For those using a Ubuntu derivative vs Arch...

[auntjemima]

Why?

I originally started with Mint and base Ubuntu years ago. Throughout those years I tried a bunch of other Ubuntu options as well. I always wanted to try Arch, but I was worried about the posts saying you really need to know how to configure stuff and it wasn't as intuitive.

I've now been using Arch for about a month. EndeavorOS, specifically. Total honesty? It was easier than Ubuntu. I also had less issues with drivers (none). My Razer mouse works properly, which to me is simply the DPI/sensitivity setting, my 4070 works as expected and games are actually using it, unlike the hassle I was having in Ubuntu forcing it to use my dGpu.

I can't remember if I was using LTS Mint (I likely was, based on my issues), but getting games working was a wild experience. I could run the exact same scenario (let's say installing BattleNet) 10 times and each time it was hit or miss if it would install. This was with Bottles and Lutris. Once installed forcing it to use a certain proton version so it would use the right gpu was not really user friendly.

I know, I know, "half the fun is the tinkering and trying to fix things!". Half the fun ends when it takes me 10 hours to play a game that should just install. Wine isn't new. Lutris isn't new. Proton isn't new. These are Alpha software programs. In the end the all function as expected on Arch.

Could be the bleeding edge package releases VS LTS, or maybe something else.

Either way, I guess all I'm saying is don't be scared of Arch. It's easier and less frustrating.

Also, it was the first Linux OS I installed that supported my network cards out of the box.

 

[Okatis]

Tbh virtually all my desktop Linux installs are VMs so I like the LTS versions of Kubuntu for their longer support without updates getting EoL'd (ie: lower maintenance). The rest are headless servers which are all but one Debian based.

It's also nice being able to test stuff in a Debian based desktop VM then transfer that experience (with any packages) 1:1 to my servers, without unexpected differences.

 

[uOpt]

I have a Windows game that runs for me in Arch when on NVidia but not in Mint. With AMD graphics it runs in boths. What I'm saying is that it is a bit random.

 

[auntjemima]

I have a Windows game that runs for me in Arch when on NVidia but not in Mint. With AMD graphics it runs in boths. What I'm saying is that it is a bit random.

Totally random, for sure. Just haven't had any issues with Arch, that windows didn't create, anyway.

 

[pioruns]

I've now been using Arch for about a month. EndeavorOS, specifically.

Either way, I guess all I'm saying is don't be scared of Arch. It's easier and less frustrating.

Which is it then? Arch or EndeavorOS?
It's like I'd say I am running Debian and it's really easy, and by the way I run Linux Mint, lol. Linux Mint is a derivative of Ubuntu which is a derivative of Debian. But it doesn't make it Debian, it is a different system, maintained and polished by other team of people.

Arch is not easy and not forgiving. You are not running Arch, but a derivative of it, which made everything easy for you. Be happy for EndeavorOS devs who made it possible.

 

[Vermillion]

Arch is not easy and not forgiving.

Not true. At least not anymore.

Arch is ridiculously easy to use now especially with the installer. In the past you'd have to do everything manually (I've been using Arch for longer than I can remember at this point). That was a hassle. Now you just boot the image, connect to your network if using WiFi, run archinstall and go through the options. I can completely rebuild my Arch install now in about 20 minutes and be exactly where I was. Sure you can script your arch install or use ansible or something but that's too much work.

I just use archinstall, paru (AUR helper), and aconfmgr (https://github.com/CyberShadow/aconfmgr). Install Arch, install paru, install aconfmgr, rebuild from latest backup.

I know mileage varies and I probably face a catastrophic crash for saying this, but I've never had an update cause me problems on Arch. You could never convince me to use another distro for my daily driver. Arch or nothing.

 

[pioruns]

Not true. At least not anymore.

