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).
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.
Who tf is out there recommending new people Arch? What a non-issue!
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.
The last time my grub was broken was around 2012 when I ran Arch. After that I have rarely thought about grub at all.
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
I had many problems with installing grub in a dual boot configuration, so much so that I moved to systemd-boot and never had problems after. I don’t know why, but it’s config file approach felt more intuitive.
I’m actually not sure why GRUB is such a popular boot loader that comes packaged with so many distros. Maybe GRUB does something more complex than just bootloading, but I don’t know if most users would care…
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
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.
They aren’t, no. But SUSE has continued working with MS, and many of the people that were there are still there.
Perhaps their close relationship is an irrational thing to point at in the current year. Perhaps it isn’t. I don’t really know tbh.
But it’s certainly something some people are still a bit iffy about. And I’m sure some people will still be similarly iffy about RedHat in 10 years too for their recent licencing controversy.
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.
what’s wrong with MX? isn’t it basically just debian stable but with xfce as default?
I’m just saying that privacy newbies always ask about nord (which is far from the top recommended commercial VPN) because they see ads for it everywhere.
And Linux newbies ask about MX a lot because its at the top of the distrowatch list, though its nowhere near the top most-used Linux distros.
I would recommend Arch, but only to users who want to learn and understand linux and have the time to do so.
Eh, archinstall is a thing nowadays – there is nothing to “learn” on arch anymore.
I would recommend they follow the full installation guide instead, which is probably one of the best pieces of technical documentation in existence at the moment. The amount of detail, context, and instruction provides both an invaluable learning experience and introduction to Linux.
archinstall is not foolproof; that’s why I wouldn’t recommend it to an absolute beginner. IMHO, It’s more valuable for people who are familiar with the process and want a shortcut.
As great as archinstall is, it can’t possibly account for every contingency. Troubleshooting a bootloader issue, for example, is easy if you’ve installed one before. If a noob managed to navigate the TUI (with all of the confusing questions and settings) and complete the installation only to have something go wrong there, they’re off it, maybe for good.
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.
This is the same discussion as with learning programming languages. In the us, most universities start with python, to make to easy by avaoiding memory management. In Europe, most universities start with C and C++ to teach the basics to the core. Both approaches can be appropriate depending on the student.
first steps would be to stop calling a distro baby beginner been running debian for 24 years. Linus runs Fedora the exclusive idea I run a hard distro with a custom window manager and use CLI for everything Is pure ego and toxic. Now don’t get me wrong there is no issue with using Arch or a window manager vs DE. But the idea that as you advance it’s a foregone conclusion you will used that config or distro.
