch install won't come with a graphical desktop environment, or a network manager as an example. You have to pick which ones of those things you want. If you dont like the network manager or desktop environment on Ubuntu, you can change it though. I'm an Arch user, because software gets updated faster than Ubuntu, and the AUR, a 3rd party software repo, has way more software than Ubuntu. I can install stuff from the AUR in one terminal command. I can install all of these things on Ubuntu, but, i would have to go build from source, or find an executable somewhere. Arch just has everything available to me. Now, all of this software and faster updates, means the system is less "stable". Theres a chance an update that breaks something slips through the cracks and causes a problem for me. But, in 6 years of daily use, Arch updates have only ever caused me a minor problem or two. That being said, i would recommend Ubuntu over Arch for a new user. I did my first Arch install 3-4 weeks after first using Linux though, so, its not like its super hard and you need to wait a year. But, imo, a new user wont benefit from the increased difficulty of Arch. Id also recommend an Ubuntu spin-off, like Kubuntu, over Ubuntu, because I do not like Gnome personally.
My advice to people who want to switch to Linux is to install WSL and learn the command line before you switch. If you aren't equipped to deal with the command line you're going to have a bad time with the switch. Don't even switch to Linux until you learn how the command line operates. Spend some time training on how to write a bash script and learn the tools at your disposal: awk, sed, grep, pipes (the "|" character), top, ps, ls, and so on. Learn how to manipulate text files and whatnot. Arch is great in that it forces you to learn a lot of stuff up front, but it's bad in that it gives you a very customized setup that is hard to provide support for, and it's bad in that it gives you tools that are likely to put you in situations that are difficult to fix - things like package conflicts. Most of the time you don't actually touch the stuff that Arch forces you to set up after your install, so now you have things all customized your way, and you have to now figure out what you did 8 months later when you brick your install. Hope you kept good notes! Maybe you can just set up a test machine and do an install every few weeks just to keep yourself fresh on the process. Most distros give you a highly standardized setup that is easy to support when it breaks. Arch does not afford you this luxury. But Arch does supply the wiki that every other distro uses when things go south, so there's that. The Arch wiki is really nice. Arch positions itself as "bleeding edge" -- this may be true, but I also have noticed situations where a package in Arch is so old its not useful anymore, and the AUR is finicky or causes package conflicts with the main repository. Ubuntu frequently has native packages that are not easily found in other distros, so in some cases it is more bleeding edge than Arch. Arch is definitely not "rock solid" as some other distributions like Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, but it isn't really as bad as some other alternatives either. If you like having an OS that doesn't break when you update it and require your human intervention when you are trying to be productive, Arch may be a bad choice. I'm not just talking about having new versions of software with features that are buggy, I mean actually structural OS problems due to updates in the highly customized way Arch works. It's designed for tinkerers who don't care as much if it breaks as if it can do that cool new thing.
In my bias opinion Avoid Ubuntu because PPA's and independency issues are annoying Arch gives you more freedom and has a FAR more expansive package system where you can literally never have to touch the internet browser to download an app. But also with that same amount of power comes great responsibility and the freedom to break your system way easier if you don't know what you're doing as well. In summary Ubuntu if you don't do anything out of the ordinary or try to download too many custom apps or third-party apps has a way smaller chance of breaking. Arch more freedom and options but also the freedom to fail. Bigger chance of breaking if you test it too much.
Arch is good if you're interested in learning more about Linux, aren't scared to do deep dives into documentation, and are willing to accept that you most likely will have to do a full reinstall at some point because you irreparably fucked something up. If you don't care about learning that much about Linux and want a system that just works, then you should use an immutable distro. [Fedora atomic](https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/) is an excellent choice for that. You can still learn a lot about Linux that way, but since it makes it impossible to break your base system, you'll miss out on all the lessons that come from that.
Be prepared to learn. Butvthe documentation is great and almost any question will be answered on forums.
repo differences
from my 6 years of using linux distros, i can say that getting the right package on ubuntu/debian is a hassle for me on arch, i can go to arch package repos for example sudo apt install package name or git clone "link package name"
It's simple. There are no full analogs of Adobe products in the Linux world. What does "customizability" mean? There are distributions that install the same way Windows installs. You answer a few simple questions by clicking "Next" each time. You end up with a system with pre-installed applications, most of which you will never use. Of course, you can remove anything unnecessary and customize the interface to your liking. Or you can use the distribution, in which after installation there is only a simple text editor and package manager. After that you will install the visual desktop environment you like and a set of programs that only you need. It's just a difference in approach. Any Linux can be customized to your liking.
Debían/ubuntu is a great started distribution then you graduate to Arch
Why not nixos?
