Linux

It's a really simple system meant to 'just work' and provides an idiot sheet you can copy and paste from for those who don't ever want to RTFM

as long as the system isn't doing anything important Arch is great for noobs fucking around, it's high grade spoonfeeding and doing what you are told.

Power users use RHEL, Ubuntu, Gentoo. Governments, armies, tech giants and that kinda stuff, Arch is more for newbies karma farming on r/unixporn for lolz

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

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

Does something like this exist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 requirements for arch:

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

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

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

SteamOS

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

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

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

And no, it doesn't run worse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mint has been nice