58
Final thoughts on my Linux daily driving choice
(feddit.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2026
58 points (91.4% liked)
Linux
67814 readers
360 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Why are you asking our opinion on the matter since you clearly have made up your mind already?
Newer doesn't necessarily mean better, there's a reason other d'Ístria delay packages and it has to do with compatibility and finding early bugs.
What? Debian based distros have automatic hardware detection, Arch expects you to know your hardware and install things accordingly. Hell, almost nothing in Arch is automatic.
I used Arch as my main distro for over 15 years, it's a great distro it has a lot of advantages in my book and it's still the distro I feel most at home with. But it's definitely NOT beginner friendly, you'll get the latest packages with the latest bugs and incompatibilities, sure you might get the latest performance gains, but that's when you're not facing the latest regressions in performance or in compatibility.
Don't get me wrong, I still love Arch and have it on some of my systems, but it's something that you have to know how to deal with.
If you must use Arch go with plain Arch. Manjaro and others essentially give you a pretty GUI installer, nothing more, and they cost you the customization of building your system from the ground up and knowing how to rebuild and fix if things go wrong for whatever reason (plus every Arch community will first ask what distro you're running, and if it's not pure Arch they won't even look at your post). Also worth mentioning, AUR packages are built for Arch, they might work on Manjaro or Cachy, but they might also not due to the slight version variations.
In short, I think Arch is a great system, but it has some difficulties attached to it that could potentially make it a problem for someone that wants something that "just works", which is what most new users want, whether they admit it or not.
I think everyone needs to stop positioning Arch as something complicated. It’s not. Every Linux distro has nasty moments, and you’re better equipped to deal with them when you understand what’s happening. Perhaps that’s difficult concept for a newcomer (the idea that you need to understand what you’re doing, at least to some degree). But apart from the will to learn, there’s nothing really difficult and complicated in there. I had so many weird little moments with Fedora (which I assume should just mostly work out of the box), that if I had no knowledge Arch helped me to gain, I don’t know what would I do. I’ve consider migrating home shared computer from Fedora to Arch, and not doing it simply because it’s still mostly works on its own, and the Arch magic for me is in the customisations I have made. Fedora gave me unbootable system more times (with me doing nothing! Just updating) than Arch with me tinkering with basically everything all the time, that I won’t even say Arch is some complex mess. Rather the opposite, I think. That’s why I think scaring the newcomers away may be the wrong thing. It’s not too difficult if you’ve arrived to this point already. All you need is to accept you would learn along the way, and Arch (and the community!) would help.
Re-read my post, and tell me where did I said Arch is complicated? My view is summarized in the last paragraph, and I can summarize it even more here "good, but not beginner friendly". Arch expects you to know how to deal with it, it expects you to read the news, it expects you know how to downgrade a package and it expects you're comfortable in a terminal. A newcomer is unlikely to even know about any of that, they already have to learn a lot of other things like package manager, learning what's the name of each program and how they behave slightly different from what they're used to, etc, they don't need to learn about pacnew/pacsave files on top of all of that. If you're already comfortable in Linux, yeah, Arch is amazing, but if you're presented with a terminal not even knowing what KDE/Gnome are you're going to have a bad time.
And that's the thing, it's not that it's complicated, but it's the unknowns unknowns that will get a new user, they don't know they need a session manager, they don't know they need a printer daemon, etc. And if you bypass that by using Manjaro/Cachy, you're now in a position of using a distro that expects you to know about that but didn't taught you about them.
Hey, sorry, I did not mean to argue with your very comment, but rather in general. Your comment is a nice addition to mine, by elaborating what the complexities are.
It’s just that it may be beginner friendly if the beginner is able to learn and explore (having time and headspace to learn those things). With Arch you have to know what you need, but apart from setting up the system, there’s nothing to learn. Say, I have never used KDE or Gnome on Arch, but I think I’d manage, if I’d need to. (I used them on Debian and Fedora, and on Arch I use only Sway, which I’m comfortable with.)
So, to someone, Arch may be the same thing as the Arch-based distro, considering that the person running it accepts they have to set their resources for learning this new system.
I started using Linux with Ubuntu (about 20 years ago), and I regret it. Wasted time. It was shite even back then. I’m not even interested in where they’re now. If I’d started Arch about that time (not sure it was around, maybe it was), or Gentoo as the friend recommended (in such a tone I got it that it’s too difficult for me to start with), I’d be in a much better place today. Instead, I used Debian and distro-hopped here and there. I’m mostly happy with Arch. I don’t run Gentoo because I don’t know it, and these days, in contrast to 20 years ago, I’m too packed with running errands that it rather sounds as a fun hobby project once nobody wants anything from me at least for a weekend, or better for a week or two.
I am pretty sure you can replace most Arch-based distros with a good manual (assuming it’s updated). Unfortunately, the Arch Wiki is nowhere near, but it’s something at least.
And probably a few scripts that automate typical setup and make it pretty can help too. You can even get many million dollars support from other rich guys, if you do that.
I think you're suffering a bit from this: https://xkcd.com/2501/
You know the feeling you have about Gentoo? That's the feeling for someone going to Linux, even to Ubuntu, the more complications you add the worse the feeling is.
Arch is not hard, it's not complicated, but there's a lot of unknowns unknowns that can bite a newcomer in the ass. If you're already familiar with Linux Arch is easy peasy, just like Gentoo, it's just some small things you have to learn.
Think about it this way, you're already familiar with 99% of what Gentoo will ask of you and still it's not something you're up for doing, imagine the frustration of not knowing what's anything and having to go through that.
Yeah, you’re right. Still, I think the more complex distros teach you wrong things, and you never arrive to the point of proper understanding what’s up. So delving into some complex things for a while may be much simpler than a novice expects, and faster get them to the point of somewhat understanding what they need.
After Archinstall many derivatives lost their appel.
You know the weirdest part? Arch used to have a TUI installer when I first migrated to it, it lost it at some point between 2009 and 2012 (since I discovered it didn't existed anymore on a laptop I bought in 2012. Weird that they redid an installer after all these years (and yeah, I know that technically pacstrap is an installer, but it doesn't do much)