Is it easier from EndevourOS OP is running (thinking it's Arch)?
Is it easier to install and maintain than Linux Mint?
Arch is so easy, it must have official GUI installer, like 100% of user-friendly distributions, right? Can Windows newbie install it clicking the mouse?
If any of these is a no, then sorry but Arch is not user-friendly.

You could never convince me to use another distro for my daily driver. Arch or nothing.

I don't care what you are using, really. I think you have been on Arch so long that you forgot what it means to be user-friendly. From your power user perspective, every thing is easy on Arch. You can't tell that to real Linux newbies.

 

[cdabc123]

Why not? I have a handful of Linux installs, know enough for a few of them to be useful. There are normally great resources for Ubuntu and a variety of software. I also occasionally use centos for fun.

Linux does not need to be 100% user friendly. Else you will never learn enough to productively use the machine. You do not need a gui for everything.

I should give a arch install a solid try. I game on windows, 2022 server "trial".

 

[pioruns]

I don't have anything against Arch. It is a big and respectable distro. It's just funny to hear folk saying Arch is user-friendly. It's like saying Gentoo is user-friendly because I know everything about it, been running it for 20 years, can restore my system in 20 minutes, it means everyone will comfortably run it including Karen from accounting and her dog.

I should give a arch install a solid try. I game on windows, 2022 server "trial".

I ditched Windows for good couple of years ago Steam, Lutris, Heroic, and native versions for Linux sort out 95% of my gaming needs, I won't install Windows to regain that 5% of games that cause me trouble, I am just too comfortable on Linux

 

[cdabc123]

I don't have anything against Arch. It is a big and respectable distro. It's just funny to hear folk saying Arch is user-friendly. It's like saying Gentoo is user-friendly because I know everything about it, been running it for 20 years, can restore my system in 20 minutes, it means everyone will comfortably run it including Karen from accounting and her dog.

Karen from accounting isn't part of the descussion for the best Linux distro. For her a majical wizard sets up a device simular to a Chromebook with familiar icons to click on.

 

[pioruns]

Karen from accounting isn't part of the descussion for the best Linux distro. For her a majical wizard sets up a device simular to a Chromebook with familiar icons to click on.

Things like Linux Mint will sort out Karen completely. I installed a ton of Linux systems for friends and family and even on bigger gatherings like local Linux workshop for newbies. They all could manage Mint and the likes. Some of them wouldn't even know what system they are running after a couple of years, they were so comfortable, they forgot about Windows. That is user-friendly.

 

[cdabc123]

Things like Linux Mint will sort out Karen completely. I installed a ton of Linux systems for friends and family and even on bigger gatherings like local Linux workshop for newbies. They all could manage Mint and the likes. Some of them wouldn't even know what system they are running after a couple of years, they were so comfortable, they forgot about Windows. That is user-friendly.

No different then a ubuntu install. It is worth disregarding the users who just use it to browse the web. There are plenty of distros that you can just click through the install then click on the internet browser. Anything more and it's would be silly to not know what linux distro you are using.

 

[pioruns]

There are plenty of distros that you can just click through the install then click on the internet browser.

Exactly. Arch isn't one of them, just to highlight the point I was trying to make in the beginning, and end the discussion from my end.

 

[ChadD]

Exactly. Arch isn't one of them, just to highlight the point I was trying to make in the beginning, and end the discussion from my end.

Arch proper isn't intended to be a one click install for new people. It was and is intended to teach them the absolute basics of getting a system running. I think what people are saying here on [H] is that someone posting in the [H] forum has no more to worry about installing arch then any other distro. Arch isn't actually hard to install. (even in "hardmode"). There are official arch install scripts these days that will do partitioning and such for you. If you don't want to do everything one command at a time. Not much different then Endevour that basically runs the same type of script via Calmares. I mean its graphical is really the only difference. It might go a little further with setting up a few basic systems.

