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 couldnāt get the darn thing to work.
Iām 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 thatās about it.
I use arch,canāt 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 doesnāt 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. Iād say you have to be somewhat ātech-savvyā to be able to use Arch.
I wouldnāt 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 itās 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. Itās 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 itās inconvenient. If you need to pin some software to a particular version it can be tricky with these distributions but itās 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 Itās not āin the weedsā 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. Iām 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 donāt mind dealing with a very occasional update glitch or dealing with crufty files now and then since Iām 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. Itās 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 donāt 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.
Iāve 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 arenāt very familiar with Linux. However, itās not just for āadvancedā users ā itās 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 youāre looking for something with a bit more ease, starting with Manjaro might be a good middle ground, as it offers many of Archās 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 itās using too newer packages, today exit a new software release, tomorrow youāll 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 canāt permit my system got broke.
I did not find Arch ādifficultā to use, I found it very unstable.
R
I have never had a problem with Arch. Updates run without problems. I love the rolling release principle.
I donāt plan to use any other Linux distro for daily use.
I much prefer a rolling release than upgrading again and again as with Ubuntu/Mint etc.
I have to say I switch to Arch and after a week I have to say itās not so bad afer all. Software might be a little bleeding edges but for what I see I was able to find some easy solutions.
Letās say also generally some software you can find on github releases will have the same bugs as they will have on other distros.
And yes, itās better to have a rolling release Iām totally agree with this. 
ricky
@ricky89 This is also my experience with Arch. I realized it depends on the software that is used.
For instance I tried Oracle VirtualBox on Manjaro. Worked fine after installing, but after every single update, it would break. I would run the fix and I am back up again. After the 3rd or fourth update and break I got fed up.
So I then switched to Qemu and virtmanager. Did update after update and still stable as a rock. So some software works well, some doesnāt.
One thing I am beginning to do is look at the Arch Wiki for the software that I have installed to try and look out for errors from the community before I do an update. And thatās what I like about vanilla Arch. The ability to update specific software if needed.
Another trick that seems to help, is not to update every day. I usually do my update after the core libraries update, which is usually once a month. I also then look at my important software and make sure they are updated after the core update. And then I update. Itās not fool proof but it helps for me
And the Wiki is the bomb. I was experimenting with OpenSuse Tumbleweed and when googling software issues I was getting clues and answers from Arch users and the Wiki. The Wiki makes troubleshooting easier.
Also when installing software look at the libraries it installs. That can give you a clue as to how easy it can break. The more libraries the easier it can break.
@shybry747 for what I know about Oracle Virtualbox thereās some modules compilation dependencies, as I was using it, it will compile only if linux header is compatible with Virtualbox version. If versions are mismatch software wonāt run.
Great thing with Qemu, Iām not so experienced with this software, Iāll keep in mind this point.
The problem with Arch updates is that they are very fast, if you donāt update your system youāll have gigs of updates after a couple of weeks. I mean, if you give a look in community everytime thereās an update youāll get mad. From my POV itās a great idea the balance doing the Arch updates every 3-4 days | 1 week max.
Great suggestion about the libraries, Iām agree with you, Iāll keep in mind next time I need to download a new software.
But for what I have to say, as I said an another post, for my experience I found a bug with Nvidia cards and new GTK releases, I went mad for almost 2 days but finally I found the solution. I did not found easy solution somewhere, I need to go deeply googling the problem for finding this resolution.
So sometimes thereās docs about the problem, other times itās a surprise and you need to apply yourself for find the ideal solution.
-r
@penguinpie I am fairly new with Linux but have also been intrigued by Arch. As was pointed out earlier, having a stable machine that you donāt constantly have to fix is pretty essential for a tool you use daily. Hereās my input as someone who needs to continue to utilize a machine daily without issues, but also pretty interested to try out arch: I wouldnāt put arch on my main device, so Iāll continue to use Ubuntu for my main computing needs. This way, Iāll avoid the added frustration of needing to deep dive into a fix just to continue using my computer for stuff that I wanna do NOW. Since I have some old laptops laying around, Iād choose to use one of those for testing out Arch. Iād still use it daily, but I wouldnāt have to worry about my daily computing needs being met by my Arch setup. As mentioned above, the learning curve is steep and considered by many to be pretty daunting. So, Iāll definitely read documentation heavily and move pretty slowly for a while. Personally, Iām always itching to get to the good stuff. But in the case of learning new systems, Iāve kindof found that curbing that rush forward impulse has been helpful. 
I also appreciate the comment earlier about doing everything you would in a GUI but learning to do it from the terminal instead. If it was me, while Iām doing my daily hour on my practice Arch system (or however long) I would also start using the command line instead of the GUI on my main device. I think the logic of that would work kinda nicely in the background, to help get my brain working behind the scenes of the computer. Lastly Iād prep myself to do this long term, like 6 months or at least a few and then document how my understanding of Arch has grown. Iāve found that reflecting over what I know after a few months of consistent/planned learning helps me distill what I learned and then reevaluate my way forward for continued learning. Yeah anyways thatās pretty much how I would move forward, I know not everyone has access to multiple devices but hopefully insight from how someone who is in a similar situation (on the newbie side of things) would move forward with Arch based on the input from these vets above is helpful to figuring out your own strategy! Good luck and I would say go for it, you got this!
p.s.- I think its also worth noting that it seems like the people who make the most of Arch have some task or functionality that works well with or depends on the customization available with Arch. Maybe if you end up learning Arch you can keep in mind, what would I use this for, what does using Arch assist me with? That might help focus your learning if you find some specific way that Arch meets your needs as an OS. (In the future)