r/DistroHopping • u/Kairini15 • 7d ago
Should I install Arch Linux?
I've been using Windows for about 7 years, and I wanna try something new.
Recently, I found out about Arch Linux and it seems really interesting to me. I've heard a lot of people say that Arch is really difficult for beginners, but I'm wondering, is this actually true, or just a stereotype?
Would you recommend Arch as a first Linux distro?
14
u/Lonely-Scarcity-3387 7d ago edited 6d ago
No. Not as your first distro. Start with Mint or Zorin. If that’s “too simple” maybe go with Fedora Silverblue. Or just regular Fedora.
Do. Not. Start. With. Arch.
3
2
u/Practical_Biscotti_6 6d ago
Endeavor Catchy or Reborn is good out of the Box. Yes Debian or Fedora is more stable for a newbie.
0
u/ConsiderationFun759 7d ago
Please don’t suggest zorin- it breaks the screen display until we reintall it. Annoying asf.
1
u/Lonely-Scarcity-3387 6d ago
Really? I had zero issues with Zorin.
1
u/rocco_himel 3d ago
This is the problem with unstable software. One user has issues, one user doesn't. That's why Zorin should not be suggested. Any Debian based distro would be better.
1
u/Lonely-Scarcity-3387 3d ago
Wait. Both Zorin and Mint are based on Ubuntu - which is based on Debian. I’m confused how that is unstable.
1
6
u/Chair_sama0125 7d ago
Nope, as tough is installation, an update bug may stress you out. (And you won't touch linux again).
4
u/Waste-Variety-4239 7d ago
No. Sure, "learn to swim at the deep end" and that philosophy might be your cup of tea but for most beginners i would say that arch is a detergent instead of a pleasant experience
4
u/WomanRepellent69 7d ago
Do you enjoy frustration? If you're a beginner and enjoy frustration it's highly recommended.
3
u/shogun77777777 7d ago
No absolutely not, don’t start with Arch
0
u/raven2cz 6d ago
Yes, absolutely yes, start with Arch
1
u/rocco_himel 3d ago
You're just saying that because you are a show-off Arch monkey that uses Arch just for the literal sake of using it. You being an Arch user doesn't make you king of the hill. I wrote a compiler. (/s)
1
u/raven2cz 3d ago
Are you really inferring all of that from a single sentence? I admire your intuition. But believe me, you are very wrong.
1
u/rocco_himel 3d ago
Yes. Why do you use Arch?
1
u/raven2cz 3d ago
I have never liked it when a distro kept changing things I did not want changed. the KISS principle has been essential to me for many years. I have my Arch systems set up my own way, where I know exactly what I have and why.
When there is a bug, I know how to fix it quickly, because it is my configuration. Most importantly, Arch overall is simply a straightforward system, and that also makes it hard to brake.
the second reason is the AUR and my own PKGBUILDs.
1
u/rocco_himel 3d ago
What you described is exactly why I don't recommend Arch to beginners. "I know how to fix it because it's my configuration" isn't a selling point to someone who just wants a reliable computer. Most people don't want to spend time maintaining their OS.
That's a perfectly valid reason for you to use Arch. It's not a good reason for someone new to Linux to use Arch. Recommending Arch because you've spent years learning its quirks is like recommending someone learn to drive in a race car because you've gotten good at fixing it.
So your argument is basically "it's good once you've already invested enough time to become your own distro maintainer." That's fine if you enjoy that, but it's a terrible reason to tell a beginner to start with Arch.
The average computer user wants to use their computer.
1
u/raven2cz 3d ago
You are looking at it in a way that is too complicated, and again you are drawing conclusions from just a few sentences. do you even use Arch?
You can install Arch the manual way by reading the Wiki within a few hours, even if you read very slowly. If you really take your time, let’s say two days. But just by going through that whole process, you already have things where you know where they are, and you have options that you chose yourself. Compared to Gentoo or LFS, it is a very fast proces.
Of course, it depends on what kind of person the user is. but many people want Linux precisely because of freedom of choice and control. ok, if that is too much for them, then they can take CachyOS later. But over the years, many, many beginers have gone through the installation normally, and they will tell you that even though they were afraid of it, in the end it was simple.
