The vegan comparison’s a bit of a tangent but most vegans I know keep their heads down because they only need to mention it once for everyone to start complaining that they did. It’s not really fair to characterize them as wanting to live life on hard mode and brag about it. They genuinely want to protect and respect animals, they find it’s not so hard after all, and mostly they do it discreetly.
… but most Arch users I know keep their heads down because they only need to mention it once for everyone to start complaining that they did. It’s not really fair to characterize them as wanting to use Linux on hard mode and brag about it. They genuinely want to fully customize thier system, they find it’s not so hard after all, and mostly they do it discreetly.
As someone who has used both as my primary operating system the main reason I ended up on Arch is the Arch User Repository (AUR).
The AUR allows you to run installation scripts for apps that aren’t supported by the official repositories and pretty much everything you could ever want is there.
The other big thing I liked is the Arch Wiki documents everything really well, and I preferred the kinds of answers I found there and on the Arch forums to the Ubuntu/Mint forums.
At the time, operating system overhead was extremely important to me and a window manager like i3 or awesome was less resource intensive than Mint’s Cinnamon Desktop Environment (DE).
All of that being said though, because Arch doesn’t ship with a DE getting started will require a configuring a lot of things using old school text based configuration files. The Mint installed on the other hand leaves you with a very capable and functional system as soon as you finish installing it.
If you want something that works right out of the box, I would recommend Mint. If you want a project give Arch a shot!
Yep you nailed it. The AUR with yay allows you to turn GitHub into your system’s package manager basically. Definitely not recommended for most users, but if you’re cautious and know what you’re doing, it’s an amazing addition to your toolkit.
I actually find it to be quite a bit easier to use than Debian. I do think the Arch spookiness is way overblown. It shouldn’t be your first Linux distro, but I think it’s fine once you get bored with the Linux Mints and Ubuntus of the world.
Do you have any arguments on why you think Arch is easier to use than Debian? Common sense tells me there is none, despite the obvious “well any package is available in AUR so I can install it easypeezy” yolo.
It’s not just the AUR, but that’s part of it. Every time I use Debian, I’m shocked by how difficult it is to install any proprietary software. I tried to make it easy on myself by installing Flatpak, but even that didn’t seem to work on my system for some reason. I’m sure it was a fixable problem, but I just found myself fighting it more than I liked. The Arch wiki is also incredible and has been a great help when I’ve encountered similar issues over there.
Arch and Gentoo have IMO the best documentation ever and you learn a lot when you try using either of those distributions as you have to do everything from scratch starting from a minimal system. Since you’re saying you’re new to Linux though, I’d say you should start with something more user-friendly like Mint or Ubuntu (or even Manjaro if you want a rolling release distro) and stay away from Arch and Gentoo in the beginning.
Arch and Gentoo have IMO the best documentation ever and you learn a lot when you try using either of those distributions as you have to do everything from scratch starting from a minimal system. Since you’re saying you’re new to Linux though, I’d say you should start with something more user-friendly like Mint or Ubuntu (or even Manjaro if you want a rolling release distro) and stay away from Arch and Gentoo in the beginning.
And for the FOMOers of you, I started playing with Linux as a kid over a decade ago, and I just attempted and completed my first Arch install last month.
(I got it first try thought not to brag or anything :) )
I will say that while some things in the Arch wiki are for arch only, a whole lot of it applicable to any distro. Or at least to Mint, which I’ve been on for like a decade but have used AW (it’s a common DuckDuckGo bang I use, !aw) for many a trouble shooting and configuring
I don’t like other distros that include lots of programs out of the box. I might need an office program, a music player, etc. But I want to choose it all myself.
I like KDE, but I also like some gnome applications, and it’s difficult to find a distro that only installs one or the other.
I find it easier to start from scratch: Give me a basic desktop environment, a terminal, and I know how to take it from there.
The rolling packages are a nice touch. As a linux gamer, any bit of free performance I can get from simply installing an update is appreciated.
Arch and Mint target a different user base. Mint is more appropriate for the beginning Linux user who wants to wade slowly into using Linux. It’s for somebody that is coming from an entire GUI experience like Windows. This person may have no understanding of partitions, filesystems, bootloaders, etc. Arch is going to be more appropriate for either an intermediate to advanced user of Linux that wants more control over their installation or a Windows user that understands the more complex topics around the way a computer operates.
