I realized Arch was overrated when I got a brand new 7900 XT and it didn't work on Arch at all because their LLVM was a version behind. It was up-to-date on Fedora and even Ubuntu, but not Arch. Then there was the whole broken grub thing. Bleeding edge and unstable I get, but you can't be unstable and also behind. You can run Arch in any distro with distrobox, I don't see why you wouldn't just do that.
Ubuntu has ads in the terminal when you update. Runs a highly modified GNOME that doesn't play well with some extensions. Snaps by default (although maybe not that bad now that they seem to launch a bit quicker). Unfortunately so many things only have Ubuntu support if they have Linux support at all, it's such a shame.
Eh, when I bought a brand new Lenova Legion 5 a few years ago the trackpad wouldn’t work in Ubuntu, Fedora, or PopOS. It worked on the 4th distro I tried, Manjaro. So your mileage may vary.
Yeah, that is most likely an Arch thing which is why I made this comment in direct response to a person saying that Arch was behind Ubuntu when that is not always the case. I’m sure most people know that Manjaro is based on Arch.
If you want a Manjaro specific thing, then I could point to his “broken grub thing” which did not effect Manjaro because the updates are held back for longer and for further testing.
Ditto, really respect what System76 has done but I need a long break from Ubuntu and GNOME. Looking forward to Cosmic DE but until it’s mature it is difficult to see how far they’d get.
LLVM was held back for a good reason, it was breaking things left and right. Even so, if you really needed it there were always AUR packages for it, or lcarlier’s mesa-git repo if you prefer prebuilt packages, so it’s not as if you were just SOL. I got my 7900XT in december, and instructions on how to get it running were already all over the forums and subreddit at the time and it was working on the same day that I got it.
I don’t know when you got your 7900XT, but it was broken on Ubuntu too for a good while, I’m not even sure that it currently works on 22.04 without using external PPAs. In the mean time, it now works with Arch out of the box.
As for the grub thing, I’m not sure how that could have been handled differently. Upstream introduced a change that created a compatibility issue, so Arch could either not update to a newer version of grub ever, or update anyway and tell its users how to handle the compatibility issue. The latter is what they did.
I got it the day it came out so it was the wild west. I think to get it to work on Arch I figured out you needed to compile the new llvm or something, and I just gave up at that point. Fedora Silverblue on the rawhide branch had everything for it, and as soon as 37 was caught up I just re-based on that branch and have been good ever since. Ubuntu did have some other issue I don't remember, not a new enough kernel maybe.
Yeah but I think you’re unfairly blaming Arch for not being ready for a new GPU on release day, especially when there are still known issues with the upstream packages that are required for it.
I think you may also misunderstand what Arch is. It isn’t meant to be absolute bleeding edge. It’s meant to be a distro that’s as up-to-date as possible yet stable enough for everyday use. So the Arch team does curate upgrades and does QA before they release it to the stable repos.
Ubuntu: They break shit, it’s half baked, snaps, and Canonical is really into vendor lock in.
Arch: I really have better things to do then baby sit my install.
RHEL: Containers were created for reasons, and one of them was RHEL.
Any Linux without systemd or glibc: Mistakes were made, and then different mistakes were made trying to prove systemd made mistakes. Musl based Linux distros are going to have compatibility problems, so I might as well run a different OS. The BSDs are *nix-like systems without glibc with a history and larger communities.
Having gone through the Arch install myself, what part dod you find you had to babysit? Boot the install media, format the drive, mount the mounts, install system, configure the system, and done. Maybe it’s just a more involved process than you’d like?
Of course, there’s always the special cheat code called archinstall that you can invoke immediately after login if you have a wired connection. Honestly, installing GNU/Linux isn’t hard, maintaining it is. Installing Gentoo is following a handbook, maintaining gentoo requires rigorous application logic and configuring.
The BSDs are *nix-like systems without glibc with a history and larger communities.
You can run programs requiring glibc on musl-based distros using a simple chroot though (not to mention using Flatpak/Snap or similar solutions).
Also, as someone who uses a distro without systemd (Void) - my boot and shutdown are both very fast and service management is simple (I didn’t need to read any documentation to define new daemons, I just looked at existing definitions); this is in contrast to my experience the last few times I used systemd distros.
I even had a Debian setup I used regularly with SysV init a few years ago, which also had way better boot/shutdown times than with systemd (on the same exact setup otherwise). Service management was a pain with SysV though.
“It’s Linux with extra work!” isn’t a convincing argument for musl based distros.
I ran FreeBSD as my desktop for a long time, and I’m quite fond of it. However, most new software is written for GNU/Linux, and I got tired of fighting against it. (I still run FreeBSD on my personal servers.)