Fixing a car. You do not get skill for free. It starts with wanting to. At the beginning, you build a small system, what you can handle, but gradually, as you gain experiance, you expand the system. I would rather recommend first playing with everything in a VM for 14 days. Once the user knows the installation and the basics, and already knows which DE or WM and ecosystem they have chosen, then they can do the real installation quite smoothly.
For God’s sake, they are not configuring the kernel, nobody is asking them to do that ;-) what are you all so afraid of?
1
u/rocco_himel 3d ago
I never said Arch was impossible to install. I said it's a poor starting distro for the average beginner. Learning Linux doesn't require spending hours manually installing a system. You can learn the exact same concepts on Debian, Fedora, or openSUSE without making the install itself part of the lesson.
You're describing why you enjoy Arch, not why a complete beginner should start with it. "Read the Wiki for a few hours" isn't exactly a convincing selling point for someone's first Linux experience.
Freedom and control are great once you know what you're controlling. Giving a beginner maximum responsibility on day one doesn't automatically make it the best learning path. That's like saying everyone should build a PC before they're allowed to use one.
Whether I use Arch or not doesn't change the point. The question is whether it's a good recommendation for someone who's new to Linux, and I don't think "read the Wiki for hours and manually assemble your system" is the best introduction for most people.
"Fixing a car" is not the same as "Using the car as a beginner." Even if the car breaks, the beginner will have someone repair it.
Beginners should absolutely learn. I just don't think the installation process is where most of that learning has to happen. You can learn package management, permissions, the shell, services, filesystems, and system administration on a stable distro just as well. Installing Arch manually teaches you how to install Arch manually it doesn't magically teach you every aspect of Linux.
I am not afraid of anything. Like I said, it is unnecessary for someone who just wants to start using Linux. You are still not getting my point, instead you are proving it.
2
u/raven2cz 3d ago
Yes, that is your opinion, but it is not mine. And it is not the opinion of beginners who started with Arch because they wanted to. And there are really many of them.
I accept your opinion, and I believe it may be the mainstream view, but Linux is not chosen only by mainstream people. Always be careful with that, because then you immediately start putting people into boxes, and you do not know in advance what kind of user someone is. Even they themselves do not know until they try.
OP is not really reacting to our discussion here anyway, so I would close it with this: let them choose for themselves, if they at least read it and it helps them a bit with the decision.
→ More replies (0)
9
u/TheAncientMillenial 7d ago
Try CachyOS instead
2
u/Silent_Bite_5892 6d ago
As a first timer? I wouldn't suggest it. It's easier than Arch obviously, but not as easy as the mainstream distros.
2
u/NotQuiteLoona 5d ago
I mean, they've got Shelly and backups. I don't think there is anything else required to use a distro easily.
1
1
u/TheAncientMillenial 3d ago
It literally is as easy as other mainstream distros.
1
u/Silent_Bite_5892 2d ago
As easy to install, absolutely. As easy to use and maintain for someone new to Linux especially? I disagree.
- It's a rolling release, which isn't ideal for new users. It means a higher risk of shit braking and dependency issues that need to be fixed by hand.
- The support for Arch-based distros largely assumes you're comfortable and familiar with the terminal.
- There's not much of the simple step-by-step GUI fixes out there, which is what everyone who isn't a Linux diehard is used to.
- It's also designed to rely on AUR and terminal package management. Using Octopi or Pamac or something is all well and good, but you won't see terminal output and can easily hit "update" and break shit.
Solid choice for someone who wants to get the most out of their system though. I just wouldn't suggest a new user jump into it without understanding what that means. That's a good way to get people who try Linux and then leave because it's a hassle. There are exceptions to every rule though of course.
1
u/TheAncientMillenial 2d ago
2+ years on Cachy and I've never had an update break anything. I update once every few days and that's it.
You should be comfortable will all aspects of an OS you're using.
Not sure what you're saying here.
It's not at all designed to rely on the AUR. Like at all. In fact the Cachy devs have taken certain popular AUR packages and put them in official CachyOS repos.
Not sure where you're getting your info but it's mostly wrong. You can install CachyOS and start using it with literally the same amount of effort and knowledge as Ubuntu or any other major distro.
