4 ms·

I stuck with Ubuntu (eventually Kubuntu) for many years because I thought it was the best for a no-fuss distro for folks who wanted things to just work (TM). I

I stuck with Ubuntu (eventually Kubuntu) for many years because I thought it was the best for a no-fuss distro for folks who wanted things to just work (TM). I was afraid of things randomly breaking and interrupting my daily work. One day I eventually bit the bullet and installed Arch instead. The experience has been phenomenal, and if anything it feels more stable than Ubuntu. I was underestimating my own Linux knowledge, and it really isn't difficult to setup/configure at all if you have a reasonable understanding of how Linux works. The initial installation can be done by just following one of the many YouTube videos that break down the process step by step - you may even learn something if you don't already know it. I can't ever see myself going back.

mikewhy 4y ago
Nowadays arch install ISOs have an `archinstall` script that can get you going for basic setups.
capableweb 4y ago
> The initial installation can be done by just following one of the many YouTube videos Even easier, the ArchWiki has detailed steps you can follow along at your own speed, together with links to each topic for a deep dive (which isn't required, but nice to have when you do need it). Reading through and following the "Installation Guide" + "General Recommendations" pages would take you 2-3 hours at most, and you'll end up with a fully installed and ready system :)
okamiueru 4y ago
I was in the same situation. My fresh install adjustments to Ubuntu consisted of a long list of apt packages, removing snap, dep packages, ppa's and some make builds. I finally tried arch, and my long list of custom manual shenanigans was reduced to packman + aur. I'm seriously impressed, and it gave me a renewed hope for OSS. I've used Linux, Windows and MacOS. For what an operating system does, the only flaw Linux has is due to lack of software and driver availability, neither of which has anything to do with the operating system itself. Because for what it is, and what it does, Linux and gnome is imo, absolutely excellent.
minimilian 4y ago
With the Arch Wiki and a little determination you don't need any prior knowledge of Linux.
vlunkr 4y ago
For me the big difference with Arch is that you choose all the different pieces (networking, disk setup, desktop environment, login manager, etc.), so when something goes wrong, you know exactly where to look. If something goes wrong in Ubuntu, especially as a beginner all you can do is google "Ubuntu wifi disconnecting" or whatever. It's definitely more work to get installed, but you come away with something very personal, that you understand very well.
- pkulak 4y ago
  Yeah, but then you’re on the hook for maintenance too. Maybe you installed a while ago with Pulse and WPA supplicant, but now you need to know they are replaced with Pipewire and IWD. And you have to swap them out manually yourself. Installing Arch is the easy part. The maintenance is what gets ya.
yoyohello13 4y ago
I think the old narrative that Ubuntu is the best “just works” distro is just plain wrong (and harmful). I’ve tried a huge variety of distros over the years and ironically I’ve always had the most problems with Ubuntu based distros. Fedora, and Arch have given me the least problems. Fedora in particular has been rock solid for me.
- pkulak 4y ago
  I’m gonna try moving from Arch to Silverblue this weekend. From what I’ve seen in a VM, it’s very impressive.
bugBunny 4y ago
which wm are you using?
jillesvangurp 4y ago
I ended up using Manjaro mainly because the arch installer was just a bit too much to figure out for me. Recent installer improvements make things much easier and I might consider switching from Manjaro to Arch at some point. But Manjaro got me up and running quickly. Things I like about arch: it's stable and up to date. It's stable because fixes by upstream developers are not being blocked by package maintainers that second guess what they are doing. I never understood this being a thing. Mostly all the experts for any software are exactly those people involved with producing the upstream source code. If they say something is stable and ready for use, it generally is. Arch mostly just ships software as is. Nothing more nothing less. Unless the upstream developers release broken and untested software, it generally is the best version of that software available. Basically, Arch does most of the due diligence on ensuring things at least compile, install, and run fine. So generally, it's fine. And if it's not, you just wait and it will be fixed. You always have the option to downgrade. I've never had to do that actually. Arch is mainstream enough that all the mainstream stuff just works. Docker, snap, steam, etc. Between those, I can run just about anything I need to and get the best experience possible. Hardware support is constantly improving and with Arch you have early access to kernel releases. I generally am within a few patch releases of the latest stable linux kernel. So, I get the most out of my GPU, CPU, wifi, and other stuff I have. Mostly chances of hardware working decrease with the age of the kernel. Best case, stuff works but with more stability issues and less performance on an older kernel. Worst case, you have stuff that doesn't work at all that you can't get working until your distribution finally updates the kernel. I've updated the kernel mostly without issues. On 1 occasion I went back to the previous version for a week while they sorted out some issues with touchpad support. Not a big deal.
- eddieroger 4y ago
  > Recent installer improvements make things much easier and I might consider switching from Manjaro to Arch at some point This post made me play around with Arch last night, and specifically the installer. Having spent most of my last dozen years in Debian and Ubuntu, it wasn't as flashy or glamorous, but it got me a running system really quickly. One thing I missed was the network setup - I skipped it, and was left with a VM that had no network access. But after playing with it some, I spun up two VMs - one profiled 'server' and the other 'desktop' - and have really enjoyed the limited time I've had with them. Way back in the day, I spent a lot of time with Gentoo, and while building from scratch wasn't my jam every time (like, when novice me installed `emacs` and not `emacs-nox` and lost two days of compute time), but this scratches the itch I had for lower level control of my system but also with a little bit of shiny knobs and levers.
cdelsolar 4y ago
almost the exact same story here. I've been running versions of Ubuntu for years and every time there was an upgrade something would inevitably break. I've only had Arch for a few months now on a computer I built myself and it runs like a dream. I love KDE as well.

