Arch user here.
My recommendation to noobies is always Linux Mint even though I don't use it.
I use Arch, btw.
Yeah I think Arch is fine, but I'd never recommend it to a new Linux user.
Most Arch users (myself included) don't recommend Arch to n00bs or even light seasoned Linux users if they already are happy with their setup.
But the meme is the meme and I like bullying Arch elitists.
Indeed, besides most linux distributions are fairly equally lightweight and can be customized. I tried 4-5 distros this past January (Arch being one) when I got my new gaming laptop and they all booted in ~9.5 sec for example, and perform equally well in general, they had fairly similar RAM load with the same desktop environment.
Arch is about managing the system as a hobby, which is fine.
One problem here is that new users install Endeavour/Garuda but don't know how to manage updates safely about pacnew/pacsave/etc. So the system might slowly "rot" without them knowing about it because new components use old configs, etc..
I also recommend Mint to new users. I don't use Mint, nor do I use Arch.
Arch is about managing the system as a hobby
You're thinking of Gentoo.
Isn't archwiki one of the most comprehended wikis for Linux distros out there? If anything, the arch-wiki (to me) has often too many answers for the same problem than the other way around.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Is actually great since it forces you to learn which saves you much more time in the long run.
But most people can't see past their nose.
Edit
Can't believe somebody got offended by this...
couldve stopped at the first sentence, but had to keep with the stereotype i guess ;)
I run Debian and I regularly look at the Arch wiki.
A lot of new users are coming to Linux not because they like tinkering with their setup but because they are tired of Microsoft tinkering with their setup. For these people Arch will probably never be the answer. That's ok, we should encourage all Linux adoption and the best way to do that is to start with the simple and familiar.
Weird shot at the Arch wiki, which is truly great. I turn to it regularly despite not using Arch.
Wiki do not have answer
?? The arch wiki is one of the greatest Linux resources out there. Sure there may be situations where it doesn't have the answer for something, but for a new user? It has all bases covered.
It's actually really great.. if you know how to interpret and apply the information on it to your situation and adapt as needed. A good new user experience it does not make however.
Ex arch btw user here. I noped out and wiped after thinking I had it all nailed down, then I tried to connect my Bluetooth headphones and I came to a grand awakening. I am too old for this shit.
Installed Tumbleweed and been happy ever since.
Tumbleweed is boring, and that's why it's wonderful.
I will always recommend Debian or Debian based distros to anyone new to Linux. They'll find their way to arch eventually
Arch btw
I don't have any issue with Arch, everything works. But when I try other distros, they are mostly messed up.
For a total newbie, Linux Mint or PopOS are probably the best options. But EndeavourOS is getting there. There shouldn't be any issues during the installation if one sticks to the defaults. Only thing is, it doesn't come with a graphical package manager out of the box. But once that is installed (I think anyone will be happy to write a single terminal command, at least), I don't see why it's any harder to use than any other distro.
I will not stand slander of the arch wiki.
Also start with Linux Mint XFCE (unless they've fixed the stability problems with cinnamon)
I use Ubuntu. It generally tends to be boring stable, which is kinda what I want out of my OS these days. I can still customize it, and even break it if I really get bored, but it's nice to have things just work for the most part.
I had a friend who wanted to try linux but insisted on arch because it's what I used at the time even though I said they shouldn't and gave many suggestions for better distros. They gave up after about a day and went back to windows. I don't know what they expected, multiple people warned them not to use arch.
Basically, most of the points there fall into some of 3 categories:
Arch wiki is the reason I started using Arch. After fixing an install from something I found there for like the 10th time I thought "Why not give it a try"
"Wiki do not have answer" that's why the wiki is also used by non-arch users ?
Ay this is a funny meme and all but insulting the best linux documentation available was unnecessary
If the arch wiki doesn't have the answer, I just give up
I don't get the hate arch gets - it's the perfect distro if you want to choose what programs you want to use, it's not meant to be an out of the box experience. Been using it for 3 years, and sure it might take me a couple of hours to set up initially, but after that I don't really have to do anything.
It's awful for most new users, though. They don't even know what the options are, how can they choose anything?
Not every new user is the same but if they are absolute newbies they should start with a user friendly distro, which Arch definitely isn't.
I think Arch kind of deserves the hate it gets. I love barebones distros and have been a gentoo user (now on NixOS), and I’ve used arch a fair bit too… I just don’t feel like Arch is a well maintained distribution. There’s all sorts of little things that they can’t seem to get right that other distros do, like that silly issue where they won’t update the arch keyring first, so if you haven’t updated in a while it breaks. In my experience there’s a million little paper cuts like this and I’ve just been kind of unimpressed. If it works for you that’s great! I’ve just been disappointed with it. I get the niche that it fills as the binary “from scratch” rolling release distro, but I think the experience with it is a little rough. I’ve found gentoo more user friendly, which probably sounds bizarre if you haven’t used gentoo, but ignoring compiling stuff, gentoo does an excellent job of not breaking things on updates, and it’s much easier to pin and install specific versions of packages and stuff.
Bruh, if you're going to insist on someone installing arch, at least sit by their side and walk them through it.
Having installed arch multiple times before, I can get a base system with networking and desktop environment up in half a day to a day depending on which DE.
Ok look I'm not a huge Arch fan either (it's great for learning the ins and outs of Linux but I've gotten to the point that stability is more important than anything to me) but the wiki is the most thorough Linux documentation you can get anywhere. It always, always has the answer, even if you don't use Arch, lol.
Arch is easy to install; it's a headache to manage.
If you want a stable Arch, you need to check the updates and take very granular control over packages and versioning.
While some nerds may like tinkering with their system in all those ways, for regular user Arch is simply too much effort to maintain.
More Endeavour recommendations
Arch wasn't my first distro but it was my first daily driver. Found it easier than both mint and Ubuntu personally.
Moved from Fedora > Arch > Manjaro > Fedora > Debian. I consider Arch for learning purposes. For troubleshooting / recoveries , that knowledge will be a great help.
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.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
