4 ms·

> The developers also pride themselves on catering to advanced and experienced computer users, which is actually a refreshing take in my opinion Am I too old?

> The developers also pride themselves on catering to advanced and experienced computer users, which is actually a refreshing take in my opinion Am I too old? My first linux install took me days to get to the point of showing a desktop. Not catering to advanced users is the novelty in the linux world imo - and it’s not entirely there yet.

printf_alex_ 4y ago
My first (arch btw) linux install it took me a whole week to install correctly in the first place, yet to show the DE. This was with prior experience working with linux. I personally liked that it was complicated since it was a good learning experience (much better than the oversimplified Ubuntu install anyways)
- zozbot234 4y ago
  If you like having a "complicated" install, why not install Debian manually using debootstrap? It's pretty much the same thing, but it leaves you with a much better supported system afterwards.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Debian has versioned releases and thoroughly patched, extremely old software. Arch Linux has rolling releases and mostly unpatched up to date software. They couldn't be more different.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Arch makes things complicated by not having defaults. Leaving the user to pick a network management tool, partitioning scheme, many other things. It's all very well documented and aimed at understanding one's system. I give them that. But in some ways it seems to be intentionally complex for the sake of it. And the one thing I did want to change: systemd, is the one thing you can't. It took me 2 days to get a desktop running and I still ran into weird stuff. On the contrary, FreeBSD also dumps you on a command line. But it does have defaults for most things and it took me only a few hours you set up because everything is guided better with the defaults in mind. I really like the idea of a stable base OS with rolling software also, and the ports collection (which is quite similar to the AUR). But there's more ways to do manual and arch's isn't necessarily the best IMO.
freshhawk 4y ago
Yes? The entire industry is obsessed with onboarding and first-experience ease and intuitive interfaces and making things "just work", etc, etc. This includes Linux, which still has rough edges but the approach of just making things simple instead of easy and aiming at advanced users is very rare these days.
- bitwize 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - benj111 4y ago
    Not necessarily. The traditional windows model worked because everything has a keyboard shortcut. If you're doing some mildly repetitive task it's a simple step to learn the short cuts. Increasingly though software is becoming 'easier' to use by removing things like shortcuts etc. Moving a mouse in the same way 100 times increases the mental burden over using whatever shortcut.
    - markeibes 4y ago
      Yeah I especially love all the TUIs that replace Blender.

printf_alex_ 4y ago

My first (arch btw) linux install it took me a whole week to install correctly in the first place, yet to show the DE. This was with prior experience working with linux. I personally liked that it was complicated since it was a good learning experience (much better than the oversimplified Ubuntu install anyways)

zozbot234 4y ago
If you like having a "complicated" install, why not install Debian manually using debootstrap? It's pretty much the same thing, but it leaves you with a much better supported system afterwards.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Debian has versioned releases and thoroughly patched, extremely old software. Arch Linux has rolling releases and mostly unpatched up to date software. They couldn't be more different.
wkat4242 4y ago
Arch makes things complicated by not having defaults. Leaving the user to pick a network management tool, partitioning scheme, many other things. It's all very well documented and aimed at understanding one's system. I give them that. But in some ways it seems to be intentionally complex for the sake of it. And the one thing I did want to change: systemd, is the one thing you can't. It took me 2 days to get a desktop running and I still ran into weird stuff. On the contrary, FreeBSD also dumps you on a command line. But it does have defaults for most things and it took me only a few hours you set up because everything is guided better with the defaults in mind. I really like the idea of a stable base OS with rolling software also, and the ports collection (which is quite similar to the AUR). But there's more ways to do manual and arch's isn't necessarily the best IMO.

freshhawk 4y ago

Yes? The entire industry is obsessed with onboarding and first-experience ease and intuitive interfaces and making things "just work", etc, etc. This includes Linux, which still has rough edges but the approach of just making things simple instead of easy and aiming at advanced users is very rare these days.

bitwize 4y ago
[flagged]
- benj111 4y ago
  Not necessarily. The traditional windows model worked because everything has a keyboard shortcut. If you're doing some mildly repetitive task it's a simple step to learn the short cuts. Increasingly though software is becoming 'easier' to use by removing things like shortcuts etc. Moving a mouse in the same way 100 times increases the mental burden over using whatever shortcut.
  - markeibes 4y ago
    Yeah I especially love all the TUIs that replace Blender.