I ran Alpine for a while, and as much as I wanted to like it, software had to be ported to it. It’s the same problem the BSDs have. Software has to be ported to them, and if that’s the case, there’s not much of a point in running Linux for me.
It’s cool people are trying an alternate libc with the Linux kernel. Alpine seems to have made some good progress on porting software, and musl has progressed from what I’ve heard.
That life isn’t for me. If I wanted that, I know where to get it.
Runit still uses shell scripts to start the services, like most alternate init systems, and I’d rather not write shell scripts for services.
There are other niceties with systemd, like timers are an upgrade over cron, as well as some very idiotic decisions, especially for the server side. Overall it’s a nice init for desktops.
I know you're making a joke but I was convinced recently to try out Arch. I'm running it right now. I was told it's a DIY distro for advanced users and you really have to know what you're doing, etc etc. I had the system up and running in 20 minutes, and about an hour to copy my backup to /home and configure a few things. I coped the various pacman commands to a text file to use as a cheat sheet until muscle memory kicked in.
..and that was it. What is so advanced about Arch? It's literally the same as every other distro. "pacman -Syu" is no different from "zypper dup" in Tumbleweed. I don't get the hype. I mean it's fine. I don't have any overwhelming desire to use something else at the moment because it's annoying to change distros. It's working and everything is fine. As I would expect it to be. But people talk about Arch like its something to be proud of? I guess the relentless "arch btw" attitude made me think it would be something special.
I guess the install is hard for some people? But you just create some partitions, install a boot loader, and then an automated system installs your DE. That's DIY? You want DIY go install NixOS or Void, or hell, go OG with Slackware. Arch is way overrated. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it's just Linux and it's no different from anything else. KDE is KDE no matter who packages it.
10 years ago the installer dumped you out in the CLI and you had to run pacman -S kde (or whatever your desktop environment was), so that was much more of a “DIY but with good tools and the best wiki” kind of deal.
But yeah, agreed. These days it’s pretty dang easy.
That's exactly how I installed it. The install media boots to cli. You partition your disks, install the boot loader, add a user, and then pacman does the rest. I didn't really find this all that "hands on". Sure it's not the same as clicking Next on an installer but none of it is very complicated at all. Don't get me wrong, as someone else replied, being needlessly difficult is stupid. But when people are saying "advanced users only, DIY, etc" I'm thinking like a Gentoo install or something. I was surprised how simple it was with all the hype and evangelizing that goes on around Arch. It's a good package manager, AUR seems interesting even if I don't really need it. But you must admit the hype is a bit overboard.
Oh, yeah, for sure. AUR stuff is a somewhat more hands-on, at least if you actually read/edit PKGBUILD files the way you’re meant to, and it’s not too hard to shoot yourself in the foot if you’ve never had the guard rails off before, but yeah, pacman makes stuff easy.
“Advanced users only” these days seems to generally just mean, “CLI is a hard requirement” and maybe “you have to edit config files and not use a GUI” or (heaven forbid) “you may need to actually read and follow instructions”
I spent a good 10-20 hours just trying to get it to boot to a largely error-free experience with SDDM and KDE. I set out to daily drive Hyprland and what a shit show that turned out for me on Nvidia GPU and Alder Lake CPU.
The basic gist is you have add nvidia, nvidia_uvm, nvidia_modeset and nvidia_drm to your mikinitcpio conf, regenerate your initramfs, then adding kernel boot parameters nvidia-drm.modeset=1 and i915.modeset=0 before it can even boot to a usable state. Apparently since 6.0, the igpu grabs the display and refuses to give it back. I don’t know how the fuck any “normal” user is going to figure out how to do all of that. Then I spent another evening trying to figure out how to get VAAPI working properly. There’s lots of outdated info in the wiki and not much else to go on, but I figured it out eventually.
BUT, having said this, I do recognise when you go Arch, you’re asking for all of these jank. And, for science, I wiped and tried out endeavouros, and it was surprisingly painless, mostly just worked out of the box (I didn’t check if it was nouveau but it might have been, I also didn’t check if VAAPI was working).
In the end after what seems like 400 wipes and reinstalls, I got it working just right. But it wasn’t painless and it certainly isn’t meant for the faint hearted.
Yes I know the fault largely lies with Nvidia and their shitty proprietary drivers, and so on. But the exact same machine worked just fine in W11, without a single jank or terminal command (not 100% true because I did run OOBE\BYPASSNRO to skip the online junk).
Moral of the lesson: go vanilla Arch if you are comfortable with figuring out shit on your own. Otherwise, stay the hell away and pick a starter distro like Fedora or Pop!_OS that is mostly jank-free.
