I think there's benefits with more recent packages, the package manager (pacman) and the AUR. But if you're new or don't have much experience then something like Ubuntu or Mint is a more sensible distro to begin with. At least they start with some applications and such so you know what's out there and how some things work.
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)
Arch Linux
167 readers
1 users here now
The beloved lightweight distro
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Nothing is enabled after installation. While it can be a daunting task to manually hook up your PC to the wifi manually, this philosophy lets you hand-pick the services which you actually want to run, catering for a very personalised and clearly defined system.
Arch is a rolling release that gets the newest software once it's available. Ubuntus is Debian-based and it's also following the principle of stability over modernity so there's a big difference between how recent software you're gonna run on those two types of distros. But if you want to try the rolling approach you doesn't have to go directly for arch, you can use some Arch-based distro like M*****o (not recommended due to justified controversy). I know there are also Arco, Artix and Garuda that are arch based but I didn't test them. You could use them, experience pacman and aur but without struggle of setting up arch and once you get comfortable you may want to give arch a try
I want to point out that stable in this context doesn't necessarily mean less buggy but means that the system changes less.
Right, from my experience it means that you just have to wait much longer for the bug fix to reach your device. From PC perspective I like the rolling approach much more as I feel much more up to date with the software that I'm using especially when it's mostly foss where I browse the open issues and release notes on a regular basis
No recommending manjarno :(
-
DDOSed the aur: 2 times
-
Let their SSL certificate expire: 3 time
I might have got my numbers wrong
Stuff that actually affect users:
Manjaro holds back regular packages by one day but not aur packages, leading to dependency
Good call out I'll update the comments. From my reading it also seems like they take a lot from arch sources but don't really contribute so another downside here
Archwiki is probably the best Linux documentation in existance. It greatly lowers the barrier of entry.
(k)Ubuntu had - when I used it -
- stability problems with KDE,
- broken updates,
- broken upgrades,
- out of date packages
- and the ppa mess to add the software not in the official.
Arch was and is
- rock solid for me,
- updates and upgrades went extremely smooth,
- software packages were more up to date,
- aur had everything I needed
- Archwiki is a great resource of information
I learned a few things on my journey with arch - and with today's installer it's a no-brainer to get arch running with encrypted btrfs layout.
I am happy to have had "the courage" to try arch, after I tried suse, fedora, kubuntu, mint, debian, opensuse and some short-lived experiments with smaller distro like mandriva and names I cannot remember.
I'm new to Arch, and one of the standout features is it's a lights out Linux distribution option. I've learnt more on Linux in a few days because of switching to Arch for my next PC. Linux Mint affords far less involvement for example.
it is. But that's a good thing, you learn a lot along the way!
If you want something that comes out of the box just working it's the wrong place to start though.
It depends what you want out of your system. If you just want a "plug and play" machine that will do most things reasonably well, by all means stick with Ubuntu.
If you want complete knowledge of exactly what you've got installed (and just as importantly what's not been installed) and how it's been set up, and tuned and tweaked to your ideal requirements, Arch is a great choice.
Figuring out what you actually want or need is part of the distrohopping journey. Most people should start with Ubuntu, Mint, Debian, Frdora or something like that.
Starting with Arch is difficult to recommend unless you know the person really well. If you know they might be the kind of person who tends to require very specific things and is willing to put the time and effort into getting exactly that, then Arch might be the right starting point. Otherwise, starting with a more main stream distro would be a better option.
Seems like you answered your own question. Arch is not for people who want something that works out of box. If you want a GUI, suspend on lid close, sleep on idle, etc. by default, don't do Arch. You have to be prepared to debug issues, configure lower level OS features, and read a lot through the wiki and web searches of you are going to use Arch.
view more: next ›