So, few days ago I asked the thread which distro they’d recommend and one of the most recommended was debian and debian based. But I for myself(Even though the post says otherwise) now chose to use an arch based distro, because of the better supported and newer nvidia drivers as well as automatic hardware detection. So I wanted to hear some experiences of you, that you may have had in the past considering EndeavourOS, CachyOS, Manjaro and Arch itself. I personally have gone for Manjaro now, kind of hoping that it won’t break on the attempt to cut themselves of the company side of Manjaro and becomming they’re own non-profit.
Greetings, Konke
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.