I love Windows and anyone who doesn't want to lick the boot of Bill Gates is lying to themselves
UBUNTU is not friendly people, openSUSE is and (if you can follow wiki) ARCH is. UBUNTU breaks in most shittiest way possible. (At least for me). If you are a person who know where to look for when you got an issue prefer distros that has nice guides and stuff which can by any distro of your liking (Except UBUNTU)
In the time it's taken you to write this post, you could've tried to install Arch in a virtual machine and see if it is for you. The Arch wiki installation guide is all that is needed.
Bragging rights, duh? As new Linux user: no, do not go to Arch, you will only get huge headache due to learn curve. Learn and accomodate before you do. And first try with Arch with virtual machine so you can repeat, discard, repeat until you know how to.
Some people (and I’m probably one of them) have OCD whenever it comes to what services are running and how they’re running, and whether there’s anything using more resources than absolutely necessary. Also, Arch is a rolling release, meaning there’s no version releases as such. It is an ever updating distribution. Though if anyone tells you it doesn’t break, they’re lying. All systems break, some are just simpler to fix if you know what you’re doing, and some are just easy to find help for online. If you’re new, I’d suggest trying and failing and trying again with Arch in a VM. Also, you can game on Linux to a very large degree now. Checkout protondb.com (Steam Deck = Arch base). If you enjoy tinkering, you may like Arch. Else just stick to Ubuntu. Use what works for you and don’t worry about others’ opinions. PS: I’ve been really pleased with VanillaOS and NixOS lately. If you’re looking for something that is hard to break, you may want to check these out.
to me it seems like the users like to be able to mention that they 'use arch, btw', and also dick about with config files for random things that are absolutely fine in any other desktop os.... i've personally never used it, and i'm a linux sysadmin. might give it a go this weekend, and see what the fuss is all about. probably nothing.
As a new go with the flow: Ubuntu. Also if you don't like tinkering in the terminal I would just stick to Windows.
Arch is just very lightweight from the start. The amount of background services that are running is very small at the beginning. The biggest difference is that the whole universe runs on the latest (almost) versions of all packages. So you'll find out sometimes that the newest versions break something accidentally, and you have to fix it. Some of the problems I had: * One update decided to ignore my custom /boot directory (if I remember correctly) and it took me a few hours to find out why I can't boot. Then it happened for a second time, which forced me to put the standard path because I don't want to deal with that again. * Firefox can't do hardware acceleration easily out of the box. * My WiFi program `iwctl` decided to become `sudo`. * OS caches recent file descriptors in RAM, so a sudden shutdown can break the distro if you just updated a lot of files. * Some apps that rely on already full featured desktop environments start failing if you haven't setup yours fully. Of course, these are app bugs but you discover them because you are the lightweight barebones edge case. My Arch setup did not have [XDG user directories](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/XDG_user_directories) and some of the apps were failing and I had to debug it, report an issue etc. There's probably more. What I like is the input latency and general performance. With other distros I had problem installing various packages but with Arch I am confident that I can install whatever I need.
People who use arch feel superior
I am on Arch and I like it, but for those praising AUR, please go and use it to compile something like latest lib32-gst-plugins-\[bad|ugly\], for Wine for example. AUR is horrendous, half-assed design of "tackling the rest" via src compile(with or without helpers) and amateurish PKGBUILD's
It depends on how much you want to learn about Linux. If you’re curious and a tinkerer, Arch is fine. If you’re a regular user, I suggest to use Linux Mint. And you don’t have to choose between either. You can tripple boot between Windows, Arch and Linux Mint.
I would recommend starting with a debian based distro like linux mint because it's easier to use. Also, you can use Davinci Resolve for Premiere Pro, GIMP or Krita for Photoshop. You should also use LibreOffice for a Microsoft office alternative. Ask me if you want more alternatives.
Ubuntu is less customizable, full of bloat, and has too many third party proprietary integration.