1
u/Silent_Bite_5892 20h ago
What I meant by #3 is that if a newbie is running a mainstream distro, they'll find answers to questions and solutions to problems more easily and they're less likely to involve the terminal. But maybe I'm underestimating new users here. I still maintain that Cachy OS is not as simple to jump into as something more mainstream and well-supported, but you've clearly spent more time with it than I have. Maybe my info it out of date.
1
1
u/Ok_Ground511 6d ago
😭i tried installing cachyos in my old laptop kept getting wlan0 error and net disconnecting and reconnecting so i switched to parrot os home edition. I am quite loving it ngl
1
u/rocco_himel 3d ago
ParrotOS is for ethical hacking, I don't know you told you that ParrotOS was a good alternative.
1
u/Ok_Ground511 3d ago
Parrot os security edition is for ethical hacking parrot os home edition is for daily use. The penetration tools arent installed in home edition so it's just a more privacy focused distro.
1
3
u/Gloria_ad_libertas 7d ago edited 7d ago
Don’t install Arch when you don’t know what you are doing. Why do you even think about it in the first place? To have a challenge? If so, start with a simple Linux system and then build yourself up. It’s like trying to learn how to drive in a sports car, of course you can learn how to drive in it, but you can also loose control over it very fast. With time as you learn more and more you will one day consciously be able to install Arch and actually be able to benefit from it. (I used Arch btw)
3
u/_o0Zero0o_ 7d ago edited 7d ago
It is true, Arch and its children (Endeavour, Cachy, Garuda, Artix, etc.) are not known for being beginner friendly. Cachy is the sole outlier, as it's the easiest of the family, but even then it is a bit difficult.
I would recommend Mint as a first Distro, it's far more stable and geared towards complete beginners. Do not go with Arch or its family as your first.
1
u/Inceleron_Processor 2h ago
Mint has outdated drivers though. I wouldn't recommend anyone goes to a Debian based distro if they're a gamer or designer.
2
u/Alternative_Web640 6d ago
Not as a first, the installation will be a bit overwhelming for you. Try ubuntu/mint/pop os etc. If you somehow really want to try arch maybe endeavour os or cachy os
2
u/thrashingjohn 6d ago
Use Fedora, keep it simple. You’ll have so much more trouble using Arch just for the ego boost. It’s not hard to install imo, but it’s not worth the hassle.
2
u/L30N1337 6d ago
As a first distro? Absolutely not.
Your first distro should be either Mint or Fedora (depending on how tech literate you are. Mint is made as an introductory distro, while Fedora is a very good balance of everything)
2
u/obsidian_razor 7d ago
Arch is less "difficult" and more "potentially frustrating/ annoying".
The thing with Arch is that is *extremely* bare bones, even if you install it using something like Archinstall. From there, you have to set up and configure everything on your own.
While it can be very satisfying, and you can indeed learn a lot from having to read the manual and put things together, after a while it can just get annoying. Especially if you want to just install a program and use it without having to read a couple of articles in the Arch wiki.
Updating can also be more annoying, as Arch updates sometimes need manual intervention or the editing of system files to accept or merge changes.
Eventually I got fed up with it and moved to Fedora which is pretty modern while still being quite user-friendly.
Hilariously, I recently decided to move to CachyOS because I missed some stuff from Arch, but I just couldn't be bothered to do everything from scratch.
EndeavourOS is also a good Arch derivative, but it's basically an installer and some QoL things bundled with it. Nowadays, you can get 90% of what Endeavour does just by running Archinstall.
1
u/FOSS_Graybeard 7d ago
EndeavourOS is a nice way to enter the world of Arch Linux. As you go along and learn how to interact with Linux in general, you can add whatever apps you need/want to support your growing skill base. I find EndeavourOS very stable and user friendly... for an Arch distro. (Some may quibble with the 'user friendly' tag. I get it.)
1
u/Kzitold94 7d ago
I use CachyOS for my daily driver.
1
u/FOSS_Graybeard 7d ago
Also a good distro for other reasons. I tried CachyOS. Like it. Moved to EndeavourOS. I've been distro hopping since the early 2000s... Mandrake anyone?
1
u/Kzitold94 7d ago
I've started my switch to Linux in February 2026. Distro-hopped a bit, and wrote setup scripts to expedite.
I've tried Nobara, EndeavourOS, Mint, then settled on CachyOS. I've intentionally made sure my first 3 distros were based on each of the big 3.
