Linux

The level of disillusion in the thread is insane. At no point in time is it a good idea to recommend Arch and it's derivatives to Linux newbies. They will 100% wreck their install in the first two weeks. Even I, as a pretty experienced user had to wipe my arch install after failed update attempts, luckily I had a separate home partition. Anything else like fedora or tumbleweed will provide packages that are very up to date, but that are also tested. For example I don't fear that updating my fedora install will completely brick the networking of my system like what happened to me on arch.

Ironically I wouldn't recommend any Ubuntu derivatives as for some reason, every single time I've installed Ubuntu or one of its variants like PopOS they ended up messed up in some way or another, albeit never as critical as Arch did to me numerous times. Probably some kind of PPA issues that make the system weird because it's always the fault of PPAs

My first distro was an Arch fork and I moved to vanilla Arch a year later. My problems in that time have been minimal. Personally, I am glad that someone recommended that I use an arch-based distro as a beginner. Mind you, I came in as a modestly computer-literate Windows refugee willing to learn. I think for those types of people it can be appropriate to recommend Arch-based distros.

So, yes, if you are not willing to google a problem, read a wiki, or use the terminal once in a while, Arch or its forks are probably not for you. I would probably not recommend Arch as a distro for someone's elderly grandparent or someone not comfortable with computers.

That said, I do not know that I agree with the assertion that Arch "breaks all the time," or that I even understand what "Arch bullshit®" is referring to. This overblown stereotype that Arch is some kind of mythical distro only a step removed from Linux From Scratch has to stop. None of that has been my experience for the last 4 years. Actually, if anything, it is the forks that get dependency issues (looking at you, Manjaro) and vanilla Arch has been really solid for me.

idk I'm kind of a fucking idiot and I started with Manjaro.

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.

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

It was my second distro after mint. It's very fun to learn as long as you got time to kill.

I'm in the void.

I started with Arch

Arch is aimed at people who know their shit so they can build their own distro based on how they imagine their distro to be.

Is Arch only for people who know how to seek help? Maybe. But it absolutely is not a distro template. It's a distro.

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.

Linux Mint.

EndeavourOS is the best 💪

As a (currently) CachyOS user, I would like to point out that their custom mirrors don't always reflect the newest version of packages, too. So if your package has a bug you may have to wait an extra day or two for it to reflect the fixed version after it drops. That or manually install the git.

Just make love with Timeshift and for the love of god don't use topgrade if you don't know what you're doing. Thankfully, because of rule number one, Timeshift told me the topgrade nightmare was over and tucked me back into bed with a glass of warm milk and a bedtime story.

To me, every distro that seriously requires you to read through all changelogs before updating is BS, and it doesn't solve a basic problem. No one in their sane mind will do this, and the system will break.

That's why, while I respect the upstream Arch, I'd say you should be insane for running it and trying to make things stable, and mocking people for not reading the changelogs is missing the point entirely. Even the best of us failed.

Arch is entirely about "move fast and break stuff".

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.

Mint has been nice

I do not recommend Arch to new users but I really wish people would have a point supported by evidence when they post.

There is no 50 page manual to install EndeeavourOS or CachyOS, the two distros mentioned in the graphic. Both are as easy to point and click install as Fedora and maybe easier than Debian. The better hardware support makes the install much more likely to succeed. They both have graphical installers and lead you by the hand. In fact, when it comes to EOS, its entire identify is making Arch easy to install and to provide sensible defaults so that everything works out of the box. And of the 80,000 packages in Arch/AUR, less than 20 of them are unique to EOS (mostly theming).

There are lots of things to complain about regarding Arch related distros. Or maybe there isn’t if we have to lie about them.

Arch is for control freaks, which means it takes a lot of work and patient to get it to work for your specific needs. If you don't have the time and patient for that (which is more then understandable) then you shouldn't use it.

The real problem: Define beginner distro

Every user is starting from a different point. There is no such thing as a beginner distro. You can say this distro is good for people who can grasp the idea of a command line or this distro is good for people who have no idea command line interfaces exist, but that doesn't differentiate between beginner friendly or not.