Exactly why, after 15 years of Linux I still do not care about Arch (directly) - a hostile community helps no one. I could write googleit or RTFM on most questions ever asked on forums... but arn't communities there to help?
If I do not want, or can help - stfu and move on - the rtfm googleit is just acid to any level of experience
Try Antegros or Manjaro (Manjaro is what I use now) - it helps you getting started, and you still have all the power to mess up later
Ok, I thought you were someone who never did a Windows install before, let alone know what the cmd is.
Install Arch then, and after you are comfortable with it start using Gentoo. You can install Gentoo from another distribution if you're not repartitioning the drive (EDIT: the drive with the distro from where you're installing Gentoo).
Yes, communities are there to help. Telling someone to RTFM is the best help he or she can get. You know the old saying - give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Like I've said, you want nanny developers, look elsewhere.
Lets agree to not agree on that - it will only turn into a vicious circle of opposing opinions.
Of course is the man a valuable and important source, but more than often overwhelming, specially if your not native English - which was my personal problem 15 years ago. Nowadays I can understand technically focused English good enough - but often enough spending weeks in a man page isn't going to help either... m2c.
Of course, arch and the white knights of "I am better" will never have to bother with me - that's my oath, Ill never ask anything on any forum or /r that's linked with arch.
btw. a community isn't only devs
The install guide on the wiki has most of the needed steps. Just make sure you check the PARTUUID, and don't put a UUID in the boot entry. Also use rEFInd over systemd-boot. It's a bit better documented on how to use it.
You misunderstood me, I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I was simply stating the facts. I couldn't care less if you, or anyone in this thread, will use/ will not use Arch.
alright so partitions, encryption and basic install are done. now its time for the environment. i can see now why many are scared to try it i will agree if you do not have the time or passion to read the doc on archwiki. you might not want to try it
You're happy that the beginners guide (the fucking manual) is gone and at the same time you think telling people to go read the manual is the best help. Care to explain?
I know a lot of people that were using Arch back in the day when I worked on student projects with them. Almost all of them are not radical Arch users any more now that they use linux professionally. Not that there is something wrong with using Arch, I also keep up to date with Arch and the Arch wiki is just great for any linux problem because they are very often first to diagnose, solve and document, it's just that Arch has a tendency to sometimes push out a poisonous update, and then there goes your weekend lol... it's all for good reason, because that way, problems get solved and solutions get documented, but if it happens to be your weekend after an entire week of serious engineering work, well, then that's not really what you might want from your work systems lol
Many people say the Arch community is hostile. I don't see it that way. I think the Arch community does a great job with the Arch wiki, it's better than the already amazing SuSE Manuals, that were paid for by Corel back in the day. Arch and SuSE are the ONLY TWO DISTROS that offer their own maintained all-encompassing manuals... but Arch did that all without spending a dime, it was all done by a dedicated community that worked its arse off to get that far, whereas SuSE was a commercial distro when Corel bought it, and for that purpose, Corel invested heavily in professional manuals (and then Corel almost went bankrupt and was bought by Novell). Making all-encompassing manuals and maintaining them is a huge job, not a small feat. If people then ignore those manuals and go over to fora to ask the same questions over and over again, instead of just searching in the wiki, I think that it's 100 % righteous that the Arch community reacts with "RTFM", they have worked hard enough to earn the right to that attitude.
It has been merged with the regular install wiki.
I'm super lazy. I install ubuntu-gnome, then run a post installation script.
I would like to go the proper route for installation as well. It would be nice to know that all the information i need to complete it is in one video or document.
I thought it was pretty stable even for a rolling release.
It's amazingly stable for how bleeding edge it is (Arch is a hell of a lot more stable than Debian Sid!), it's just that experimental software means something else for Arch users than it does for Debian stable users I guess... you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs...
as someone who has arch on there main system i can agree with this completly. i refer to the wiki atleast twice a day for anything im attempting.
like i say, it's a great distro. if someone is willing to deal with all the things that come with it. personally, i don't know if i could run my system on something whose community i don't really feel comfortable about supporting. if i had to run Arch right now, i'd probably go with Antergos and call it a day.
Here is my tutorial thread on Arch. I go in depth with just about everything you will need to get Arch running
There have been so many 'it distros' over the years.
(old) redhat
mandrake
corel
mepis
mandrivia
And I'd consider the following pretty much in the same boat... just not dead yet
Arch
Mint
Elementery
And that doesn't even count the distros that have had little adoption.
In my opinion, the only long-term trustworthy distros are:
Debian
Ubuntu
Redhat (commercial)
CentOS
I'd use the following distros, but with some reservation or in limited scope.
Gentoo
Suse
I don't like Arch. It reminds me of Slackware. Both seem to appeal to the BOFH type. It was one thing to use Slackware back in 1993 (when I started) but there weren't many options to choose from. But today there are much better, more refined, and full featured distros.
Debian is pretty much the single best distro in my opinion. Lots of developers and testing. It's the base for countless other distros. And doesn't leave the bad taste in your mouth that Ubuntu does.
Redhat commercial and CentOS are frustrating for me as a long time Debian user. They are just different. Not necessarily bad, but it takes me longer to get things done in Redhat/CentOS.
tl;dr: Don't waste your time with Arch for anything serious.
Realistically, the only issue you will have is when unstable packages make it into the stable repositories. Which doesn't happen as often as it used to, but it happens. And real security. Your only option is AppArmor and that requires a modified Kernel. Those feature sets are not enabled in the Arch Kernel by default.
The one benefit I've noticed is Arch seems to work better than the prebuilt distros. I've had less weird display bugs since switching.
The blessing and curse of Arch is how much control you have. 9 times out of 10 something doesn't work cause you forgot to install something.
ive been off and on it today configuring and installing my usual stuff. i def like it more than ubuntu. much much more. much much much more.... i had too manhy problems with.
arch isnt hard at all, everything you need is searchable.