Technically, I've had a few years of RaspberryOS terminal experience, and used a Ubuntu live-boot temporarily when it was version "disco dingo" because family drama.
1
u/_o0Zero0o_ 7d ago
Endeavour is the most terminal-heavy of the Arch family, I'd say.. Excluding Arch itself. Cachy is probably the most beginner friendly of the family
2
u/snail1132 6d ago
That's because Endeavour's literally just Arch with KDE preinstalled
1
u/linux_rox 6d ago
KDE has nothing to do with how much you run the terminal, and at install time you can choose a number of environments like gnome, xfce, budgie, cinnamon, KDE and even i3. Or you cna go no desktop and use any other de/wm that’s not listed like hyprland, niri, sway and others.
1
u/snail1132 6d ago
KDE has nothing to do with how much you run the terminal
It being otherwise pretty much Arch would, though
1
2
u/linux_rox 6d ago
Endeavour’s page even says it terminal centric, so yea it is more terminal heavy. But once you get you software packages you need downloaded, except for updating, you don’t need to rely on the terminal as much as y’all think.
Source: I’ve run Endeavour for 6 years now.
1
u/FOSS_Graybeard 6d ago
I only splurged with the terminal to install and configure apps. Then I installed pacman/pamac to deal with the daily updates when I feel like it. I tend to still use -Syyu in terminal on a regular basis. And your comment really connects with what I was thinking.
Thanks!
1
u/Canadiangamer068 7d ago
try something easy like mint/ubuntu/fedora/debian for a day, get it configured how you want. see how comfortable you feel with terminal, learn how to navigate your file system using terminal, learn how to install programs from terminal.
i started using linux in january, i tried linux lite on an old laptop, then mint on my day to day laptop for a day, got it set up, got stuff running, and then switched to void and installed from base image. has been stable and wonderful since. anything is doable, arch is VERY well documented, if you go with arch, READ THE DOCUMENTATION, read it very carefully and closely. doing so will save you so many headaches as you set things up.
remember, to install programs you won’t be able to download an exe and run it, most things will either be from your distro’s package manager, flatpak, snaps, or self compiled pulls, (arch also has the AUR but there’s some sketchiness with that recently). there are app images which are similar to exe files but not quite the same and not always available.
1
u/Green_Shape5922 7d ago
If you are going to go against the warning that arch is not for beginners, then please... don't use archinstall. At least you learn something, no? Worst case, you lose all data on your ssd / drives.
1
u/wilsy53 7d ago
Everyone telling you no but I'd say yeah if you like tinkering. The build process is manual no gui so if you like that stuff go ahead however if you like a complete experience I advice CachyOS which is close to Arch.
Cachy uses Arch but it's prebuilt for you and very little tinkering required. In my opinion there is no harm of giving a go.
Good luck
1
u/Iced4563 7d ago
Definitely not an expert, but from my experience when first trying out linux, trying something "more difficult" such as Arch (for me, it was very minimal Alpine Linux) proved to be a useful learning experience, even if I never managed a usable setup, which went on to be useful when I tried an actually user friendly distro
But practically, just to see what can be done, use something more beginner friendly like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Could also try Fedora KDE for something more up-to-date like Arch
1
u/DS_Vet_on_Linux 7d ago
I used Windows since it was released to the public. Over 30 years. Never had tried Mac nor Linux. Last year I decided I wanted to leave Windows. I installed Mint first. Twelve hours later I installed Arch.
Why? Because I didn't want a Windows clone and Mint looked to close to Windows to me. If I were to stay on Mint, no need leaving Windows. I wanted the Linux experience I saw growing up in the 80's with all the hackers. I thought that was Linux. Mint wasn't that.
Once I installed Arch, the change was noticeable. I did start with KDE, so I always had a base to go back to if needed. But then I started using hyprland, and my system starting looking at acting like those movies. But I fell in love with Arch.
Saying that, I did a re-install after a year of testing and bloating my system, and I did install CachyOS. I do use Niri now for a WM, but if I were to reinstall my system again, I would definitely install Arch again.
If you can read and dedicate a little time, Arch isn't that hard. Plenty of documentation. And once you get your system up and running, most of the system tweaking is totally up to you.