I think your experience is more to do with nvidia + Wayland than anything OS specific. Although I think other distros have done a lot of patching and coding around nvidia's incompetence to get Wayland to work better and I think Arch doesn't really do this sort of thing. Definitely seems like you unwittingly took on a project.
I also use nvidia but I have no desire to move to Wayland any time soon. X11 works just fine unless you get into esoteric setups like multiple monitors with different refresh rates. My first boot into KDE with Arch was completely broken and I thought "okay, here comes the hard part" until I realized it was defaulting to Wayland. Changed it to X11 in sddm and it's perfect. I use my ForceCompositionPipeline script on login and set kwin to force lowest latency and it's smooth as butter.
Wayland is the future but nvidia is definitely gatekeeping that future. I've got a 3080 in this machine that is going to last a pretty long time I suspect, but unless nvidia can manage to remove head from ass I see AMD in my future.
Same, my next GPU will likely be an AMD or Intel, been itching to give Intel my money for sometime. They need battlemage to just barely keep up with the same generation xx60ti and they’ve got my business.
Well, most people installing Arch for the first time have no idea what a typical Linux install does under the hood. That makes it a worthwhile learning experience. The same commands you use during the setup you can later use to fix or change things. It basically forces you to become a somewhat proficient Linux user.
@polygon@valentino@turkalino it’s kinda funny. Arch is like 2 steps away from just being a normal distro. Which is why Endeavor and Steam OS work so well. Just add some functions to take care of things like mirrors or installing the AUR or whatever and it’s a perfectly noob friendly distro. People got indignant about Arch install being added but at the end of the day I’d bet that most arch users at this point have the same defaults
Arch is supposed to be used, it is a normal distribution. It is not hard, it is simple. That’s its whole philosophy.
It is only difficult if you are new to Linux, because it doesn’t hold your hands and has no opinion about a lot of things hence you must make many decisions yourself and configure everything like you need it. You have to know what you need and want.
The notion of a difficult distro for the sake of it is ridiculous. Who would ever want to use it? Arch is popular, because it is easy to use, but lets you configure the system to your desires for the most part.
Gentoo isn’t hard either, but it assumes you need what it offers. If you don’t actively want to recompile this and that package with a custom combination of features then it’s wasted and its normal way of doing things seems cumbersome.
The Gentoo install isn't hard, it's very methodical. But it is a much more in-depth process than Arch, that's for sure. Granted these days Gentoo seems to only do Stage 3 installs which is half the system in a tarball anyway. The way people spoke about getting through the Arch install I was thinking it would be a step-by-step process like Gentoo is. It's really not.
Yeah I get that. I'm running it as we speak. I suppose my expectations were set more by the community than the distro itself. Arch users, by and large (and perhaps not you specifically), talk about Arch as if Jesus Christ himself built pacman. I didn't find it hard to install, but as you say I've been using Linux for nearly 30 years and I know exactly what I want. I got caught up the hype and the DIY aspect I suppose, and I was evangelized to pretty hard to try it. Maybe it's people new to Linux using fdisk for the first time thinking they did something cool? They talk about "getting through the install" like it's some rite of passage.
I think I probably still prefer Tumbleweed but I'm not going to bother changing again any time soon unless Arch gives me a reason to because it's not worth the hassle. Arch and Tumbleweed are pretty similar but I think Tumbleweed has a few extra touches that I appreciate.
Just to reiterate my position, I'm not saying anything is wrong with Arch but the hype is enormous and I'm not fully convinced it's deserved. Something like NixOS on the other hand is starting to gain a lot of buzz and I think that's warranted because it's so radically different it deserves to be talked about. So far Nix is my "learning in a VM" distro.
You are saying that the elitist reputation of Arch overblown. I agree. It is not that Arch it self is overrated though. Arch is awesome ( and not as “hard” as people make it out to be - we agree on that ).
My favourite distro right now is EndeavourOS and that is just easier to install Arch.
I guess I used a whole lot of words to say what you just did in just a few sentences. Thanks for summarizing my thoughts. Just out of curiosity though, why EndeavourOS? See this is also something that tripped me up. I see quite a few Arch spinoffs that all claim to be easier versions which naturally lead me to believe Arch itself was complicated. Which again is probably a community/communication problem and has nothing to do with the OS itself.
I run Arch as my daily but I installed Endeavour as my teen's first intro to Linux (and also because I couldn't be arsed manually installing Arch). I really liked Endeavour's Welcome screen thing. It has yay installed by dafault and you can run stuff like system update just from pressing a button on that Wecome UI. Which means my teen who is clueless about pacman and has no fucks to give for learning can run and install stuff just from clicking buttons.
