I never see people recommend Arch any more. New users should research the distro they should use instead of choosing the distribution they've heard of the most.
I would recommend Arch, but only to users who want to learn and understand linux and have the time to do so.
I strongly disagree, they should go in with an absolute baby beginner distro first, learn all about how it works from a user's level, and then they can go back and start building up from scratch with arch.
first steps would be to stop calling a distro baby beginner been running debian for 24 years. Linus runs Fedora the exclusive idea I run a hard distro with a custom window manager and use CLI for everything Is pure ego and toxic. Now don't get me wrong there is no issue with using Arch or a window manager vs DE. But the idea that as you advance it's a foregone conclusion you will used that config or distro.
This is the same discussion as with learning programming languages. In the us, most universities start with python, to make to easy by avaoiding memory management. In Europe, most universities start with C and C++ to teach the basics to the core. Both approaches can be appropriate depending on the student.
Eh, archinstall is a thing nowadays -- there is nothing to "learn" on arch anymore.
I would recommend they follow the full installation guide instead, which is probably one of the best pieces of technical documentation in existence at the moment. The amount of detail, context, and instruction provides both an invaluable learning experience and introduction to Linux.
archinstall is not foolproof; that's why I wouldn't recommend it to an absolute beginner. IMHO, It's more valuable for people who are familiar with the process and want a shortcut.
As great as archinstall is, it can't possibly account for every contingency. Troubleshooting a bootloader issue, for example, is easy if you've installed one before. If a noob managed to navigate the TUI (with all of the confusing questions and settings) and complete the installation only to have something go wrong there, they're off it, maybe for good.
Nobody forces you to use it. A manual arch install is still one of the most valuable leassons I learned when I started using this OS and nothing keeps new users from doing the same today
new users should just try out distros in vms and decide for themselves
Awwwee you mean I shouldn't have chosen MX Linux and nord VPN?
what's wrong with MX? isn't it basically just debian stable but with xfce as default?
I'm just saying that privacy newbies always ask about nord (which is far from the top recommended commercial VPN) because they see ads for it everywhere.
And Linux newbies ask about MX a lot because its at the top of the distrowatch list, though its nowhere near the top most-used Linux distros.
I never see people recommend Arch any more. New users should research the distro they should use instead of choosing the distribution they've heard of the most.
I would recommend Arch, but only to users who want to learn and understand linux and have the time to do so.
I strongly disagree, they should go in with an absolute baby beginner distro first, learn all about how it works from a user's level, and then they can go back and start building up from scratch with arch.
first steps would be to stop calling a distro baby beginner been running debian for 24 years. Linus runs Fedora the exclusive idea I run a hard distro with a custom window manager and use CLI for everything Is pure ego and toxic. Now don't get me wrong there is no issue with using Arch or a window manager vs DE. But the idea that as you advance it's a foregone conclusion you will used that config or distro.
This is the same discussion as with learning programming languages. In the us, most universities start with python, to make to easy by avaoiding memory management. In Europe, most universities start with C and C++ to teach the basics to the core. Both approaches can be appropriate depending on the student.
Eh, archinstall is a thing nowadays -- there is nothing to "learn" on arch anymore.
I would recommend they follow the full installation guide instead, which is probably one of the best pieces of technical documentation in existence at the moment. The amount of detail, context, and instruction provides both an invaluable learning experience and introduction to Linux.
archinstall is not foolproof; that's why I wouldn't recommend it to an absolute beginner. IMHO, It's more valuable for people who are familiar with the process and want a shortcut.
As great as archinstall is, it can't possibly account for every contingency. Troubleshooting a bootloader issue, for example, is easy if you've installed one before. If a noob managed to navigate the TUI (with all of the confusing questions and settings) and complete the installation only to have something go wrong there, they're off it, maybe for good.
Nobody forces you to use it. A manual arch install is still one of the most valuable leassons I learned when I started using this OS and nothing keeps new users from doing the same today
new users should just try out distros in vms and decide for themselves
Awwwee you mean I shouldn't have chosen MX Linux and nord VPN?
what's wrong with MX? isn't it basically just debian stable but with xfce as default?
I'm just saying that privacy newbies always ask about nord (which is far from the top recommended commercial VPN) because they see ads for it everywhere.
And Linux newbies ask about MX a lot because its at the top of the distrowatch list, though its nowhere near the top most-used Linux distros.