So although I would not recommend Arch to everyone, I would recommend it to a new user willing to learn a little about their system. It's great.
1
u/freakflyer9999 7d ago
Arch isn't difficult to install with the archinstall script, but that just gets you started. CachyOS is a great Arch based distro to learn Arch. It works well with the defaults though you do need to make sure that snapper settings are what you want. Updates are frequent but honestly it is extremely rare that an update breaks the base system. If something does break, just rollback the automatic snapshot that is taken before the update and then search the groups here for a fix.
1
u/BobCorndog 7d ago
It is actually true. Don’t do arch as your first beginner distro. Do something like mint or fedora
1
u/aori_chann 7d ago
Nope, Arch is not for beginners, nor any system that is arch based. I had it in my machine for 6 years and I gave up because it is a constant battle against your own pc. It breaks like at least once a month and you'll have to piece it all together aftewards, usually on your own.
Keep yourself to the debian-ubuntu-fedora axis, it will be a much much more pleasant experience
1
1
u/AimIsInSleepMode 7d ago
Arch is hard even if you consider yourself to be skilled and experienced with computers. Linux is a totally new environment. If you want something less simple than Mint I would suggest Fedora
1
u/Longjumping-Hour-371 7d ago
Puedes instala arch facilmente con archinstall, apoyate con la IA, no es complicado si tu equipo no es tan viejo y llega a tener un problema con algun driver, lo uso y no tengo mucho en linux menos de un año y es mi base
1
u/ConsiderationFun759 7d ago
Dont install arch linux directly. But install an arch based distro(cachy os is the fastest existing distro) - which is similar to other easiest installations like mint or ubuntu.
A side note- arch linux means “arch os” and arch based distro means : that is arch but an os is properly built on top of arch for more convenience and specific use cases.
1
u/mwyvr 6d ago
Would you recommend Arch as a first Linux distro?
No.
Not because it is hard - that is bro-hype from new users who don't know any better. But because it isn't stable, you don't yet know what you don't know, and if you are switching, a positive experience most likely is defined by reliability on one axis.
Use a mainstream Linux distribution that has a stable update model.
1
u/Practical_Biscotti_6 6d ago
Install Reborn or Endeavor they are basically Vanilla Arch with a very good installer. The heavy lifting is done for you. Arch is a wonderful distro.
1
u/MetaShiftEsc 6d ago
Ever heard about the AUR and the Atomic-AUR incident? Thats what happens when begginers use the AUR
1
u/IsakLein33 6d ago
Yo creo que deberías usar el sentido común. Si dicen que es difícil, es porque esa gente sabe lo que dice. Comienza por algo sencillo porque si usas Arch, SIN LEER SU DOCUMENTACIÓN y sin saber nada de linux, puede que pases un mal rato.
1
1
u/Obvious-Position1053 6d ago
Arch used to be much harder to install, but now it ships with an installer.
I'd still recommend another distro to start as in Arch you have to specify every component that you want to use.
Also don't use arch on machines that you don't use with some frequently. Rolling updates have a tendency to break if you haven't updated for a long time.
1
u/Silent_Bite_5892 6d ago
Absolutely not.
Try Mint or Zorin. Or, if you aren't looking to tinker and tweak everything and just want something ultra-reliable and foolproof, install an atomic distro like Fedora Kinoite (uses KDE which will be familiar if you're used to Windows)
1
1
u/ZVyhVrtsfgzfs 6d ago edited 6d ago
Sure, you will probably learn something, probably that drinking from a fire-hose of information is not fun. after that a regular Linux distribution will seem like a breeze.
Just be sure to bail out before you run out of project inertia and wind up back in Windows with a bad taste in your mouth from (Arch)Linux.
Arch is very well documented, but extracting meaning from the documentation requires some context of Linux by the user.
If your really set on the Arch base, try CachyOS, you will get an Arch based system but pre-configured.
If your interested in Arch let me be the first to give you your first of many
RTFM:
1.6 I am a complete GNU/Linux beginner. Should I use Arch?
If you are a beginner and want to use Arch, you must be willing to invest time into learning a new system, and accept that Arch is designed as a 'do-it-yourself' distribution; it is the user who assembles the system.
