Linux

We, long-time users of Linux, all have our opinions based on various preferences. The thing is that a lot of these preferences are pretty technical, like Ubuntu having snaps, Fedora and Mints' flat pak policies, etc...

For the average user, they will not know what this is or even see a difference between the systems at first. The linux community would do better if we could have a unified front on distro recommendations. People will switch distros as they learn and their curiosity grows.

I think, we should ask people to pick based on their DE preference. If they want something like windows, let them have Mint or Kubuntu, if they want something closer to mac, let them have Ubuntu. I say this as someone who likes Fedora Plasma spin.

Everything else, is just information overload and will give users decision paralysis.

Our goal should be conversion of users. Once our numbers start growing, then things will pickup. Just imagine if we had office and adobe products here. How many people would be able to switch. I still use windows on my work computer as there is a single app holding me back.

Used to have Slackware as a daily driver in 2005ish, will arch be similar or more difficult?

IMO every distro should have a rolling release option. Kind of like how OpenSUSE has the normal version and Tumbleweed. You have normal version for when you need the OS to work (you're new to Linux, it's your main personal/work computer, it's a server, etc) and then you have the rolling release option for when you're willing to give up stability for the newest versions of everything as soon as possible.

I started with mint more than 10 years ago because a friend of mine told me it was one, if not the best, distro for newbies (that was a fucking lie). Idk how mint is doing today but back then was kind of a mess and dealing with it wasnt easy, so i dont really know how or why i switched to debian for a while. With debian i had a lot of problems with some software, mostly proprietary drivers for esotic hardware i was running back then due to me buying the cheapest laptops available, so i started distro hopping for a while. Every distro but fedora was debian based so it felt a lot like a more of the same experience and I felt stuck in a loop where i was eventually gonna reinstall my whole system after breaking something i didnt even know existed.

Then one day i found arch. Installing it wasnt as easy as clicking install on the live system's guy, but just by following the wiki general instructions i didnt have any issues the first time. It felt good. Building the system block by block helped me understand how things work, the package manager was the best i had seen and the newbie corner basically had the solutions for all my screw-ups, even more than ask-ubuntu did. Everybody in the community was super helpful (even some of the devs). Then there was the AUR, with almost every piece of esotic or proprietary software i needed, much easier than adding some random guy's repositories to apt or enabling backports on debian. Also i found out that i prefer having a rolling release. With arch i learned how to use and maintain my system, and i just stuck with it.

That said, just how some use linux just to brag about it with their normie friends, many many people use arch to brag about it with other linux users (like my friend did), mostly beacause arch has the infamous reputation that it is hard to install, hard to maintain, easy to break. Which is actually not that bad considering that all these people are gonna end up posting in the newbie corner lol.

Truth is that arch is not harder than any other distro. It only comes down to your will to learn and RTFM What i think worked for me was the transparency. Nobody said it was as easy to use as windows, but nobody in the wiki said "dont do this unless you are an experienced user". Arch is not another fork of ubuntu pretending to be "even more user friendly", it's just arch.

I think the problem is about distros like antergos (rip), manjaro, garuda, endevour trying to oversimplify something that only needs you to RTFM only ending up breaking something they tried to automate and hide behind a curtain that wasnt meant to be automated and was meant to be learned to manage, by hand

EDIT: spelling. I'm a non-english speaker, if you find any more errors just tell me and i will correct them (or clarify something better)

It's a really simple system meant to 'just work' and provides an idiot sheet you can copy and paste from for those who don't ever want to RTFM

as long as the system isn't doing anything important Arch is great for noobs fucking around, it's high grade spoonfeeding and doing what you are told.

Power users use RHEL, Ubuntu, Gentoo. Governments, armies, tech giants and that kinda stuff, Arch is more for newbies karma farming on r/unixporn for lolz

I wonder if there is something like a graph or diagram that shows the different parts that comform a distro.

Like a visual aid where you can see what combination of parts or components you are choosing on a distro.

Does something like this exist?

I mean, I'm just one reference point, but here we go. I started with Kubuntu -- I liked KDE, and Ubuntu is a stable, LTS distro. What could go wrong?

But my PC is Intel/Nvidia, so I'm constantly facing driver issues, and not to mention, snap is completely fucked. Ubuntu is supposed to be LTS but I've somehow still got 2-4 GB of updates every day or two. I've also got random bugs here and there and no real idea of how to troubleshoot them because the support is disparate or doesn't address my specific issue.

Meanwhile, on my Chrultrabook, I decided to go with Arch, which of course presented its own set of issues. The archinstall script was straightforward, and debugging it was also fairly easy since the Arch wiki and forums were a trove of information. But debugging and tinkering, even when I accidentally bricked my laptop and had to do a clean slate (don't ever interrupt pacman, I've learned!), has been a great learning experience. It's made me feel like I actually understand a little more of what goes on under the hood. Ubuntu could do that as well, but it isn't meant to be design.

Neither is good nor bad on its own, but different people enjoy different things. I didn't think I would be the type to enjoy Arch, but it gave me valuable experience and a fun project (even if I did end up staying up until 3 or 4 AM on work nights). I've got EndeavourOS on my laptop now and still Kubuntu on my PC, but I'm wondering if I shouldn't just switch over. Arch/eOS being a rolling release feels nice too, as I'm doing all these updates on Ubuntu anyway, but I'm slightly more worried about fucking something up.

2 requirements for arch:

1. Not fearful of CLI
2. Able to RTFM.
3. Willing to spend a whole day on your first install

that's it. That's also not MOST PC users. Just suggest popos or mint or that one "gaming" distro and let them enjoy it.

If they want to nerd out after they're used to Linux they will learn the CLI. If they want to, they'll find Arch or whatever DIY/rolling whatever distro.