Your not wrong that endevouros is technically not arch proper. On the other hand it is far more Arch proper... then Mint is Ubuntu or Ubuntu is Debian. Those are all very much different. Endeavour as I understand it, basically installs, sets up a few basic system like pulse audio and what not. All from the Arch proper respositories. Its not like they have their own Repos with their own cherry picked software like a Mint would have. Once your up and running your basically running arch.

I got nothing against Mint, I don't like it and IMO its a shit option for anyone that is an advanced enough user to be hanging around [H]. At one time I would also put Mint on family and friends old PCs and such. I stopped doing that because frankly its just easier to put arch (or one of its graphically installing lightweight installer only type distros. Endeavor or Antergos before it) That is just a me thing though, I just have found it easier to help em or do updates or something for them cause its what I know at this point. Install pamac the GUI package manager/update system from Manajro... so they get update tray notifications and way they go. If I used Ubuntu or something though nothing wrong with putting Mint on a chrome book type users machine. If Valve ever releases a ISO verison of SteamOS frankly I will probably use that as my go to for those types of family and friend setups... even if they aren't gamers. Set it to boot to desktop mode, solid reliable immutable Arch. The immutable part means Valve has to officially add a bunch of firmware stuff to support non AMD/AMD hardware like the deck. Hopefully this is the year they add a bunch of that stuff and push an ISO.

 

[Vermillion]

Is it easier from EndevourOS OP is running (thinking it's Arch)?
Is it easier to install and maintain than Linux Mint?
Arch is so easy, it must have official GUI installer, like 100% of user-friendly distributions, right? Can Windows newbie install it clicking the mouse?
If any of these is a no, then sorry but Arch is not user-friendly.


I don't care what you are using, really. I think you have been on Arch so long that you forgot what it means to be user-friendly. From your power user perspective, every thing is easy on Arch. You can't tell that to real Linux newbies.

Where did I ever say it's user friendly? I said Arch is easy compared to what it used to be in terms of installation and use. Never once did I ever say it's installation is user friendly. Installing any operating system is not user friendly for the average person as they don't know a thing.

 

[pioruns]

Your not wrong that endevouros is technically not arch proper. On the other hand it is far more Arch proper... then Mint is Ubuntu or Ubuntu is Debian. Those are all very much different. Endeavour as I understand it, basically installs, sets up a few basic system like pulse audio and what not. All from the Arch proper respositories. Its not like they have their own Repos with their own cherry picked software like a Mint would have. Once your up and running your basically running arch.

MX Linux is like that. Pure Debian install, with Debian repos + one MX repository for GUI tools they add on top of Debian. Very nice solution for someone who wants stability of Debian but with modern fancy tools.
That being said, MX Linux is very user-friendly.

 

[ChadD]

Where did I ever say it's user friendly? I said Arch is easy compared to what it used to be in terms of installation and use. Never once did I ever say it's installation is user friendly. Installing any operating system is not user friendly for the average person as they don't know a thing.

That is a good point. All these "chrome book" or basic average windows users people always talk about that could never be asked to install any Linux distro.
Ask them to install windows...
If they are capable of that, they are capable of installing most Linux distros as well. (probably including arch).
Sure for many of them watching them try to install Windows would be high uncomfy comedy. It would be/is painfully cringe.

Not to keep bringing up Valve, but that is one big thing Valve can potentially bring. OEM Linux. Linux those types of users don't have to install at all.

 

[pioruns]

I stopped doing that because frankly its just easier to put arch (or one of its graphically installing lightweight installer only type distros. Endeavor or Antergos before it) That is just a me thing though, I just have found it easier to help em or do updates or something for them cause its what I know at this point. Install pamac the GUI package manager/update system from Manajro

For me personally, that would be too much effort. MX or Mint install get support until 2028 or something like that. Perfect 10-minute install for newbies.

 

[ChadD]

MX Linux is like that. Pure Debian install, with Debian repos + one MX repository for GUI tools they add on top of Debian. Very nice solution for someone who wants stability of Debian but with modern fancy tools.
That being said, MX Linux is very user-friendly.

