> So, which is it? Is arch a system that supports users wanting to learn the depths of Linux and that are willing to dive in head first, or is it exclusively fo

> So, which is it? Is arch a system that supports users wanting to learn the depths of Linux and that are willing to dive in head first, or is it exclusively for Linux veterans that already know most of the complexity involved? I used Arch about 8 years ago or so, when I was a University student. I remember my head was stuck in the (absolutely excellent!) Arch Linux wiki learning how to do various things. (Previously, I'd used Linux Mint, and was comfortable with basic command line tools). IIRC, my experience installing it on a MacBook Air involved mainly flipping between the main installation guide, and the page with MacBook-specific details. I think "curious beginners" trying Arch will absolutely have 30+ tabs of the wiki open to read things. Maybe some people prefer an opinionated guide.. but I found what was there accessible enough anyway. EDIT: I think for the criterion "an OS that just works, doesn't require effort put into it, etc." then e.g. Arch Linux or NixOS are terrible OSs to recommend. I don't think that's a big problem, though. > Similarly, we can not in good conscience have an install guide that doesn’t make it extremely clear that a user should make a full disk back up prior to doing anything Hahahaha. Well, yes. But expertise is gained from making mistakes; and I'm sure many people who make such mistakes ignored warnings like that anyway. :o) (I've lost data from bad disk partition operations a few times).