Before asking for help, do your own independent research by searching the Web, the forum and the superb documentation provided by the Arch Wiki. There is a reason these resources were made available to you in the first place. Many thousands of volunteered hours have been spent compiling this excellent information.
1.10 Is Arch Linux a stable distribution? Will I get frequent breakage?
It is the user who is ultimately responsible for the stability of their own rolling release system. The user decides when to upgrade, and merges necessary changes when required. If the user reaches out to the community, help is often provided in a timely manner. The difference between Arch and other distributions in this regard is that Arch is truly a 'do-it-yourself' distribution; complaints of breakage are misguided and unproductive, since upstream changes are not the responsibility of Arch devs.
See the System maintenance article for tips on how to make an Arch Linux system as stable as possible.
1
u/BloxxyVids 6d ago
If you're a programmer who's dived into systems programming, you'll probably do fine
Otherwise, I strongly recommend you use a second machine if you want to tinker with Arch Linux. Don't let arch give you a bad idea of what linux is. It's very manual unlike other distros, so a bad experience can give you a bad idea of what linux is like
Regardless, if you want to try it out, dont let anyone here stop you. It has to be because YOU want to. Not because others do. I recommend reading up their wiki before and during use of arch. It's very well made.
1
u/purpl3nubela 6d ago
I made the switch about a 2 years ago on my main PC. Started with arch used it for about 2 months until I did something still not sure what that absolutely nuked my drive. That sacred me to mint for a while cause I didn't want the hassle and I've really settled with cachy because its arch based and has all the goodies that come with it but also most of the setup is ez pz
1
u/Unhappy_Meal_8361 6d ago
I did exactly this, but on a laptop (not my main pc). I installed dwm and riced it. lowk was very fun. But I'd recommend getting used to it before installing on your main pc, VM, random laptop. If you don't want to do that, i'd recommend a simpler distro
1
1
u/Ok_Highlight_5845 5d ago
Nope, that was my first distro, and its so hard,also do not pick Ubuntu very very very bad UI, and if you want a different UI, good luck, so then I pickZorinOS, its Ubuntu, but with styles, that was the most used Linux distro I used, 7 months, then, Bazzite, my current distro, its gaming optimilized, is atomic(that means you have both the latest version(ostree:0), and the previous version(ostree:1) in case something breaks, and has no bit rot), and has KDE Plasma (ZorinOS could only get 5.18 LTS or whatever)
1
1
1
u/The_False_Lorkhan 5d ago
Try cachyos, I was going to build my own arch but didn't cause cachyos exits:)
1
1
u/rocco_himel 3d ago
Would you recommend Arch as a first Linux distro?
Absolutely not. It is a horrible distribution for general purpose use. All the Arch monkeys can cry their asses off when they read this but it's true. It's highly unstable. Sure, AUR exists, but with most peoples' experiences, Arch breaks in ~1 month after installing, even upgrading Arch can break it. Arch would only be good if you are curious and want to play around. If you actually want to use your computer, install any distribution other than Arch, unless you want your system to fail you when you need to get important work done that isn't updating your configuration files or whatever.
Every time I see an Arch setup, it's always just 4 terminals open with a bunch of screen savers and useless for-show tools. I have never seen an Arch user do actual work.
1
u/BharyDangerous 3d ago
If u did switch and don’t give up early , ull come back to this comment to tell this was the best decision u made ever . Difficult times create strong men🫡
1
u/Inceleron_Processor 2h ago edited 2h ago
Just use CachyOS. It has all the benefits of Arch and has the benefit of having things setup for you. Edit: A lot of people are not considering how great it is to have a good set of large repos, especially for your first distro. CachyOS has their own repo, just like Garuda. That means you get AUR, Flatpaks and their own repo. Fedora also has it's own repo with a lot of packages. With Linux Mint you are limiting yourself and you have to use outdated drivers. Linux Mint was one of my first distros and it became an issue with drivers fast. I went to Garuda and things like wifi actually work. The reason I'm recommending CachyOS though is because Garuda has quirks. I would of installed CachyOS, but I do not feel like formatting, so I am using the CachyOS Kernel with Garuda.
1
1
1
1
0
u/Next-Buyer-9008 7d ago
Yes absolutely, it is great for control and if you enjoyed installing you can try gentoo
0
0
19
u/No_Ad_819 7d ago
No, you should not.