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. It is not a good distro for beginners and non power users, no matter how often you try to make your own repository, and how many GUI installers you make for it. There's a good reason why there is no GUI installer in arch (aside from being able to load it into ram). That being that to use Arch, you need to have a basic understanding of the terminal. It is in no way hard to boot arch and type in archinstall. However, if you don't even know how to do that, your experience in whatever distro, no matter how arch based it is or not, will only last until you have a dependency error or some utter and total Arch bullshit® happens on your system and you have to run to the forums because you don't understand how a wiki works.
You want a bleeding edge distro? Use goddamn Opensuse Tumbleweed for all I care, it is on par with arch, and it has none of the arch stuff.
You have this one package that is only available on arch repos? Use goddamn flatpak and stop crying about flatpak being bloated, you probably don't even know what bloat means if you can't set up arch. And no, it dosent run worse. Those 0,0001 seconds don't matter.
You really want arch so you can be cool? Read the goddamn 50 page install guide and set it up, then we'll talk about those arch forks.
(Also, most arch forks that don't use arch repos break the aur, so you don't even have the one thing you want from arch)
Any windows power user or dev on a mac can follow a wiki, read a bit and learn.
Good for beginners? I didn't describe a beginner right here. Anybody with experience in computing will find arch straightforward and satisfying. Heck, a CS student would probably go through a first install process faster than I do after 5 years.
What are the concept involved? Partitioning, networking, booting... These are all familiar fields to tons of very normal computer users.
Arch can be a good first distro to anyone who knows what a computer is doing (or is willing to learn)
Arch was my first distro after going back to Linux. I really liked learning the inner workings of a computer and an OS.
I know plenty of people who just want a plug&play experience with the only input for the install being name, password and date. For them, I would never recommend Arch, simply mint or pop_os would do just fine as the only thing the computer has to do is open up the browser.
I just want more Linux users, not specific distros. In the end if you know your way around Linux, the distro choice doesn't matter, you just choose a package repo
It's gotten worse than it even used to be, because more than half the "tutorials" I've run across are clearly AI written and basically flat out wrong.
Of course, they're ALSO the "answers" that get pushed by Bing/Google so even if you run into someone who is willing to follow documentation, they're going to get served worthless slop.
One thing I will give arch is that if there's a wiki entry for something, it's at least written by a human and is actually accurate which is more than I've found ANYWHERE else.
just because a given person could make it work, doesnt mean they want to. i can personally fix a lot of these issues, but i dont wanna have to bother. i just want to accomplish the inane bullshit i turned my computer on for.
i just think an arch recommendation should always come with that disclaimer. newbies have to know what to expect else they will associate that experience with linux in general.
You're focusing too much on the installation process, if installing Arch was the whole of the problem things like Endeavor would be a good recommendation for newbies, but they're not. Arch has one giant flaw when it comes to being beginner friendly, and it's part of what makes it desirable for lots of us, and that is the bleeding edge rolling release model. As a newcomer you probably want something that works and is stable. Arch is not, and will never be, that, because the core philosophy is to be bleeding edge rolling release. If you're a newcomer who WANTS to have that and doesn't mind the learning curve then go ahead, but Linux has enough of a learning curve already, so it's better to get people started with something they can rely on and afterwards they can move to other stuff that might have different advantages/disadvantages.
We're talking about the general case here, I've recommend Arch to a newcomer in the past, he was very keen on learning and was happy with reading wikis to get there stuff sorted, but realistically most people who're learning a whole new OS don't want to ask questions and be told RTFM, and RTFM is core to the Arch philosophy.
The first Linux I used wasn't part of any distro. A few years later I compiled Slackware to run bind and Sendmail.
Last year I tried Arch in a VM. I got to where it expected me to know what partitions to create for root and swap and noped out. It's not 1996. I don't have time for those details any more. No one should. Sane defaults have been in other distros for decades.
Debian welcomes you 💫
one of the main points of arch is for people wanting to learn these details. its not for everyone.
if you want a distro to just work, i second the suggestion from the other dude. get a debian based one.
the wiki could be way better honestly...
Only gets better if we make it better.
that, or having good documentation could be a requirement
FOSS is great but so much if it has just absolute garbage documentation.
Compared to garbage proprietary software documentation? At least if it’s FOSS garbage there are usually other helpful users on random forums.