3 ms·

I actually found Arch a lot easier transition with GNOME than I did Ubuntu. Arch always has extremely good and quick support for virtually all drivers. If you

I actually found Arch a lot easier transition with GNOME than I did Ubuntu. Arch always has extremely good and quick support for virtually all drivers. If you have one person in your company that can debug / manage a Linux machine then the whole office should be good. Even my wife with no experience can intuitively use everything. Hell, we even game on our home desktop

tunap 10y ago
Any downvoters care to explain why lettergram's Arch recommendations are both greyed out? His/her comments appear substantive & germane, what gives?
- pessimizer 10y ago
  I think they were the result of the weird groupthink that Ubuntu (or Mint for the really non-technical) is the only Linux that is usable for non-power users. If you recommend anything else, they think you're insane.
  - Alupis 10y ago
    It's likely more than that. Arch generally is viewed as an "extreme" distro, since you have to manually setup everything. Nothing wrong with that, but generally that's not a linux newbie distro.
    - lettergram 10y ago
      Yeah, I don't care much about the up / down vote on a comment. I did want to address setting up the distro so people have a general idea when reading the comments. It is pretty hard the first time around. Having set up Arch 5 or 6 times over the last few years, it takes me 20 minutes. My friend has his up in 5 - 10; it's really easy to deploy once you know how a computer system works. I don't think it's extreme for developers, and honestly it has one of the better documention and like I said, having tried many distros Arch is usually one of the most up-to-date and stable. I run it on my home computer with GNOME and my wife doesn't even know the distro, and she zips around, watches movies, plays music, uses Google Drive or Libre, etc.
      - Alupis 10y ago
        No, I completely agree with you, and happen to have a fond spot for Arch myself. Just wanted to point out that Arch does indeed intimidate most linux newbies. Most "regular" folks expect to install an OS and have everything "just work". They get this from Ubuntu, Fedora, etc... but with Arch, they get a terminal screen and a mounds of documentation. Once setup with a windowing environment, most folks will settle in just fine. It's getting to that point that's the challenge.
        tunap 10y ago
        Thanks all for the explanations.
- ubertaco 10y ago
  I didn't downvote, but there's a negative perception around Arch users kinda like vegans/vim-users/emacs-users, a la "how can tell if someone uses Arch? They'll tell you, over and over again." The comment in question here is not at all guilty of this sort of "air of superiority" that bugs people, but it may be an oversensitivity caused by that perception.
gremlinsinc 10y ago
Amen, ubuntu was horrible experience, I mean I loved it as I love linux over windows, but it kept crashing on me, and having issues, and too much bloat. I tend to run thin w/ i3 instead of a more graphical desktop environment anyhow. So Antergos (arch) was a much better choice and it's also very beautiful and runs a lot smoother.
anotherevan 10y ago
I love Arch, personally. Have been using it for quite a few years now and love the rolling release paradigm. That said, I'm looking at setting up a desktop machine for my Dad, and seriously considering using Kubuntu 16.04.1 LTS[1]. He just wants to "use the damn thing" and I think that provides a much better ongoing maintenance story for machines that are less "pets" and more "tools". [1] Yes, I much prefer KDE to GNOME. Can we all just get along?

tunap 10y ago

Any downvoters care to explain why lettergram's Arch recommendations are both greyed out? His/her comments appear substantive & germane, what gives?

pessimizer 10y ago
I think they were the result of the weird groupthink that Ubuntu (or Mint for the really non-technical) is the only Linux that is usable for non-power users. If you recommend anything else, they think you're insane.
- Alupis 10y ago
  It's likely more than that. Arch generally is viewed as an "extreme" distro, since you have to manually setup everything. Nothing wrong with that, but generally that's not a linux newbie distro.
  - lettergram 10y ago
    Yeah, I don't care much about the up / down vote on a comment. I did want to address setting up the distro so people have a general idea when reading the comments. It is pretty hard the first time around. Having set up Arch 5 or 6 times over the last few years, it takes me 20 minutes. My friend has his up in 5 - 10; it's really easy to deploy once you know how a computer system works. I don't think it's extreme for developers, and honestly it has one of the better documention and like I said, having tried many distros Arch is usually one of the most up-to-date and stable. I run it on my home computer with GNOME and my wife doesn't even know the distro, and she zips around, watches movies, plays music, uses Google Drive or Libre, etc.
    - Alupis 10y ago
      No, I completely agree with you, and happen to have a fond spot for Arch myself. Just wanted to point out that Arch does indeed intimidate most linux newbies. Most "regular" folks expect to install an OS and have everything "just work". They get this from Ubuntu, Fedora, etc... but with Arch, they get a terminal screen and a mounds of documentation. Once setup with a windowing environment, most folks will settle in just fine. It's getting to that point that's the challenge.
      - tunap 10y ago
        Thanks all for the explanations.
ubertaco 10y ago
I didn't downvote, but there's a negative perception around Arch users kinda like vegans/vim-users/emacs-users, a la "how can tell if someone uses Arch? They'll tell you, over and over again." The comment in question here is not at all guilty of this sort of "air of superiority" that bugs people, but it may be an oversensitivity caused by that perception.

gremlinsinc 10y ago

Amen, ubuntu was horrible experience, I mean I loved it as I love linux over windows, but it kept crashing on me, and having issues, and too much bloat. I tend to run thin w/ i3 instead of a more graphical desktop environment anyhow. So Antergos (arch) was a much better choice and it's also very beautiful and runs a lot smoother.

anotherevan 10y ago

I love Arch, personally. Have been using it for quite a few years now and love the rolling release paradigm. That said, I'm looking at setting up a desktop machine for my Dad, and seriously considering using Kubuntu 16.04.1 LTS[1]. He just wants to "use the damn thing" and I think that provides a much better ongoing maintenance story for machines that are less "pets" and more "tools". [1] Yes, I much prefer KDE to GNOME. Can we all just get along?