I have considered switching to Arch but have changed my mind a number of times now. I know a decent amount about Linux but Arch just seems to be more advanced to me. I have been told this by some other Linux users to avoid it until I am more comfortable with the terminal and everything.
Would you consider Arch to be for more experienced users or could someone with average to moderate Linux knowledge make use of it?
I tried arch once on a Android TV box a while ago, I found it difficult to use. it did seem for advanced for my taste. I tried installing wifi drivers but couldnât get the darn thing to work.
Iâm more of a Debian guy anyhow.
Yeah I have heard about this. It seems like you really have to be invested in Arch and learn it top to bottom to make the most of it. This is why I have changed my mind several times.
Yeah. I gave up on Arch. I like it for docker containers, but thatâs about it.
I use arch,canât recommend it for beginners as the learning curve is rather steep(before you enjoy it fully)
However it is perfect if you want to learn how to set up something from scratch and install only what you need and use the DE of your choice:)
If you have the time to learn new commands in terminal etc then its good and as lightweight as you make it:)
It is more complex than most other distros but that doesnât mean it is hard to use. I think it really just depends on your usage. Some people are just used to using a very simple setup and others are more open to a complex OS. Iâd say you have to be somewhat âtech-savvyâ to be able to use Arch.
I wouldnât say more for beginners. But rather more for those who have the time and a machine to play and learn with.
Yes ! Arch is a matter of time more than expertise if you can just do research and follow directions because the community is very good but itâs a hassle. I use Manjaro which is based on Arch. Arch is not great for end users. If you are doing admin and development sorts of things you are still an end user of sorts in that you expect your system to work! These distros are both not a good choice for use with WSL - windows services for Linux. I have a laptop for coding that i can dedicate to Linux. You could dual boot Arch with Ubuntu or Manjaro , or itself to lessen the inconvenience of system breaking updates. Arch is really useful for administering secure systems when you have more than one machine and are responsible for several that need to keep up with updates to an extreme degree. Arch and Manjaro are rolling distributions so new major versions of programs desktops and even kernels are introduced without a formal operating system upgrade as soon as the distribution developers can make them stable and include the versions of libraries and inter-operative programs. Rolling means you are never forced to restart with a new system image at any time. One thing this requires is that in order to install new software you need to run updates on your whole system first to be sure they are compatible with a new package. Manjaro is the same in this respect but it functions with a lag behind Arch. Itâs less likely that updates in Manjaro require that you re-write configuration files and get involved researching and solving configuration issues occasionally with normal package updates to maintain a working system. Updates that are not elaborately customized like a web server are usually automatic on Manjaro. If you are admin of several workstations running similar software where security and the latest versions are a priority then you can maintain a lead system, workout issues and distribute your fixes along with the updates fairly easily on your network. Arch is reasonable in that context but as a user itâs inconvenient. If you need to pin some software to a particular version it can be tricky with these distributions but itâs what is usually expected, especially long term service of Ubuntu or RHEL. Elaborate documentation such as tutorials may not be caught up entirely with Arch or Manjaro. That is also true of Debian unstable for example. Anyway Itâs not âin the weedsâ as Gentoo so in many respects it requires an intermediate amount of knowledge. The rolling distribution means no more operating system upgrades so that is an interesting tradeoff. You can also use snap and flatpak for many applications and those might be more pinable to a version. There is an active community maintaining installation scripts for both distributions for software that is distributed as a tar or built from source from git. You are reliant on this community for many project updates that typically release RPM DEB and TAR that are not part of the core distribution. Iâm happy with these tradeoffs because I do not have to do operating system upgrades and can run more current software versions and that makes me happy. I donât mind dealing with a very occasional update glitch or dealing with crufty files now and then since Iâm not restarting with a fresh image.
Welcome to the forums. Thanks for sharing!
What I know is that Arch Linux comes with numerous manual configurations and it is not suitable for an intermediate Linux user. Itâs operations has more to do with the command line. I would recommend Manjaro to you. It is arch based but much easier.
Computers in general be like ( more complex = more control )
Same with arch linux as distribution yeah most of us donât tinker the init and kernel like gentoo users
but we had the flexibility in user-space and devops tools.
So consider you want to switch to arch linux you must expert linux user
give your self a year or two in beginner friendly distro then try arch linux good luck.
I would be very sincere, the Arch learning curve is very steep and intermediate Linux users might really have a tough time adapting. But I would not rule it out entirely. Just start with the very basic terminal commands. Take it bit by bit. Navigation is the first thing you should learn,
(cd, ls, pwd), file manipulation (cp, mv, rm), and simple commands like cat, grep, and man. If you know these basics, you can proceed to learn other commands. Look for tasks that is commonly done on GUI and see if it has a terminal version, learn and master them.
Iâve found Arch has become easier to use in the past few years.
Arch Linux is more complex than most other distributions because it requires manual setup and has a focus on the command line. This can be challenging for users who arenât very familiar with Linux. However, itâs not just for âadvancedâ users â itâs for those who are willing to learn and fully customize their system. The Arch Wiki is a fantastic resource, and the community is quite supportive. If youâre looking for something with a bit more ease, starting with Manjaro might be a good middle ground, as it offers many of Archâs benefits with fewer complexities.
The base idea of Arch Linux is great, never upgrade the system, keep with cumulative daily updates, what could be wrong with it? You can install the system and theorically never format the entire system.
The problem behind Arch Linux is that itâs using too newer packages, today exit a new software release, tomorrow youâll have it in repositories with your system updates.
I tried using Arch Linux daily at beginning of 2024. Everything was great, but I installed a software I need for my workflow, dowloaded from author website on Linux build, this software works great for one month then I got an Arch update that update a system library and it broke the compatibility with this software.
If you want to experiment the bleeding edge software with awareness something may broke in a couple of day you can use Arch.
For me computer is a daily instrument that I use for personal use as well for work purposes and I canât permit my system got broke.
I did not find Arch âdifficultâ to use, I found it very unstable.
R