mikewhy 4y ago

Nowadays arch install ISOs have an `archinstall` script that can get you going for basic setups.

capableweb 4y ago

> The initial installation can be done by just following one of the many YouTube videos Even easier, the ArchWiki has detailed steps you can follow along at your own speed, together with links to each topic for a deep dive (which isn't required, but nice to have when you do need it). Reading through and following the "Installation Guide" + "General Recommendations" pages would take you 2-3 hours at most, and you'll end up with a fully installed and ready system :)

okamiueru 4y ago

I was in the same situation. My fresh install adjustments to Ubuntu consisted of a long list of apt packages, removing snap, dep packages, ppa's and some make builds. I finally tried arch, and my long list of custom manual shenanigans was reduced to packman + aur. I'm seriously impressed, and it gave me a renewed hope for OSS. I've used Linux, Windows and MacOS. For what an operating system does, the only flaw Linux has is due to lack of software and driver availability, neither of which has anything to do with the operating system itself. Because for what it is, and what it does, Linux and gnome is imo, absolutely excellent.

minimilian 4y ago

With the Arch Wiki and a little determination you don't need any prior knowledge of Linux.

vlunkr 4y ago

For me the big difference with Arch is that you choose all the different pieces (networking, disk setup, desktop environment, login manager, etc.), so when something goes wrong, you know exactly where to look. If something goes wrong in Ubuntu, especially as a beginner all you can do is google "Ubuntu wifi disconnecting" or whatever. It's definitely more work to get installed, but you come away with something very personal, that you understand very well.

pkulak 4y ago
Yeah, but then you’re on the hook for maintenance too. Maybe you installed a while ago with Pulse and WPA supplicant, but now you need to know they are replaced with Pipewire and IWD. And you have to swap them out manually yourself. Installing Arch is the easy part. The maintenance is what gets ya.

yoyohello13 4y ago

I think the old narrative that Ubuntu is the best “just works” distro is just plain wrong (and harmful). I’ve tried a huge variety of distros over the years and ironically I’ve always had the most problems with Ubuntu based distros. Fedora, and Arch have given me the least problems. Fedora in particular has been rock solid for me.

pkulak 4y ago
I’m gonna try moving from Arch to Silverblue this weekend. From what I’ve seen in a VM, it’s very impressive.

bugBunny 4y ago

which wm are you using?

jillesvangurp 4y ago

I ended up using Manjaro mainly because the arch installer was just a bit too much to figure out for me. Recent installer improvements make things much easier and I might consider switching from Manjaro to Arch at some point. But Manjaro got me up and running quickly. Things I like about arch: it's stable and up to date. It's stable because fixes by upstream developers are not being blocked by package maintainers that second guess what they are doing. I never understood this being a thing. Mostly all the experts for any software are exactly those people involved with producing the upstream source code. If they say something is stable and ready for use, it generally is. Arch mostly just ships software as is. Nothing more nothing less. Unless the upstream developers release broken and untested software, it generally is the best version of that software available. Basically, Arch does most of the due diligence on ensuring things at least compile, install, and run fine. So generally, it's fine. And if it's not, you just wait and it will be fixed. You always have the option to downgrade. I've never had to do that actually. Arch is mainstream enough that all the mainstream stuff just works. Docker, snap, steam, etc. Between those, I can run just about anything I need to and get the best experience possible. Hardware support is constantly improving and with Arch you have early access to kernel releases. I generally am within a few patch releases of the latest stable linux kernel. So, I get the most out of my GPU, CPU, wifi, and other stuff I have. Mostly chances of hardware working decrease with the age of the kernel. Best case, stuff works but with more stability issues and less performance on an older kernel. Worst case, you have stuff that doesn't work at all that you can't get working until your distribution finally updates the kernel. I've updated the kernel mostly without issues. On 1 occasion I went back to the previous version for a week while they sorted out some issues with touchpad support. Not a big deal.

eddieroger 4y ago
> Recent installer improvements make things much easier and I might consider switching from Manjaro to Arch at some point This post made me play around with Arch last night, and specifically the installer. Having spent most of my last dozen years in Debian and Ubuntu, it wasn't as flashy or glamorous, but it got me a running system really quickly. One thing I missed was the network setup - I skipped it, and was left with a VM that had no network access. But after playing with it some, I spun up two VMs - one profiled 'server' and the other 'desktop' - and have really enjoyed the limited time I've had with them. Way back in the day, I spent a lot of time with Gentoo, and while building from scratch wasn't my jam every time (like, when novice me installed `emacs` and not `emacs-nox` and lost two days of compute time), but this scratches the itch I had for lower level control of my system but also with a little bit of shiny knobs and levers.

cdelsolar 4y ago

almost the exact same story here. I've been running versions of Ubuntu for years and every time there was an upgrade something would inevitably break. I've only had Arch for a few months now on a computer I built myself and it runs like a dream. I love KDE as well.