The above said, it is very possible to do advanced things with Mint as well and I have in the past. I just want to have a leaner system that does not make assumptions about what I want or need. I want fairly strict control of what goes into my installation but not strict enough that I would need to do something like Linux From Scratch. Both Mint and Arch are excellent distributions! In fact, I would go as far to say as I like all open source operating systems and software by the nature that they’re open sourced. They can be customized, expanded, etc. I would also advise people to mix some FreeBSD and OpenBSD in their homelabs if possible because the more you can learn, the better. OpenBSD is my firewall and advanced router. FreeBSD powers my blog. Arch powers my desktop and Mastodon and Lemmy instances.
Mint is more appropriate for the beginning Linux user who wants to wade slowly into using Linux. It’s for somebody that is coming from an entire GUI experience like Windows.
Mint is also great for the experienced Debian sysadmin who just cannot be bothered to care about customizing every damn thing up front, but wants a responsibly managed package system under the hood.
Same can be said for Pop! which is what I’m using now. You don’t have to be a noob to want things to just work out of the box.
Yes. I’ve been an IT professional for the last 20 years. I started out experimenting with all kinds of distros, but as the need increased just to get stuff done, I went to Mint and stayed there. The more I had to do, the more I became a Linux user who just wanted the thing to work so I could get on with it. Mint was great for that. Recently I’ve started using OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, which strikes me as a kind of middle ground between an Arch-like distro and a Mint-like distro. It gives me that nice sense that it’s only doing what I ask it to, without the need to build everything from the bottom up, and it’s much more up to date than Mint.
Hey, I can get behind anyone that goes all in on open source! Doesn’t matter what distro they’re using. Doesn’t matter if it’s one of the BSDs. You’re all good in my book. 😁
I use mint and I really like it. It’s an easy familiar transition from windows.
Arch is for user’s who want to start with a completely blank slate. Like there’s no file system when you start, as far as I know. Think of arch like windows but nothing is installed, not even explorer.exe
I’ve tried Mint along with 10 other distros. What I liked about Arch is:
Latest Kernel, always. This means new drivers, better support for your current devices and support for more devices. Security & performance patches.
AUR. Massive repo of user submitted apps & libs most not found elsewhere.
Arch WiKi. Everything you will need or want to do somebody else already did and documented it so everyone else can have a guide to do it. Best documentation site ever.
Arch Repo. Always the latest Software. Officially maintained apps and libs land first on Arch, Debian & Ubuntu derivatives take ages to catch up in comparison.
It’s great having so much software available but the AUR makes me nervous because you really don’t know who you’re trusting when you install something from there.
Flathub has hundreds of apps which are not sandboxed and untrustworthy. So, no source is safe, and even most “safe” apps are not protected from supply chain attacks. So, you always have to be careful. But I agree there are certainly degrees of safety, and the AUR is certainly another one, which should not be taken lightly.
One of arch’s things is it’s a rolling release distro, which means that every bit of arch is updated as soon as an update is available for it. Mint on the other hand tests the package updates before they release it to make sure its stable, but this results in the packages being out of date.
Had the same problem when I was on Mint. I had problems with not gettings the latest packages so I said f**k it and went for Artix. So for the benefits for me are the AUR and the choice of an init system. I use OpenRC.
Arch is always "latest and greatest" for every package, including the kernel. It lets you tinker, and it's always up to date. However, a rolling release introduces more ways to break your system - things start conflicting under the hood in ways that you weren't aware of, configurations that worked don't any longer, etc.
This is in contrast to everything built on Debian, which Mint is one example of - Mint adds a bunch of conveniences on top, but the underlying "how it all fits together" is still Debian. What Debian does is to set a target for stable releases and ship a complete set of known-stable packages. This makes it great for set and forget uses, servers that you want to just work and such. And it was very important back in the 90's when it was hard to get Internet connectivity. But it also means that it stays behind the curve with application software releases, by periods of months to a year+. And the original workaround to that is "just add this other package repository" which, like Arch, can eventually break your system by accident.
But neither disadvantage is as much of a problem now as it used to be. More of the software is relatively stable, and the stuff you need to have the absolute latest for, you can often find as a flatpak, snap, or appimage - formats that are more self-contained and don't rely on the dependencies that you have installed, just "download and run."
Most popular distros now are Arch or Debian flavored - same system, different veneer. Debian itself has become a better option for desktop in recent years just because of improvements to the installer.
I've been using Solus 4.4 lately, which has its own rolling-release package system. Less software, but the experience is tightly designed for desktop, and doesn't push me to open terminals to do things like the more classical Unix designs that guide Arch and Debian. The problem both of those face as desktops is that they assume up-front that you may only have a terminal, so the "correct way" of doing everything tends to start and end with the terminal, and the desktop is kind of glued on and works for some things but not others.
Add comment