As to whether it's better or worse than Manjaro (which is my usual go to for Arch based newbie distros), I'm not sure. I think Endeavour feels lighter on its feet than Manjaro but I haven't dine any benchmarks to say for sure. I do like pamac and have it installed on my system and I do think it's great for new folks or people who like a GUI. That said, you can still install EndeavourOS and plonk pamac on there too.
Ah, I see. That sounds like a completely fair scenario for using something a little more automated. Thanks for sharing.
Arch seems fine and I'll probably stay here for at least another few months, out of laziness if nothing else. If I'm not completely happy I'll probably end up back on Tumbleweed which is my usual daily, but I can't say I've had any problems that would drive me back immediately.
Fedora, in the sense that I often see it widely recommended, especially to new users.
It’s not bad by any means, but it’s a very opinionated distro that requires end users to install a bunch of additional repositories and packages just to make it useable for the average user.
It also still doesn’t come with out-of-the-box system restore functionality that works well with btrfs even though it is the default filesystem, unlike OpenSUSE Tumbleweed.
Nobara fixes quite a few aspects of this.
I really don't understand why backup tools like Timeshift or Snapper aren't shipping preinstalled & preconfigured in all mainstream type distros when you go with btrfs, or at least have an option in the installer for that.
The third party thing is outdated, you can enable it at install and have access to flathub and fusion repo. So installing Steam or Nvidia drivers is dead simple now. I would still say it's not great for new users because it's ultra minimal.
I ran Fedora 33, and upgraded it in place through to fedora 36. Ran pretty well the whole time.
I had snapper running for btrfs snapshotting, and did a double hop release jump to 38. Somehow I messed up my high water mark config for snapper in the mean time, and ran out of disk space mid-install without realizing. Symptom was firefox crashing. So I rebooted. Borked.
I agree with all of your complaints about it, and there’s plenty to dislike, but it’s still probably a good landing point for new users.
For me, it was the right amount of itjust.works at the right time, coming from debian (an update in 2018 killed my gdm, and I rage switched to fedora). Next stop is Gentoo!
“Overrated” is a very specific word here. Some of the distros he just talks about their users and not the distro itself. Confusingly, he also then ignores the users entirely for other distros. I went into this assuming it would be low effort content, but it went even lower and ended up being just a “what comes to my mind when I think of this distro” list, which doesn’t seem very fair towards some of the distros (near the top of the list even!) that don’t have real complaints weighed against them.
I run the newest version of ubuntu server and it’s pretty much adds for ubuntu pro. But to be honest I don’t really mind it. They offer the extended updates for free for a handful of computers if you sign up for it. If the tradeoff for 10 years of support is some adds I am okay with it
I agree with this entirely. Back when it was like V 3 or 4, it was amazing to get non-tech people into the Linux userspace. Now, it is atrocious and the last distro I’d ever suggest to someone.
Although, speaking as a fan of Mint who used it as my "daily driver" for years, I think the time has come for them to switch from Ubuntu to Debian and embrace Wayland. I know that, if I'd stayed with Mint, I've have gone to LMDE by now.
That's why some people at wondering why wont Mint not rebase to Debian, and go from there... would be better than 'repairing' everything Ubuntu breaks.
I respect a lot what they did though. Ubuntu and Fedora worked and improved a lot of Linux’s new technologies. Plus their focus and model is more focused on the server side.
Yeah. Ubuntu has kind of taken a turn over the years but its still a super user friendly distro and they have done a lot to make linux more accessible for the masses. They also serve as a base for a number of other distros to build off of an as a result theyre an easy choice for a newbie to gravitate towards.
Mint is hugely over-recommended to new users imo. The fact that it doesn’t have an option for a DE like Gnome 3 or KDE just kinda sucks at teaching newbies what to expect. Cinnamon also feels kinda jank in my opinion, looks old and unattractive.
I think Elementary OS a bit. It’s not bad necessarily (although I do think they’re a bit over-aggressive about monetization which I don’t really like) but I always see people talk it up about how functional and beautiful-looking it is, whereas when I tried it it just seemed like a pretty standard Ubuntu-based distro themed to look like a Mac.
Unless there’s something amazing in there that I just didn’t catch on to, but it just didn’t really click for me.
I think Pop!OS is a better Ubuntu than Ubuntu is now.
Also I definitely agree about Mint. I don’t think it really sets out to hype itself up to be fair, it’s just a nice-looking, easy to use and stable distro that does exactly what it’s supposed to, and people tend to over-sell it a bit.
I definitely agree when it comes to Nobara. I’ve used Fedora for some time now, and I was curious about how it would be tailored to gaming. I made up my mind within three minutes using a live USB to go back to standard fedora. Too much preinstalled nonsense.
I thought I was going insane with Fedora. Literally every flatpack I tried had major issues. Went back to an ubuntu-based distro after a month of fix attempts.
Add comment