Linux

48310 readers

645 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

-17

I'd like to get away from "arch bad for new users" (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by squid_slime@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When I say arch I mean the arch distro and all of its offspring.

Endeavouros

Arch-gui

~~Manjaro~~

Artix --maybe not though

My first enjoyable distro was manjaro, the manjaro element less so but using arch clicked for me. But even so if my first experience was using arch and archinstall then yes its not the easiest but its also not that difficult, arch is treated like a boss battle in darksouls.

So when a pre configured GUI arch is recommend I would like to see less scar mongering.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, if you're not up to the challenge of maintaining your own system, Arch isn't for you.

[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd agree, but this is true of most distros tbh. Like obviously loads of stuff is gonna break on arch just due to the bleeding edge release cycle, but I had fewer issues running arch than Ubuntu, mainly due to PPAs and snap bullshit

[–] KISSmyOS@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

obviously loads of stuff is gonna break on arch just due to the bleeding edge release cycle

I keep reading this as if it was fact, but Arch never broke anything for me in several years.
You do need to do a bit more to maintain it, but IMO it's less effort than a release upgrade on a versioned distro. And if you automate it you only need to deal with it once.

[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, like 98% of the times something broke while updating, it was something to do with ZFS, because the ZFS drivers aren't in the kernel for licensing reasons, and there's always a specific latest kernel version they're compatible with that's 1-2 versions behind current. Also the initramfs would sometimes get rebuilt without ZFS if there was a version mismatch, which prevents the system from booting properly, but it's Fine because Half the Point of ZFS is snapshots.

Someone using arch in a more sane way than I was would probably have no issues (unless they use proprietary Nvidia drivers, which will VERY occasionally break, but that's nbd).

[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

Makes me wonder how many derelict Arch installs there are out there...