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!