6 ms·

If anything, using Ubuntu based Mint Cinnamon is a way better and stress-free experience than running Arch.

jchw 3y ago
I don't personally use either anymore, but my anecdotal experience helping people getting into Linux is that Arch has been a lot less maintenance than Pop!_OS. Less experienced users just seem to wind up unknowingly getting themselves into a lot more trouble on Ubuntu variants, and before you know it there's some unbelievably convoluted situation where apt is locked up trying to resolve an impossible conflict. I understand that more than likely, if I knew how the problem was created, I could untangle it quicker. But my experience of being dumped onto a machine and trying to debug it, I absolutely hate how horribly tangled up apt can get. Of course you can hose your system on Arch pretty easily, but it's not like it's difficult to hose your system with Debian or Ubuntu variants. The sneakier thing is that on Debian/Ubuntu variants, there will often be tools, be they third party repositories or even utilities included with the OS, that will make certain bespoke changes to your system for the sake of e.g. installing proprietary drivers, and the combination of those changes will leave you with a snowflake system that may or may not explode when you go to do something complicated (like upgrade major versions.) Whereas with Arch, _a lot_ of the things that you can do that will hose the system will _feel_ like things that will hose the system, and a lot of the scary-looking problems are surprisingly easy to resolve. Arch shouldn't be any better since obviously, you still need e.g. proprietary drivers or non-standard packages, right? But in my experience, using the AUR to grab those things yields a very good success rate with a low chance of impacting system stability. It's not _zero_ - you can definitely run into problems - but the AUR is generally more reliable for me than third-party dpkg repos have been, and this seems to still be true today. I wrote a huge wall of text below that nobody will read because it's too long and meandering, but I really think it's time to push for immutable Linux. Arch is oddly stable for what it is, and in my opinion it's a testament to the power of simplicity. But, SteamOS and Fedora Silverblue are starting to show that using modern Linux technologies, you can bring the benefits of immutable operating system design to the Linux desktop today. There's obviously much work to be done, but in my mind the tipping point is either here or coming very soon.
- saidinesh5 3y ago
  > But, SteamOS and Fedora Silverblue are starting to show that using modern Linux technologies, you can bring the benefits of immutable operating system design to the Linux desktop today. Amen. You hit the nail when it comes to AUR vs. ppa. Steam OS was also going to bring in support for Nix packages, so definitely want to see how immutable desktop + nixpackages end up changing Linux Desktop.
- just_testing 3y ago
  I did read the entire wall of text :) And I'd like to share an anecdote - I installed Pop!_OS in a Samsung Galaxy Book3 Ultra (a combination of weird names) 2 days ago and I'm pleasantly surprised with everything that worked out of the box. The NVIDIA driver works, switching to Intel or NVIDIA works out of the box with zero issues. They even have a nifty command line tool, system76-power. There are some rough edges. For example, the notebook's speakers do not work, but audio works via bluetooth or connected to a TV. Apparently, Linux Kernel 6.8 should solve that, and I could install it via PPA, but... I'm too afraid to do it. I got old, my primary job is no longer as a dev, and I don't want to spend all that time fixing a Linux system. The Arch Wiki for NVIDIA is incredibly detailed, but Pop!_OS... solves that out of the box.
  - saidinesh5 3y ago
    > I don't want to spend all that time fixing a Linux system. The Arch Wiki for NVIDIA is incredibly detailed, but Pop!_OS... solves that out of the box. I feel you. When i got a new laptop, even i couldn't be bothered with Arch install process, so went with Manjaro - just so i wouldn't have to worry about hardware compatibility and still get latest enough kernels.
- machomaster 3y ago
  Rolling releases are always going to have more problems than stable and tested releases. This is sinply mathematical and statistical fact. For a new switching user choosing stable Ubuntu-based distro is the best choice. It has the best software support, the best informational support (distro articles, googling problems), the best quality (because of the popularity). I am using Mint since 2014 and I am still using the same install of 9 years ago. I update software packages whenever. With big OS updates that come twice a year I wait just in case for 2 extra months and update to that new version. 9 years and counting. And now imagine an Arch user and how many times something would break during 9 years of operation... It is very telling when discussing this topic and Arch users use arguments like "Arch doesn't really break that much" without truly realizing what others hear and notice. "THAT much", Karl!..
saidinesh5 3y ago
Yeah the Arch line was a meme/joke but I do think there are better options than Ubuntu/Gnome these days. Manjaro for one. Linux Mint used to be good too. Haven't tried it recently though. The main reason I wasn't recommending Ubuntu is because of it's recent annoyances. I recently recommended Ubuntu to a Linux newbie, but after seeing him deal with issues of having to add ppas for some of the toolchains he needed, deal with snap headaches for steam, How gnome takes away certain basic features like being able to edit the path in it's open dialogs, it seemed like there are better options.
- machomaster 3y ago
  5+ years ago the recommendation for new users was easy: if you are coming from Windows - use Mint Cinnamon, if you are coming from Mac - use Ubuntu. Now, I agree, Ubuntu seems to have got a bit to sh*t. I guess nowadays I would recommend Cinnamon to everybody. Or perhaps PopOs for people from Macs, not sure?