I installed MX once years ago... and half my hardware didn't work out of the box. Maybe that has improved to be fair. It was probably 4 or 5 years ago now that I messed with it for a bit. If I remember right at the time I wanted to see what they where doing without SystemD. I was never anti systemd but I was curious. I think they are still currently not using SystemD. IMO that is going to lead to more issues then its worth. Like it or not everything is just setup for SystemD.

EDIT: Should add I did like MX when I ran it. Getting a few bits to work wasn't a big deal for me. In the end it was the SystemD stuff just wasn't for me.

 

[pioruns]

Where did I ever say it's user friendly?

To my "Arch is not easy" you replied "Not true. At least not anymore".

 

[ChadD]

For me personally, that would be too much effort. MX or Mint install get support until 2028 or something like that. Perfect 10-minute install for newbies.

Fair enough. Its what you know.
Setting up a new arch system for someone that just wants firefox and some basics... and installing Pamac systemtray for updates takes me a few min. After install its about 3 or 4 meta pacakges to install to ensure they have everything they might need, pamac install is a couple seconds... popping open the settings telling it to delete updates from the system past 2 gen, and flip on the tray notifications. Not a long process really.

 

[ChadD]

To my "Arch is not easy" you replied "Not true. At least not anymore".

Debian used to be CLI install only. I mean everything evolves. Most distros have become easier to install. By default pretty much every distro has become easier to install the last few years.. mainly cause the level of overal Kernel driver, and Linux firmware support has just improved a ton. I can't think of any distros that have gotten more difficult to get up and running.

 

[pioruns]

I installed MX once years ago... and half my hardware didn't work out of the box. Maybe that has improved to be fair. It was probably 4 or 5 years ago now that I messed with it for a bit.

That's probably because underlying Debian Stable was having problems. Today, Stable has catched up a lot with modern hardware. And MX Linux offers extra version called AHS dedicated for newest hardware:
https://mxlinux.org/blog/new-advanced-hardware-support-repo-ahs-for-short/

 

[pioruns]

Debian used to be CLI install only. I mean everything evolves. Most distros have become easier to install. By default pretty much every distro has become easier to install the last few years.. mainly cause the level of overal Kernel driver, and Linux firmware support has just improved a ton. I can't think of any distros that have gotten more difficult to get up and running.

Agreed Every Linux distro is benefiting from extra mature Linux kernel and tooling system. Millions of dollars are being poured into development of Linux every year. Perfect for us, end users. Even most exotic distros and most user-unfriendly ones are getting easier.

 

[ChadD]

That's probably because underlying Debian Stable was having problems. Today, Stable has catched up a lot with modern hardware. And MX Linux offers extra version called AHS dedicated for newest hardware:
https://mxlinux.org/blog/new-advanced-hardware-support-repo-ahs-for-short/

Logical thing for them to do. I know MX has a strong following... mainly from the anti systemd crowd.
This is a better solution then the Mint + 200 PPAs. (exaggerating lol)
Mint for advance/power type users... that was my main issue with it. People that decide they want to game find themselves wanting last weeks version of the MESA stack. So now they are adding a MESA PPA. Then the new version of MESA doesn't love their LTS kernel, so next thing they are changing to a more current kernel. Then the kernel doesn't have X or Y so they are adding PPAs for firmware. Its a fine distro if you just want to get up, do some email browse some porn (joke) and maybe you really want actual google chrome... cause you don't want to have to jump through hoops to install widevine to make Chromium do netflix.
If you are the sort of user though that is going to want current things, install a brand new day old AAA game that sort of thing. MInt is an ugly choice. IMO anyway. Its an ok new user distro to get your feet wet, its just my opinion. My opinion is once you know the basics of Linux you should be on to a more power user friendly distro like Arch, Cachy, Antergros, SUSE tumbleweed... and I like that you mentioned MX, I mean there are some good more power user friendly debian distros that are better options then Mint.

