7 ms·

I'm ready to take the full-time plunge into Linux. Spend too much time goofing off on my Mac, so I'd like to set it up as a pure development machine and use an

I'm ready to take the full-time plunge into Linux. Spend too much time goofing off on my Mac, so I'd like to set it up as a pure development machine and use an iPad for leisure. Would you guys recommend Arch Linux as a good starting point? I've used Ubuntu before, and I agree with Sivers's take ("too hand-holdy").

jvoorhis 15y ago
It's great if you want the opposite of hand-holdy. The Arch docs boldly ask you to solve your own problems before asking for help. That said, I loved Slackware and FreeBSD when I ran them. Arch has more in common with those OSes than the Debian or Red Hat derived Linux distros. If you have the patience to learn, you will likely break it in just like Derek describes.
thaumaturgy 15y ago
As a nice alternative to Ubuntu or Arch, I'd like to recommend a little-known distribution called Chakra Linux (http://chakra-linux.org/ http://chakra-linux.org/). It started out as an Arch distribution, and gradually has moved to focus on being a KDE4 distribution. Upsides: a beautiful, modern, easy-to-use, not-glitchy graphical environment for everything. A decent built-in package manager with rolling updates. Support for most of the basics. Downsides: No easy rollbacks (yet) on the package manager, so if an update breaks something, you'll have a hassle. Hardware support still lacking (my laptop's trackpad isn't detected; I haven't had time yet to see about porting drivers for it). I set mine up with Chrome and the built-in terminal and a few other basics in Linux, and then installed the VirtualBox package and (after massaging it a little bit) got it running a Windows 7 environment where I have my preferred text editor of choice and a few other goodies. A shared drive is set up between the two that allows me to, for example, run a local web server on the Linux side and edit the files in the current project in the Windows VM. I really really like this setup. I love OpenBSD too, and have used Debian a lot, and we use Ubuntu (and other Linuxes) in the shop for various things, but this is the first distribution I've been happy with for regular desktop use. If you want to give it a serious try and have any questions, drop me an email and I'll see if I can help.
zalew 15y ago
when in doubt, you can't go wrong with Debian, and since you're already familiar with apt. if you want to be on the edge with packages, upgrade to 'sid' instead of sticking with 'stable'.
jhancock 15y ago
I just went through a distro choice process. I installed various flavors of Mint, Debian, Arch, Redhat, Ubuntu, Archbang, Crunchbang, even went retro and tried FreeBSD again. I probably went through 20+ distros. I really wanted to go with Arch but there are simply some desktop things I need and I want them to work out of the box and not spend days figuring it out. Reasons I couldn't stick with Arch: things like Skype microphone, URL links in various apps able to open the correct browser, consistent key bindings, laptop power management. That last one was a killer for me. In the end, I've settled on Lubuntu 11.10. Lubuntu's LXDE setup is clean and light. It lets me stick with an Ubuntu repo system without suffering through what may be a multi-year Unity breaking-in process.
- sivers 15y ago
  I agree with this and with "drats" comment here, too. For someone new to Linux, I'd still recommend Ubuntu. If it's too cluttered, try changing the window manager or use Lubuntu. I only came to Arch Linux after 10+ years of trying others, and it was the right thing for me, but I don't recommend it to others unless they're already quite experienced with Linux. (But for those who are, it's wonderful.) Until then, stick with Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, etc - as you'll get the most support there.
  - sharagoz 15y ago
    I started using Arch a little over a year ago. It was my first Linux distro so I didn't have much experience, and I cant recall regretting it for a single moment during the first couple of weeks. Sure, there's a lot of stuff to set up and configure manually, but I found that to be a good thing. Getting Arch up and running with everything you need is sort of a crash course in Linux. The docs are very good so I don't think the average HN reader will struggle. Btw, I need to thank you Derek: When I was trying to decide which distro to use I considered Arch because I heard Zed was using it at the time. Then I read the interview with you on thegeektalk.com and decided to give it a shot because of your recommendation, and I've loved it from day one. So thanks!
  - achompas 15y ago
    Agreed completely. Thanks for the suggestion--I'm going to try Lubuntu and Mint in VMs and stick with whichever I like more.
drats 15y ago
Install a different desktop environment on Ubuntu, or use Mint or Debian. Apt-get and compatibility with all the repositories isn't "hand-holdy".
tikhonj 15y ago
I'm sure that Arch is a great option; I know several people who are completely happy with it. My personal suggestion isn't really a distro: I recommend any distro that runs KDE well. I think Arch is fine for KDE, but I haven't tried it. OpenSUSE and the KDE spin of Fedora are both great; I would probably side with the latter if I had to, but both would do. Kubuntu was not great; I would avoid it. I like KDE because it's very configurable and consistent. Also, it's shiny. I like shiny :) You really should try it.
xer0 15y ago
Opinion: Emphasizing "as a good starting point," I'd recommend anything in the Ubuntu branch. This includes Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu and Xubuntu, as well as Mint, based on Ubuntu. The Ubuntu repository system is excellent. My favorite is Lubuntu, because it's "just your stuff" with very minimal "vestigial crap" (as the old Anybody's Bike Book https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anybody%27s+bike+book https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anybody%27s+bike+book would call it). Lubuntu does have a few small rough edges, but I like its usable minimalism. At the moment I don't think the main Ubuntu/Unity variant is good as a starting point, because its UI is significantly different from all other distros and therefore does not lead you down a path of expectations to look for when you eventually try other distros. In other words, Ubuntu/Unity mainly teaches you about Ubuntu/Unity, whereas most other distros give you more general Linux UI experience and expectations. Welcome to the Ubuntu/Unity world, as opposed to welcome to the Linux Universe. When you're at a "starting point," then you want a distro that doesn't demand attention. Distros like Arch and Gentoo are for people who are ready and willing to spend time getting things going exactly the way they want. When you're at a starting point you don't necessarily know exactly how you want things, and being forced to choose is stressful. Treat your first starting point distro as a stable base, from which you can learn. Branch out from there as far as you want, at your chosen speed. Dual booting and virtual machines will allow you to try experiments at little cost. But if you're also GSD, you want to be able to completely ignore your distro whenever you want.

