Arch Linux Is A Great Distro But You Shouldn't Use It

ok let's talk about latest software- where is gnome 45 on arch. just tell me 😅

the only thing i don't need from arch is the bleeding edge packages i like a leading edge but the other features are too good

Idk man
for me, it's fractional scaling for monitors of different resolution, lack of hdr support and no driver for my bluetooth adapter.

Yup. If you want to learn deep about a specific system, you need to use it on a regular basis. You need to crash it, screw or up, and that’s where you learn to fix it. It’s a long journey. That’s how I learn to fix and build computers in my younger days. I had to take it to a computer shop and paid technicians to fix it, not once but MANY TIMES. I take it as as a course for me but later I learn how to do it after some ice technicians explained to me etc. so IF YOU WANT TO LEARN ABOUT IT, you need to use it, crash it and fix it. There’s no other way. Soon it becomes a habit, build into your own brain and memory, understand and identify issues and stuffs.

I think they make it unnecessarily difficult for new users. In the installation tutorial they basically just link you to a general page about Fdisk without ever telling you how it works or the steps to partition.

I used to use arch but now that I'm back my games arent working in steam like titan fall 2 and farlight 84😭but those games work on fedora, i went from Nobara to garuda

Next thing you should do is grow your own food and sew your own clothes. Imagine all the things you'll learn that most people don't need!

It’s hilarious to think I wanted to use Arch so I could feel like it was “my” system, but looking back at my install process I just went with all the safe normie options (network manager, grub, plasma everything).

It’s basically KDE Neon with Arch repos :P

Thanks for confirming that Arch Linux learnings are info I don't want to put into my brain

I like to distro hop, and I have a few that I really like, but I keep coming back to Arch.

I'm not a power-user, per se, I just like to tinker. My primary usage is web-surfing, multimedia downloading and playback, libreoffice, a few system-monitoring utilities, and VS Code (because I'm trying to learn a little about coding)... that's about it.

With Hyprland window manager (and with that, Wayland), my old 2014 Frankenmachine is now surprisingly fast, web-browsing has never been so fluid and fast, multimedia playback is quick and responsive, and my screen resolution has never looked so good.

Of course, I can see how technical users can run into various issues with rolling-release software, but for me, Arch has proven to be exceptionally stable. I haven't had a single issue (that wasn't my fault) in the year and a half or so I've been using it.

TLDR; imo, Arch can breathe new life into an old machine in ways that even the lightest DE can't.

i am using siduction a debian sid spin. it just works great

I use arch on my laptop because i wanted to try it and see if it suits me. For now it is doing fine.

I had to install gentoo 9 or 10 times within less than a week; I think that was the biggest step I had ever taken in my Linux journey: I got so much more confident with partitioning, compiling, troubleshooting, installing bootloaders, intstalling and configuring kernels, etc.

Use arch Linux btw

I only need arch for two reasons: Latest package versions, and most of the software in the world being available in the AUR
If that existed for other distros, I would've never considered arch tbh

Archinstall: I will seize this opportunity

Just curious, how is arch better when it comes to choice? I'm thinking about switching from debian to arch, I'm already writing an installation script for it.

The whole idea of rolling release is basically turning users into part-time QA because some mistakes will eventually slip by and break someone's installation, especially when it comes to critical libs getting updated and rendering a system partially functioning. The user is then blamed for not RTFMing and following upstream drama.

If you really want to understand Linux, learn the system APIs, build some native tools using whatever language has bindings to the OS syscall wrappers, contribute something to fix the mess that's custom WM-based Linux desktops, and shut up about your favourite distribution because nobody cares.

i love arch linux so much, both my machines run it primarily - though they dual boot windows for gaming. however getting things working and smooth can be a hassle, especially over time. arch is certainly not for everyone, it can be finicky and it can be. just so annoying.

Completely agree. I used Slackware, Mandrake, broke Debian by mixing stable and testing, installed gentoo to the point where I had running XFCE and browser on PentiumIII "DualCore". But it's pointless. It takes lot of time and all I learned is forgotten or useless today (MBR->GPT, EFI+Secure boot, many Linux commands were replaced, systemd did not exists). It took lot of work and time to add some library that was forgotten into dependecies and recompile quarter of whole system. I basically want few things: KDE desktop that is not crashing (I excluded Fedora and kUbuntu like 7 years ago), system that allows you to use "corporate binary trash" easily (RIP Debian) and that is easy to use. Ended with OpenSuse Leap and Manjaro. Maybe there are not the best or perfect. But when I burned myself with Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, FerenOS, even poor HW support of FreeBSD and these two distros work (Manjaro with few little quirks) there's no reason to look further. Yes, ArcoLinux can be nice place to look for GUI configs and as emergency rescue distro. And in the end I can certainly use Debian or Ubuntu LTS for server.

Just built my first Arch system, and this is the first video that I watch on it.

Bottom line: Bad distro if you just want to get work done.

