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.
drops video link
refuses to elaborate
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. 🤔
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.
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.
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.
