Is there really enough of an epidemic of newbies being recommended Arch to warrant this amount of ire? All I ever hear is how Arch is the “hardcore” distro and beginners should all use Linux Mint.

I’m someone who has only ever poked around with Linux Mint on a thumb drive a few times to see what it’s like and thinking, “Yep. This is a working operating system.” and then going back to Windows because there was never any compelling reason to switch.

But I recently decided to have a dedicated PC with Linux on it and I chose CachyOS because I want to play games. (Yes, I know you can game on other distros.) And I’m… fine. I’m computer literate, I did my research, and I knew that using an Arch-based distros was “being thrown into the deep end.” But I followed the instructions, as well as some advice, and the setup completed without any issues.

I’m using my PC and things “just work.” Apparently I’m just an update away from everything collapsing into smoldering wreckage. If that happens, I’ll try to fix it, and maybe I’ll learn something in the process. If not, I’ll try to keep my files backed up so I can restore things. Or maybe I’ll decide that I hate it and try something else, but… so far so good.

That depends on what the beginner's goal is. Arch could very well be a nice beginner distro, as could Gentoo or Slackware or any other "hard" distro if you're determined to learn. My baptism of fire was on Slackware in the 90s (which I'm still on), long before "beginner distros". Trying and failing was a big part of the fun. If you're determined to learn, I don't see any issue with starting with a distro that doesn't hold your hand.

Hey, you forget about Gentoo Linux!

The real distro for newbies... (Provided the newbies are expert cs graduated and crazy nerds...)

All depends on what a beginner is... Not all beginners are tech illiterates or people who only want to use office.

Counterpoint: if you have the ability and willingness to learn how Linux works, un-fucking a broken Arch installation will teach you more about the system than spending months with a stable distro. I know because my first serious daily driver was Manjaro.

I mean, you are right, and way more people should be using openSUSE :P

I will say Arch-derived distros are a good experience if you want to learn how the terminal and other systems work. They're engineered to be configurable; the documentation is great. But if you just want to use your computer without opening too many hoods, it's fundamentally not an optimal system.

Another thing is that many people just want their new laptop to work, and for it to game on linux. Sometimes it does not just work. If you start pulling in fixes and packages that are not supported on your distro, you can screw up any distro very quickly (and this includes the AUR, unofficial Fedora repos and such). If the community packages these, stages them, tests them against all official packages, and they work out-of-the-box... that's one less hazard.

Very bad post. And Tumbleweed has OBS (Open Build Systems), although I dont even know if that is the right name for its AUR equivalent.

Debian is the best distro for newbies, it may require setup and reading some documentation but afterwards you get a stable distro.

The install guide is not 50 pages-long, common!

Tbh I think endeavor os is a pretty nice beginner way to get into arch--it was my introduction to arch and the aur.

Arch users are the sanctimonious vegans of the linux world. Bacon is delicious, and you are not special.

The package manager way of delivering distro management, updates and upgrades is an archaic and dumb idea. Doomed to fail since inception and the reason Linux never broke the 1% of users in forever. It's a bad model.

Atomic and immutable distribution of an OS is the preferred and successful model for the average user who wants a PC to be a tool and not a hobby on itself. I don't think the traditional package manager will ever go away. But there are alternatives now.