jvoorhis 15y ago

It's great if you want the opposite of hand-holdy. The Arch docs boldly ask you to solve your own problems before asking for help. That said, I loved Slackware and FreeBSD when I ran them. Arch has more in common with those OSes than the Debian or Red Hat derived Linux distros. If you have the patience to learn, you will likely break it in just like Derek describes.

thaumaturgy 15y ago

As a nice alternative to Ubuntu or Arch, I'd like to recommend a little-known distribution called Chakra Linux (http://chakra-linux.org/ http://chakra-linux.org/). It started out as an Arch distribution, and gradually has moved to focus on being a KDE4 distribution. Upsides: a beautiful, modern, easy-to-use, not-glitchy graphical environment for everything. A decent built-in package manager with rolling updates. Support for most of the basics. Downsides: No easy rollbacks (yet) on the package manager, so if an update breaks something, you'll have a hassle. Hardware support still lacking (my laptop's trackpad isn't detected; I haven't had time yet to see about porting drivers for it). I set mine up with Chrome and the built-in terminal and a few other basics in Linux, and then installed the VirtualBox package and (after massaging it a little bit) got it running a Windows 7 environment where I have my preferred text editor of choice and a few other goodies. A shared drive is set up between the two that allows me to, for example, run a local web server on the Linux side and edit the files in the current project in the Windows VM. I really really like this setup. I love OpenBSD too, and have used Debian a lot, and we use Ubuntu (and other Linuxes) in the shop for various things, but this is the first distribution I've been happy with for regular desktop use. If you want to give it a serious try and have any questions, drop me an email and I'll see if I can help.

zalew 15y ago

when in doubt, you can't go wrong with Debian, and since you're already familiar with apt. if you want to be on the edge with packages, upgrade to 'sid' instead of sticking with 'stable'.