After using Linux for more than 3 years I installed an Arch based Distro 4 days ago and EVERY damn day when I turn on my PC I run into a Problem.
I will switch to Endeavour tomorrow and will give ot an other try.
Otherwise openSUSE Tumbleweed and Vanilla OS

I actually don't agree with the "illusion of choice" section. Finding distros that actually give you a 100% vanilla DE experience is tough, the vast majority will mess with it and put their own stuff on top somehow. Also the "manual install doesn't teach you anything" section seems a bit disingenuous, considering that as you said yourself the wiki isn't as complete as it should be and to really grasp what you're doing, you need to do your own research. It's a mental model for learning more about the process.

Arch is cool and awesome, I found my distro's -Garuda (which was based on arch) package had always in conflict with arch repository, and for my age and work type, I need a stable system. Hence debian based distros (specially Boss) are my type.

Thanks Brodie. This was helpful.

I want to use arch because of lastest software. But at the same time I'm cautious because it may kernel panic when I need to work(

Arch linux is unstable, just like 99% of all linux distros worldwide.

My old laptop works better on arch than any debian based systems.

I use arch btw

....because Arch Sucks...

I need this wallpaper

I use Arch because it is the only Distro which comes with Pre-configured window manager like i3 ( Endeavour OS)

Mostly - Endeavor, Garuda, Manjaro - have made Arch - mostly drop dead easy. Create a link to a back up drive - or put your "Home Drive" someplace else - and distro hop if you like with no impact. Overall - I prefer OpenSUSE or Fedora hands down.

I once tried to install Arch with the Archinstaller. It did not work for me, so I just installed manually. What I like about Arch is that I can customize it exactly how I want it without much additional bloat. I also like the fact that between the repository and AUR I can get just about every package I want or need. What I don't like is that updates sometimes break things - typically not web browsing, email or office, but lesser popular programs I use and customization I have implemented. Usually I am able to find a solution to fix it, but the time it requires to find the solution that actually works sometimes is not insignificant. Sometimes I just live with it for a while until it becomes irritating. Anyway, I still have Arch on its own SSD, and I still update it once every week or two, but I have switched to a fixed release distribution as my daily driver.

There is archinstall now, not perfect yet, but quite a nice menu-based installer. :-)

I started off on Ubuntu distros... was a bit intimidated by the Arch installer when there was no GUI. But now that there is a GUI installer, its not so bad at all. I mean... of course I had to learn new things but it wasn't a horrible experience. I understand why people use Arch... The freedom to add what you want without any preinstalled applications that come with a distro and I'm sure there are other reasons. I'm currently running ArcoLinux; I like it but, I still have a lot to learn.

I use Arch but I am not proud of it, lol.

Torvalds does not even grok the whole kernel now. So this "need for learning GNU+Linux" is a relational concept, it depends on what you need or want to learn. In the old times I remember "learning" it all because on Fedora 2 so much was bleeding edge one needed a tampon whenever installing the latest scientific software packages,... so many rpm dependency hellholes, so many subsequent installs from source, I was driven to gentoo for a while. LFS makes sense, or is one path of many, if your intent is to be a sysadmin or core developer.

To me, arch has been more stable than ubuntu and base linux mint. The only time I've ever had a problem that wasn't my own fault was that it couldn't mount /boot and do zram

..... i love my arch... the journey, man it is real. meme aside, it is the best for me, . the wiki though... superb

Longtime Gentoo user here, added Arch on my main laptop a few months ago. Setup doesn't hold your hand but it's less fiddly than Gentoo which gives you absolute control over absolutely everything. I like having a functional base system and then adding what I want on top of it. Sure, delving into Arch will require a few braincells, some headscratching and reading on the Wiki but in my personal experience Arch earned it's spot on my main machine and will remain there. My Xfce install idles at 685MB RAM, which is great.

Ultimately I would say I prefer Gentoo, and yes Arch isn't for everyone but it's a rewarding experience and a solid system.

Just a bit of courage guys! Is not debían Woody at all...

I don’t like pacman. There are better package managers out there: dnf and eopkg come to mind. These package managers record a history of your transactions so that you can easily un-fuckup your system if a package manager command goes awry, and they will automatically rollback a transaction if something errors out (whereas pacman will just leave your system in a partially upgraded and potentially broken state). Also, the AUR is a crutch, like you say, and a crutch with security implications—not to mention the fact that source packages will often fail to compile.

for me, arch and arch based distros are the best.
I started with ubuntu in 2011-2012. then when ubuntu went with the unity de, i did not like at all, so i went to linux mint, i used that for a very long time, but there was something i did not like in ubuntu or debian based distros, but i loved linux in general.
in 2019 my wife introduced me to manjaro and she like it a lot, so i tried it myself, and a fell in love with it, later on i tried arco linux witth qtile wm , now i use arch with qtile, and i cant go back to debian based distros or floating de/wm,
ofc if need to use it i can but it was a quite the linux journey :)