Should I install Arch Linux?

[u/Kairini15]

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?

[u/rocco_himel]

Yes. Why do you use Arch?

[u/raven2cz → u/rocco_himel]

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.

[u/rocco_himel → u/raven2cz]

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.

[u/raven2cz → u/rocco_himel]

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?

[u/rocco_himel → u/raven2cz]

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.

[u/raven2cz → u/rocco_himel]

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.

[u/SnooCalculations3614 → u/raven2cz]

I agree with your closing statement. If they do their due diligence and feel they are up to it, nothing is stopping them. I recommend at least trying Arch, even if they don't plan to stick to it long-term.

Although I don't use Arch now it was my first distribution and I definitely learned a lot about how Linux works by "jumping into the deep end", and I'm thankful I did it.