jhancock 15y ago

I just went through a distro choice process. I installed various flavors of Mint, Debian, Arch, Redhat, Ubuntu, Archbang, Crunchbang, even went retro and tried FreeBSD again. I probably went through 20+ distros. I really wanted to go with Arch but there are simply some desktop things I need and I want them to work out of the box and not spend days figuring it out. Reasons I couldn't stick with Arch: things like Skype microphone, URL links in various apps able to open the correct browser, consistent key bindings, laptop power management. That last one was a killer for me. In the end, I've settled on Lubuntu 11.10. Lubuntu's LXDE setup is clean and light. It lets me stick with an Ubuntu repo system without suffering through what may be a multi-year Unity breaking-in process.

sivers 15y ago
I agree with this and with "drats" comment here, too. For someone new to Linux, I'd still recommend Ubuntu. If it's too cluttered, try changing the window manager or use Lubuntu. I only came to Arch Linux after 10+ years of trying others, and it was the right thing for me, but I don't recommend it to others unless they're already quite experienced with Linux. (But for those who are, it's wonderful.) Until then, stick with Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, etc - as you'll get the most support there.
- sharagoz 15y ago
  I started using Arch a little over a year ago. It was my first Linux distro so I didn't have much experience, and I cant recall regretting it for a single moment during the first couple of weeks. Sure, there's a lot of stuff to set up and configure manually, but I found that to be a good thing. Getting Arch up and running with everything you need is sort of a crash course in Linux. The docs are very good so I don't think the average HN reader will struggle. Btw, I need to thank you Derek: When I was trying to decide which distro to use I considered Arch because I heard Zed was using it at the time. Then I read the interview with you on thegeektalk.com and decided to give it a shot because of your recommendation, and I've loved it from day one. So thanks!
- achompas 15y ago
  Agreed completely. Thanks for the suggestion--I'm going to try Lubuntu and Mint in VMs and stick with whichever I like more.

drats 15y ago

Install a different desktop environment on Ubuntu, or use Mint or Debian. Apt-get and compatibility with all the repositories isn't "hand-holdy".

tikhonj 15y ago

I'm sure that Arch is a great option; I know several people who are completely happy with it. My personal suggestion isn't really a distro: I recommend any distro that runs KDE well. I think Arch is fine for KDE, but I haven't tried it. OpenSUSE and the KDE spin of Fedora are both great; I would probably side with the latter if I had to, but both would do. Kubuntu was not great; I would avoid it. I like KDE because it's very configurable and consistent. Also, it's shiny. I like shiny :) You really should try it.

xer0 15y ago

Opinion: Emphasizing "as a good starting point," I'd recommend anything in the Ubuntu branch. This includes Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu and Xubuntu, as well as Mint, based on Ubuntu. The Ubuntu repository system is excellent. My favorite is Lubuntu, because it's "just your stuff" with very minimal "vestigial crap" (as the old Anybody's Bike Book https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anybody%27s+bike+book https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anybody%27s+bike+book would call it). Lubuntu does have a few small rough edges, but I like its usable minimalism. At the moment I don't think the main Ubuntu/Unity variant is good as a starting point, because its UI is significantly different from all other distros and therefore does not lead you down a path of expectations to look for when you eventually try other distros. In other words, Ubuntu/Unity mainly teaches you about Ubuntu/Unity, whereas most other distros give you more general Linux UI experience and expectations. Welcome to the Ubuntu/Unity world, as opposed to welcome to the Linux Universe. When you're at a "starting point," then you want a distro that doesn't demand attention. Distros like Arch and Gentoo are for people who are ready and willing to spend time getting things going exactly the way they want. When you're at a starting point you don't necessarily know exactly how you want things, and being forced to choose is stressful. Treat your first starting point distro as a stable base, from which you can learn. Branch out from there as far as you want, at your chosen speed. Dual booting and virtual machines will allow you to try experiments at little cost. But if you're also GSD, you want to be able to completely ignore your distro whenever you want.