Skip Navigation

Linux @lemmy.ml

Magnolia_ @lemmy.ca

5mo ago

This is why people should stop recommending Arch. Fedora or Opensuse TW should be recommended instead for new people.

43 comments

I'm not watching some rando groyper's clickbait. What is the reason?

Who tf is out there recommending new people Arch? What a non-issue!
- I've seen it a handful of times and find it pretty wild. It's certainly not some widespread thing.
  I do agree with the point, though.
- I might recommend something Arch-based that's opinionated and feature-complete, like Manjaro or Garuda, but I'd recommend pure Arch to the same people who would equally enjoy NixOS.
- All too often. It's crazy but I see it all the time, and try to call it out.
- Its a good way to learn how different parts of Linux work
  After you install arch a couple times you won't be making posts asking why your grub is broken, youll already k ow how to fix it.
  
  I'd recommend something that guesses how to install grub onto your system correctly for beginners, and let them figure this stuff out when they're used to basic Linux usage TBH
  
  The last time my grub was broken was around 2012 when I ran Arch. After that I have rarely thought about grub at all.

drops video link
refuses to elaborate

Well I personally think that Fedora is a bad recommendation too. It's not just about Arch.
- Just switched to fedora after 4 years of archi. LUKS broke, the h264/h265 aren't there, and it has redhat's repo of flatpak selectioned by default rather than flathub. But hey, at least printers work OOTB!
  
  I'd disagree with that, mostly.
  The media codecs is bloody annoying, yes. Sure it's only a command or two, but it really should just be a tickbox in the installer like it is on, say, Ubuntu. So big agreement there.
  As for the Flatpak repo, Fedora switched to Flathub as the default a while ago. IIRC it only doesn't if you choose to have no non-foss software during the installation (in which case of course you'd expect to not get full Flathub access!)
  I think Fedora is an overall pretty great distro for beginners aside from their media codecs bone-headedness and their god-awful installer (which is getting replaced).
  
  ...and the installer is garbage.

I never see people recommend Arch any more. New users should research the distro they should use instead of choosing the distribution they've heard of the most.
- I would recommend Arch, but only to users who want to learn and understand linux and have the time to do so.
  
  I strongly disagree, they should go in with an absolute baby beginner distro first, learn all about how it works from a user's level, and then they can go back and start building up from scratch with arch.
  
  Eh, archinstall is a thing nowadays -- there is nothing to "learn" on arch anymore.
- new users should just try out distros in vms and decide for themselves
- Awwwee you mean I shouldn't have chosen MX Linux and nord VPN?
  
  what's wrong with MX? isn't it basically just debian stable but with xfce as default?

Agreed. There is no point recommend Arch for beginners. You need to have some knowledge before using Arch!
Don't get me wrong... Arch is a great system and it's my distro of choice, however I'm on Linux for more then 10 years! For a completely beginner, easier distros, such Fedora and PopOS, should be the way to go.

I will always recommend people to research their choice of distro. Use the right tool for the job.
What one person needs may differ from what another person needs. Take into account what the use case is for the machine you are using.
I use Arch BTW but I don't run Arch for any of my servers. I use Arch where it makes sense for me.
I wouldn't tell someone switching from Windows to just go balls to the wall and go for something blerding edge and arguably more maintenance or manual intervention needed.
I will give my suggestions but always implore them to research what theyt3 looking for.

I mainly recommend Universal Blue distros to newbies, like Bazzite or Aurora. The immutable nature more or less means users don't have to worry about performing maintenance of system apps like they might on some distros, mostly don't have to worry about dependencies, and are less likely to irreversibly break the system themselves or in an update.
That said, these distros are Fedora-based, and I think that's fine. No idea who out there is recommending Arch of all things.
- It might be good in a few years but for now it is more of a experimental concept

I'm not a programmer but I've been using linux for over 20 years. It's crazy to me that someone who develops software for a living would not just run Windows but have never meaningfully ran linux. 🤔

Looks like open suze is going to experience more corporate bullshyt
The parent is suggesting the non corporate part is going to need to be renamed
I lost interest in open suze after I was dead ended on version 15
- Tumbleweed is a very good distro. I hope it survives the upcoming wave of BS. It probably will.
- SUSE also has multiple controversial pacts with Microsoft, and has for a long time. Such as the Novell-Microsoft agreement.
  There was a time when it looked possible that MS was going to sue lots of Linux projects, and SUSE immediately jumped into a cosy relationship with MS so that if it did happen, they'd be shielded. This was interpreted as a fuck you to other FOSS projects by much of the community. (Was a long time ago though)
  
  SUSE isn't owned by Novell anymore though. So this isn't particularly relevant.
- Supposedly Leap will move to whatever SUSE goes to. ALP or something? I lost track of names and options

This is why people should stop recommending others which distros to recommend or not.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

43 comments