jchw 3y ago

I don't personally use either anymore, but my anecdotal experience helping people getting into Linux is that Arch has been a lot less maintenance than Pop!_OS. Less experienced users just seem to wind up unknowingly getting themselves into a lot more trouble on Ubuntu variants, and before you know it there's some unbelievably convoluted situation where apt is locked up trying to resolve an impossible conflict. I understand that more than likely, if I knew how the problem was created, I could untangle it quicker. But my experience of being dumped onto a machine and trying to debug it, I absolutely hate how horribly tangled up apt can get. Of course you can hose your system on Arch pretty easily, but it's not like it's difficult to hose your system with Debian or Ubuntu variants. The sneakier thing is that on Debian/Ubuntu variants, there will often be tools, be they third party repositories or even utilities included with the OS, that will make certain bespoke changes to your system for the sake of e.g. installing proprietary drivers, and the combination of those changes will leave you with a snowflake system that may or may not explode when you go to do something complicated (like upgrade major versions.) Whereas with Arch, _a lot_ of the things that you can do that will hose the system will _feel_ like things that will hose the system, and a lot of the scary-looking problems are surprisingly easy to resolve. Arch shouldn't be any better since obviously, you still need e.g. proprietary drivers or non-standard packages, right? But in my experience, using the AUR to grab those things yields a very good success rate with a low chance of impacting system stability. It's not _zero_ - you can definitely run into problems - but the AUR is generally more reliable for me than third-party dpkg repos have been, and this seems to still be true today. I wrote a huge wall of text below that nobody will read because it's too long and meandering, but I really think it's time to push for immutable Linux. Arch is oddly stable for what it is, and in my opinion it's a testament to the power of simplicity. But, SteamOS and Fedora Silverblue are starting to show that using modern Linux technologies, you can bring the benefits of immutable operating system design to the Linux desktop today. There's obviously much work to be done, but in my mind the tipping point is either here or coming very soon.

saidinesh5 3y ago
> But, SteamOS and Fedora Silverblue are starting to show that using modern Linux technologies, you can bring the benefits of immutable operating system design to the Linux desktop today. Amen. You hit the nail when it comes to AUR vs. ppa. Steam OS was also going to bring in support for Nix packages, so definitely want to see how immutable desktop + nixpackages end up changing Linux Desktop.
just_testing 3y ago
I did read the entire wall of text :) And I'd like to share an anecdote - I installed Pop!_OS in a Samsung Galaxy Book3 Ultra (a combination of weird names) 2 days ago and I'm pleasantly surprised with everything that worked out of the box. The NVIDIA driver works, switching to Intel or NVIDIA works out of the box with zero issues. They even have a nifty command line tool, system76-power. There are some rough edges. For example, the notebook's speakers do not work, but audio works via bluetooth or connected to a TV. Apparently, Linux Kernel 6.8 should solve that, and I could install it via PPA, but... I'm too afraid to do it. I got old, my primary job is no longer as a dev, and I don't want to spend all that time fixing a Linux system. The Arch Wiki for NVIDIA is incredibly detailed, but Pop!_OS... solves that out of the box.
- saidinesh5 3y ago
  > I don't want to spend all that time fixing a Linux system. The Arch Wiki for NVIDIA is incredibly detailed, but Pop!_OS... solves that out of the box. I feel you. When i got a new laptop, even i couldn't be bothered with Arch install process, so went with Manjaro - just so i wouldn't have to worry about hardware compatibility and still get latest enough kernels.
machomaster 3y ago
Rolling releases are always going to have more problems than stable and tested releases. This is sinply mathematical and statistical fact. For a new switching user choosing stable Ubuntu-based distro is the best choice. It has the best software support, the best informational support (distro articles, googling problems), the best quality (because of the popularity). I am using Mint since 2014 and I am still using the same install of 9 years ago. I update software packages whenever. With big OS updates that come twice a year I wait just in case for 2 extra months and update to that new version. 9 years and counting. And now imagine an Arch user and how many times something would break during 9 years of operation... It is very telling when discussing this topic and Arch users use arguments like "Arch doesn't really break that much" without truly realizing what others hear and notice. "THAT much", Karl!..

saidinesh5 3y ago

Yeah the Arch line was a meme/joke but I do think there are better options than Ubuntu/Gnome these days. Manjaro for one. Linux Mint used to be good too. Haven't tried it recently though. The main reason I wasn't recommending Ubuntu is because of it's recent annoyances. I recently recommended Ubuntu to a Linux newbie, but after seeing him deal with issues of having to add ppas for some of the toolchains he needed, deal with snap headaches for steam, How gnome takes away certain basic features like being able to edit the path in it's open dialogs, it seemed like there are better options.

machomaster 3y ago
5+ years ago the recommendation for new users was easy: if you are coming from Windows - use Mint Cinnamon, if you are coming from Mac - use Ubuntu. Now, I agree, Ubuntu seems to have got a bit to sh*t. I guess nowadays I would recommend Cinnamon to everybody. Or perhaps PopOs for people from Macs, not sure?