 

[ChadD]

Agreed Every Linux distro is benefiting from extra mature Linux kernel and tooling system. Millions of dollars are being poured into development of Linux every year. Perfect for us, end users. Even most exotic distros and most user-unfriendly ones are getting easier.

Ya our neck beard arguments are fun. but the rising tide lifts all boats. lol

 

[D-EJ915]

That's probably because underlying Debian Stable was having problems. Today, Stable has catched up a lot with modern hardware. And MX Linux offers extra version called AHS dedicated for newest hardware:
https://mxlinux.org/blog/new-advanced-hardware-support-repo-ahs-for-short/

debian also tended to not include firmware blobs which could cause the same problem, not sure if they've changed that or not these days

 

[Algrim]

My last install was Debian 10 on my workstation. The only thing that kept it from being ‘user friendly’ is that Debian required adding the non-free repos before Steam would work with games correctly. At the time, I had less issues working with Steam and Lutris on Debian than I had with Manjaro (I have a feeling that was user error, though). Then again, I’d been using Debian on and off for almost a decade prior to using it on a gaming machine so using an ncurses based installer wasn’t that big of a deal for me.

As an aside, my wife just finished building her new gaming machine and we installed Windows 11 Professional on it. That installer, no offense meant, was an absolute piece of garbage. Even Slackware about a decade ago had a better installer and install experience than that. Ease of use of the operating system and the install are matters of opinion, though.

And, talking about neckbeards, all new Linux installations are much better than the pre-1.0 kernel installs I used to do after downloading each of the floppy disk images off of telnet when it was first being developed. You younguns have it pretty easy.

 

[cdabc123]

My last install was Debian 10 on my workstation. The only thing that kept it from being ‘user friendly’ is that Debian required adding the non-free repos before Steam would work with games correctly. At the time, I had less issues working with Steam and Lutris on Debian than I had with Manjaro (I have a feeling that was user error, though). Then again, I’d been using Debian on and off for almost a decade prior to using it on a gaming machine so using an ncurses based installer wasn’t that big of a deal for me.

As an aside, my wife just finished building her new gaming machine and we installed Windows 11 Professional on it. That installer, no offense meant, was an absolute piece of garbage. Even Slackware about a decade ago had a better installer and install experience than that. Ease of use of the operating system and the install are matters of opinion, though.

And, talking about neckbeards, all new Linux installations are much better than the pre-1.0 kernel installs I used to do after downloading each of the floppy disk images off of telnet when it was first being developed. You younguns have it pretty easy.

I'd agree with near all new installs being user freindly, there is so much info on everything in Linux, mild perserverance and a few googles should be enough to setup a computer and any reasonable software.

I need to try a Linux gaming rig, I've only ever used Linux for productivity and server stuff.

 

[Algrim]

I'd agree with near all new installs being user freindly, there is so much info on everything in Linux, mild perserverance and a few googles should be enough to setup a computer and any reasonable software.

I need to try a Linux gaming rig, I've only ever used Linux for productivity and server stuff.

I don’t have a lot of games I play: Civ V, Diablo III/IV, WoW… None of these were challenges to get up and running. Lutris took care of the Blizzard duty (though I haven’t attempted to play D IV on the Linux box) and Steam took care of playing Steam games like a champ. Even if your games don’t work ‘out of the box’ or with some tinkering, it’s worth trying games and give feedback to whatever developer has made the game work on Linux as that can be used to make the game work for you and others.

 

[pioruns]

I don’t have a lot of games I play: Civ V, Diablo III/IV, WoW… None of these were challenges to get up and running. Lutris took care of the Blizzard duty (though I haven’t attempted to play D IV on the Linux box) and Steam took care of playing Steam games like a champ. Even if your games don’t work ‘out of the box’ or with some tinkering, it’s worth trying games and give feedback to whatever developer has made the game work on Linux as that can be used to make the game work for you and others.