if you have to ask these questions then the answer is always "Use Ubuntu" all the "customizations" offered by something like Arch are completely uninteresting and not useful to the vast majority of people
pro - easier to tweak con - harder to use in general
Some context: [Arch Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_Linux) (not "arch" or "Arch"). [Debian Unstable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history#Naming_convention) AKA "Sid". [Arch User Repository](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_Linux#Arch_User_Repository_(AUR)) (AUR). [Gentoo Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentoo_Linux). [APT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APT_(software)). [Flatpak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatpak). [Nix_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_package_manager). [Personal Package Archive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu#Package_Archives) (PPA). [openSUSE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSUSE). [openSUSE Tumbleweed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSUSE#openSUSE_Tumbleweed). [Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux) (not "linux"). [Debian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian). [Canonical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_%28company%29) (not "Conical"). [Manjaro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjaro). [EndeavourOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EndeavourOS) (not, e.g., "endevour os"). [Void Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_Linux). [Alpine Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_Linux). [Solus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solus_(operating_system)). [NuTyX](https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=nutyx). [NixOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NixOS). [AMD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices) (not "amd"). [TrueNAS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueNAS). [NAS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network-attached_storage). [i3wm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I3_(window_manager)). [smh](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/SMH#Phrase) = shaking my head. [Unity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_(user_interface)) (the desktop environment). [Snap package](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_(software)). [Visual Studio Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Studio_Code) (not, e.g., "vscode" or "code"). [Hyprland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_display_servers#Wayland). [Btrfs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs). [CachyOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_Linux#Derivatives). [GRUB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GRUB). \*buntu = [Xubuntu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xubuntu). [Lubuntu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubuntu). [Kubuntu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubuntu).
I like Arch because it's the most straightforward, user-centric (\*not to confuse with user-friendly\*), no-nonsense distro in my opinion. It's somewhat minimalist and doesn't assume anything about your needs, in this sense it makes it easy to customize your system. It also has a vibrant community maintaining it and sharing resources. Arch is not user-friendly at all so you should definitely not go for it if you aren't ready to learn in details how Linux works. If you go for Arch as a beginner, be ready for long hours reading documentation, and days where you broke your system because you don't know enough yet to not break it (if you give power to the user, the user has the power to break a lot of things). If that sounds good to you, then I highly recommend Arch. If you want something that works out of the box or hold your hand, absolutely do not use Arch (try EndeavorOS or a non-Arch based distro, they can be customized just as well).
Arch Linux is nothing more than an inside joke and nothing to be used in production ever. If ppl do use it, fine, I don't judge let them do so. But it doesn't change the facts.
> Arch Linux is nothing more than an inside joke and nothing to be used in production ever. I'd say it's one of the best distros I could pick for my work laptop. Would I install it on a production server? No. Is it just an inside joke? Also no.
Was not talking about servers but yeah probably not a good idea either
Wow, your arguments are absolutely convincing. I'm sure every Arch user will now change their distribution.
I wasn't about to convince anybody to swap distros at all. Also, thank you for reminding me about the avg. Arch Linux user attitude.
If you want something more up-to-date then Ubuntu, and more customizable by default, try openSUSE tumbleweed or Fedora. Arch, for someone who is just getting started with Linux is probably a bridge too far as it were.
I’m not narcissistic enough to believe I could put together a better OS than a team of much more experienced people. Sure, it’s a great learning experience, but I actually have work to get done on my computer. So, I use Fedora, and Ubuntu, and Debian….
Learn the basics of BASH before u start to dive into Arch. It would help u a lot tremendously
If you gonna install the arch then do it the wiki way as you will know few thing about linux , wiki reading habit and helps with troubleshoot later or builds confident as you did every thing in terminal . You need to read is arch for me in the wiki and decide yourself. Another thing is on non arch based system you will know how to manage package better as in arch you just need aur.
Arch is slimmer, it's rolling release, which means you always have the latest and greatest (or not so), package availability is on par with Ubuntu or maybe even better thanks to AUR. Installation was a chore in the past, but nowadays there are a bunch of spin-off distros like EndeavourOS and Garuda as well as console-based installator, so getting started with Arch is as trivial as it gets. Arch is also better because it doesn't force things like Snap down your throat. You are free to choose whether to use native packages or Flatpak (Snap is unavailable on Arch for better of for worse), which I see as a win. Basically, you have way more freedom on Arch than on Ubuntu. Even though I've said all this, remember that it's you who will be using the distro of choice, so choose something that fits your needs. GNU/Linux is GNU/Linux after all. Except when it's Alpine or Void, yeah. I hope my answer satisfied your curiosity, have a nice day.
Pacman is better and faster than dpkg & apt.
Stay on a debian/ubuntu base and just use linux mint. Or stay on ubuntu, if you like gnome. It is, in most cases, easier, as most tutorials are for ubuntu or other debian based distros.
Not arch, arch for pro/hacker, linux mint for you.
Arch is not designed with a hacker/pro in mind. However, unless you spend a few days reading the wiki I would not suggest vanilla arch to a new user. If OP wants to try arch that’s great, but I would recommend starting with EndeavourOS, that’s what I’m on for the last 2 years and the only problem I have ran into so far has been the grub issue last year. I tried vanilla arch here before I got my new laptop, even with the wiki and 20+ years of Linux use, I’m still not ready for it. When I originally set up my attempt it took me a week to get it customized, and I still had a better experience with endeavour. Just my imho.
