285
which linux distro do you NOT like, and why?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
285 points (96.7% liked)
Linux
48691 readers
1062 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
base arch that isnt a distro from it the forums are elitist tot he point you should never bother the install instructions (before the installer they added only reluctantly) need a phd to understand its running on the worst parts of the KISS principle, its not simple to use, or simple to get around, it simply refuses to add any bells and whistles to make it easier to use
use endeavouros, arco, archlabs, reborn or any number of arch based distros, that way you get the aur, the good part of it
Thanks for your opinion. But I don't think vanilla arch is aimed at inexperienced users.
I installed Arch for the first time a couple weeks ago, after 5 years of running linux, and found the experience fun and educating. I've got it all setup to my liking and managed to eliminate 1k packages from my previous install. Had I tried it without experience I wouldn't have had such a good time at all.
Lmao yeah when I got to:
I pretty much just rolled my eyes. Just because it's not for beginners doesn't mean it's that difficult. You just need to actually understand li/unix systems.
i have been using linux for a couple of years now im very much not your average terminal agnostic user yet, to this day, the arch docs to install it are a mess that need such extensive knowledge that gaining that knowledge takes about as much time if not easily more than actually installing arch
if you like to install arch yourself? great, good for you, but pelase dont pretend that it isnt a painful process that can take so much logner than it actually needs to i tried it exactly once to install, gave up 30 mintues in cause it was a nightmare to even understand
They literally give you step by step instructions and what order to do them in. It just requires knowing how you want to do them, and doesn't hold your hand to make those decisions. There have been plenty of people relatively new to Linux that have successfully installed Arch, and this is before the automated installer. It's not that difficult. You just need to know what partitioning means, know that it's different from formatting, and knowing how to partition correctly, including making partitions for your bootloader. Then adding those partitions to fstab. et cetera. And if you're not familiar with those you can literally click through the links from the installation guide to each one of those to get there.
If you don't understand these sorts of things it's going to take you more than 30 minutes, because a Linux system has quite a few moving parts. Just because you use the terminal doesn't mean you know Linux systems and how they work. Filesystems, partitioning, know how those partitions are mounted, /etc/fstab, how to configure a boot loader, systemd services, et cetera. But again you can learn all those things through the links throughout the installation guide.
Can I ask what was difficult to understand for you? Maybe I can help clarify some things.