Years ago I installed it manually, too. For learning, yes. But regularly, no. The archinstall package is easy but a newbie would struggle there, too. It’s just a faster way for skilled Linux Users.
Newbie Linux users shouldn’t go with Arch to begin with, even Endeavour or Garuda, unless they’re seeing it as a learning experience and have an IT background behind their back.
It’s not worth it for the average user, and honestly - even for most veteran users for that matter.
The great power of Arch comes with great responsibility to manage your system properly.
Installing it from scratch manually? Maybe no, not for an inexperienced user who’s goal isn’t to learn Linux.
But I would argue Arch itself is great for a casual user to have. All the software in one place, installed with the same command, and you only install what you want, so no fiddling with bullshit you didn’t ask for.
For a casual experienced user - maybe, if bloat is a super big concern and ricing is an absolute priority.
For a casual newbie - please, no. Arch will immediately force the user to go through a lot of hoops, learn a million terminal commands to make basic changes, and overall it will be a very frustrating and non-intuitive experience. Also, rolling updates will inevitably lead to bugs here and there, and without the experience managing Linux systems, there’s only so much one can do to fix it.
Arch will immediately force the user to go through a lot of hoops, learn a million terminal commands
I don’t know if it was ever true, but it’s definitely not true now. You don’t need to know more scary terrifying terminal commands than you need on any other distribs. And if you need to install any software, you will on average have to use less scary terminal commands on Arch than on, for example, Ubuntu that is usually recommended to a newbie. Most of the software you will ever need is in (from user’s perspective) one place. You don’t need to connect any additional repositories and don’t need to install separate versions of libraries and stuff (and that’s done with horror inducing terminal, might I remind you). And don’t even get me started on snap and all the headache it brings.
If you’re using your computer as a glorified browser, you don’t care about rolling releases. If you use various software, rolling release is better for compatibility.
I am speaking from lots of experience helping various levels of newbies get into Linux. As much as you might think Ubuntu is “more intuitive” whatever the fuck that might mean, I can assure you, it’s not, it’s very much the opposite of that.
Oh, I should make it very, very clear: Ubuntu is a mess that newbies shouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Comparing to Ubuntu, even Arch can look appealing for lack of confusion. Nothing that I say goes to support this abomination, and I did not mention it positively.
Generally though, most distros featuring KDE/GNOME will already have everything in one place - but, ironically, not Arch, which actually features three places to look for apps: the official repos for precompiled packages, Flatpaks, or AUR. And without something like pamac - a tool made by Manjaro team available through AUR - you can’t have all three in one interface or through same commands.
If I would choose distro by how easy it is to have everything in one place, this would likely be Fedora/OpenSUSE/Debian with Discover app store from KDE suite. Everything, be it native packages or Flatpaks, is in there, and you can easily select the source for any given app.
As per compatibility, I’m a strong proponent of Flatpaks. They are not significantly harder to manage than any other apps (in most cases, they don’t require any extra configuration), but they will help you avoid dependency issues and they also won’t get full access to your entire system, which is to me a disaster waiting to happen.
I’m not sure about this. My journey through Linux was Ubuntu > Arch > Debian > Fedora + Arch.
Even just Ubuntu gave me enough knowledge to try Arch. Even Windows Powerusers could know shit about partitioning, installing etc.
I started with Manjaro, and found myself in quite a predicament once I figured out what it means to have Arch under the hood. It was…a rude awakening.
Then I moved on to Debian and Fedora, and from there I gained enough knowledge to manage Arch systems. Now, I have Endeavour on my main computer and OpenSUSE Slowroll on my laptop.
Years ago I installed it manually, too. For learning, yes. But regularly, no. The archinstall package is easy but a newbie would struggle there, too. It’s just a faster way for skilled Linux Users.
Newbie Linux users shouldn’t go with Arch to begin with, even Endeavour or Garuda, unless they’re seeing it as a learning experience and have an IT background behind their back.
It’s not worth it for the average user, and honestly - even for most veteran users for that matter.
The great power of Arch comes with great responsibility to manage your system properly.
Installing it from scratch manually? Maybe no, not for an inexperienced user who’s goal isn’t to learn Linux.
But I would argue Arch itself is great for a casual user to have. All the software in one place, installed with the same command, and you only install what you want, so no fiddling with bullshit you didn’t ask for.
For a casual experienced user - maybe, if bloat is a super big concern and ricing is an absolute priority.
For a casual newbie - please, no. Arch will immediately force the user to go through a lot of hoops, learn a million terminal commands to make basic changes, and overall it will be a very frustrating and non-intuitive experience. Also, rolling updates will inevitably lead to bugs here and there, and without the experience managing Linux systems, there’s only so much one can do to fix it.
I don’t know if it was ever true, but it’s definitely not true now. You don’t need to know more scary terrifying terminal commands than you need on any other distribs. And if you need to install any software, you will on average have to use less scary terminal commands on Arch than on, for example, Ubuntu that is usually recommended to a newbie. Most of the software you will ever need is in (from user’s perspective) one place. You don’t need to connect any additional repositories and don’t need to install separate versions of libraries and stuff (and that’s done with horror inducing terminal, might I remind you). And don’t even get me started on snap and all the headache it brings.
If you’re using your computer as a glorified browser, you don’t care about rolling releases. If you use various software, rolling release is better for compatibility.
I am speaking from lots of experience helping various levels of newbies get into Linux. As much as you might think Ubuntu is “more intuitive” whatever the fuck that might mean, I can assure you, it’s not, it’s very much the opposite of that.
Oh, I should make it very, very clear: Ubuntu is a mess that newbies shouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Comparing to Ubuntu, even Arch can look appealing for lack of confusion. Nothing that I say goes to support this abomination, and I did not mention it positively.
Generally though, most distros featuring KDE/GNOME will already have everything in one place - but, ironically, not Arch, which actually features three places to look for apps: the official repos for precompiled packages, Flatpaks, or AUR. And without something like pamac - a tool made by Manjaro team available through AUR - you can’t have all three in one interface or through same commands.
If I would choose distro by how easy it is to have everything in one place, this would likely be Fedora/OpenSUSE/Debian with Discover app store from KDE suite. Everything, be it native packages or Flatpaks, is in there, and you can easily select the source for any given app.
As per compatibility, I’m a strong proponent of Flatpaks. They are not significantly harder to manage than any other apps (in most cases, they don’t require any extra configuration), but they will help you avoid dependency issues and they also won’t get full access to your entire system, which is to me a disaster waiting to happen.
Was newbie, can confirm. Distrohopped til I found Endeavor, never leaving because AUR
I’m not sure about this. My journey through Linux was Ubuntu > Arch > Debian > Fedora + Arch. Even just Ubuntu gave me enough knowledge to try Arch. Even Windows Powerusers could know shit about partitioning, installing etc.
I started with Manjaro, and found myself in quite a predicament once I figured out what it means to have Arch under the hood. It was…a rude awakening.
Then I moved on to Debian and Fedora, and from there I gained enough knowledge to manage Arch systems. Now, I have Endeavour on my main computer and OpenSUSE Slowroll on my laptop.