Just to complete your post, D IV works perfectly well on Linux. I am also using Lutris. Have not seen a one crash, reboot or anything like that, and I've played it since the release.

 

[Mazzspeed]

Because I've never had any issues with Ubuntu LTS based distro's, and Arch offers me nothing I need. If you're running Nvidia, distro's based on Ubuntu LTS are actually well suited to Nvidia proprietary drivers - Which are the only drivers worth considering from a performance perspective running Nvidia hardware ATM.

If you're running an AMD GPU, I'd say it's a rolling release distro all the way. In relation to Mint, I have to say I'm simply not a fan. In relation to the unfounded belief that Arch is for advanced Linux users, I think Arch users can be somewhat delusional.

In relation to software, almost everything is packaged as a Flatpak now, making the whole PPA argument somewhat moot (not that there was ever any real merit to the argument to begin with). In relation to BattleNet, there was a recent issue with BattleNet under all distro's as a result of a BattleNet update that required an upgrade to ge-proton9-23 - That's literally the only issue with BattleNet that I've ever encountered.

 

[travm]

You do not need a gui for everything.

But I want it. Why cant I just have what I want. This is my biggest gripe about linux. Using the CLI is only faster if you already know the commands, i have no interest in memorizing commands like I'm a computer programmer. I just want to use it.

 

[Axman]

But I want it. Why cant I just have what I want.

Neither Windows nor OSX can be used without a CLI for some functions.

 

[auntjemima]

Neither Windows nor OSX can be used without a CLI for some functions.

Such as?

I would wager that 99.9999999999% of Windows users don't even know what the hell the CLI is.

 

[Axman]

Such as?

Networking and hidden system settings. Removing baked-in software and malware.

 

[auntjemima]

Networking and hidden system settings. Removing baked-in software and malware.

Networking I would disagree. Everything I need to do, short of a repair, is in the network center. Hidden system files are rarely needed by most. Baked in malware hits the same notes.

Like I said, 99+% have no need for CLI. Linux on the other hand almost requires it. Definitely requires it for updating programs and drivers.

While I LOVE the way Linux updates drivers and programs, the point of these last few posts was directly related to you saying even Windows and OSX requires it. They do not.

 

[Mazzspeed]

Realistically, the only time I really need to use terminal under Linux is to make use of the package manager. Running:

sudo apt install [software]

, or

sudo apt remove [software]

, or

sudo apt update

really isn't that difficult.

In fact terminal based package management is so effective that Microsoft essentially copied it in relation to winget:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/package-manager/winget/

I'm constantly using CMD under Windows to repair installs and certain aspects of the OS.

 

[Axman]

Definitely requires it for updating programs and drivers.

I gotta disagree with that, too. Flatpack stores and similar concepts have made it super-easy to manage software. Maybe if you have to add a repository but at that point you already know how to drive a command line.

I've had to use PowerShell or Terminal with every single Windows and Mac I've had probably for the past 20 years, with one exception: ironically it's my Steam Deck. Shit just runs, yo.

Since the introduction of the Deck there's been a ton of progress setting the stage for making the switch away from Windows possible for daily driving without needing that dark kung-fu. It's even getting to the point where emulators can run Windows on Arm.

 

[Mazzspeed]

I gotta disagree with that, too. Flatpack stores and similar concepts have made it super-easy to manage software. Maybe if you have to add a repository but at that point you already know how to drive a command line.

I've had to use PowerShell or Terminal with every single Windows and Mac I've had probably for the past 20 years, with one exception: ironically it's my Steam Deck. Shit just runs, yo.

Since the introduction of the Deck there's been a ton of progress setting the stage for making the switch away from Windows possible for daily driving without needing that dark kung-fu. It's even getting to the point where emulators can run Windows on Arm.

I gotta say, I prefer 'flatpak update' as opposed to updating flatpak's via Discover. Not that flatpak update is a difficult command to master...