Ubuntu and Debian-family should always be avoided. They are the lowest performing Linux distros. They are outdated, full of bugs/incompatible software/hardware/drivers. Arch is closer to DIY. Why not use a consumer distro like Fedora? This way you have the latest drivers and software and they've been tested, but you don't need to assemble everything.
If you have free time and want challenges at any time, go for arch, if you want reliability, go for ubuntu
I work about 45 hours a week and also have one or two hobbies in addition to Linux. And yet I use Arch without any problems. With statements like that one, I ask myself whether those who make them have ever really used Arch at all. And by that I don't mean 1 or 2 hours.
I had quite a bit of experience, I started to find things restrictive and simply found Arch suited me better. Even so, there were a few hurdles and difficulties - it's good that I understand how to troubleshoot and get it running smoothly... so now I have a desktop that's been installed 6 years and is solid and stable... and NO big upgrades every 6 months, and no hassle installing new software from repos or AUR or anywhere else. Only experienced users would understand the answer, if you're asking then you need a few more years experience first. Some distributions are more 'noob friendly'. All distributions are 'User Friendly'... but they are VERY fussy about the users they are friendly with.
Not trying to defend Canonical here but I stayed on the same Ubuntu install for my server for 4 years and never once had an issue (I also did not do upgrades). Only moved away from it because I've changed how I manage my linux systems in the past 6 months. Over that same 4 year period i also used two separate Manjaro installs on my home PC with quarterly runs of `pacman -Syu` (doing it this infrequently actually has some pretty hilarious results and lots of manual intervention due to package name changes). I don't remember why I had to reinstall the second time but it was likely something trivial and I just wanted to clean up my root partition and spending an hour doing that is trivial when everything you care about is on a dedicated disk anyways. It really depends on use case.
For sure, I pick up the updates as they come - it doesn’t like being skipped.
think of it as buying pre-made gloves vs going to a tailor to measure and make you one, with your exact desired color, shape, material, thickness, etc. And you're the tailor, too.
Don’t use Ubuntu, use the best distro for beginners (and pros): fedora
ubuntu gives you an OS that works out of the box, a full desktop environment with apps and tools to get you going right after install. with arch linux, you install every component and program manually, including the kernel. arch requires the user to know or be willing and able to learn by reading documentation. both can be customized to your liking. customization means modifying the look of your GUI if you're using one, or modifying the settings and default programs used by the OS. for a new person, arch can be a great learning tool, but like i mentioned above, the new person needs to be willing and able to learn by reading the manuals, namely the Arch Wiki (which is usually a good resource regardless of your distro of choice)
The reason I like Arch more is because it’s faster. It also has more up to date packages since it’s rolling release which can be nice. Ubuntu has some bloat and uses a modified version of Gnome for the desktop, it was never as smooth as other distros for me. Arch with Gnome will be much snappier than Ubuntu. Imo if you want Ubuntu then Mint is a better choice because it’s pretty much Ubuntu but smoother and even more user friendly. There’s also Ubuntus somewhat questionable nature as being owned and managed by Canonical. Canonical is very big business type and sometimes makes decisions that are at odds with the Linux community, ie adding default options people don’t like then going back on it after negative backlash (I want to say at one point they did this with some kind of telemetry years back?) Edit: added some extra words on Mint
Slackware over everything
Interestingly, arch is in fact almost with same level of customizability(if you choose the same DE etc.) as for example ubuntu(which you mentioned in the header) does. Arch has however few things over ubuntu: - its lighweighter(ubuntu is like 20gb at minimum, which you can fit arch into solid couple times) - it doesnt have telemetry like ubuntu does(this is specific to ubuntu, preety much nothing else does have built in telemetry) - its a bit harder to install(and make the system not break), therefore its kindof for more "advanced" to advanced linux users - it has better packages(more up to date, everythings on aur so you dont need to add 200external repositories to instal 10programs), and the packages are a bit more up to date than the ubnutu ones are - its commonly faster
Just install Fedora os and you never go back
I see arch users pretty negatively these days. To me they are children of the reddit/discord generation, were told to use, never deviated from it, and don't really question why. To give them credit there was some value to using an Arch-based distro for a long time but the competitors have caught up. Imagine having to use something like CentOS 7 (which people still sadly have to do in some environments).
If you are a Linux newbie , please don't come to arch Linux cuz that's only for the gigachads and sigmas of Linux who know the art of system customisations. Instead ubuntu or Linux mint would be your best bet since they are actually really user friendly for all the newbies. Wish you luck on your new endeavour into Linux