To begin this post I will give a bit of background in respect to my previous knowledge of Linux (before installing Arch Linux). Multiple graphical installs for the past 4 years or so, essentially only gained a understanding of /dev/sdX is. So yeah.... I figured out how partitions are labeled. So, looking past partitioning a disk manually during installation and running "sudo apt-get update" in a tty console because...lets face it, console commands seem pretty cool coming from Windows. My first real experience into Linux would probably be setting up Samba. I failed at it horribly and never even got it working properly. Moving on from my Samba fails.... About two months ago I decided to dual boot Linux, I had been playing around with web development quite a bit and wanted to play with desktop UI. I installed CrunchbangPlusPlus, because it was based off of a distribution I feel somewhat comfortable with. Atleast as far as updating was concerned. Through my trials with CBPP (breaking my kernel then rage reinstalling a few times) I felt quite a bit more comfortable with the Linux filesystem. Finally after all of the recent driver issues with Windows 10, I deleted the fucking partition. I formated my entire SSD because of the amount of issues I had with Windows 10. Up until yesterday I was only running CBPP. Everytime I had a issue with CBPP I would consult a friend of mine. This friend would reluctantly help me through the many issues I had, each time saying "Just install Arch! You will learn more!". I was feeling confident so............ I decided to install Arch. Going into the installation the only thing I could think of was the daunting task ahead. I thought Arch was for "the truely experienced GNU/Linux vetern". My Arch installation was ultimately flawless. I did choose to format the disk twice during installation because I set the root partition to wrong partition some how. Other than that small issue, I had no trouble.
To be honest I did want to rant a bit....
With my very limited experience with only Ubuntu and Debian I still flew through the installation. Arch is so well documented (to a noob) that it didnt seem like such a large ordeal as I first suspected. Why is Arch this obscure OS to outsiders? Why do people not recommend it for beginners, at all? To me the experience of installing a desktop environment, a window manager, display manager, drivers, etc. was the not the extremely steep mountain I expected. I know many other first time Linux users have experienced this same conflict, "Oh dont even think about ArchLinux, thats not really a good OS for beginners". And what defines a "beginner"? One willing to read through documentation to understand how to accomplish a goal. Or is a beginner the average joe that justs wants to try Linux?
I think "beginner" for me at least, is a person who would likely experience a type of "culture shock" when switching from the Windows environment, not realizing how much windows actually does for you. and how little it allows you to do. If someone is willing to learn, AND is dedicated, Arch is fine. but there are a few who are not as dedicated as that. They may be able to read and understand, but there would be those with the frame of thought "why is this not already done for me?" and then quit. That is why other versions are typically recommended over Arch. They ease the user into the environment and later they can learn what they can do on their own. much like riding a bike.
Enthusiasts of computing like you could make it easily through it, but many of new comers are just curious ones or hesitating a little bit and afraid of breaking things, that's what makes them not suitable yet for such tasks. And the linux community members have been treated as overly attached girlfriends for the way they insist on the new adopters to try linux as "it should be" I guess. so more and more they try not to annoy new users and let them getting familiar to the OS step by step. Not everyone is using Linux in hardcore mode if you know what i mean. More and more people are using it just like they used to do wit Windows : Surfing internet, having access to their multimedia content, chat, read or create text files or spreadsheets... It sounds like a total waste of Linux potential but in fact, this is the kind of users that Linux needs more to truely reach "The Year Of Linux Desktop" . As Linux is growing that way It will more market share then this industry will need more Linux professionals/hardcore users and offer them more jobs. I see It as a WIn/Win situation. normal users get a more secure OS while the advanced ones get better jobs.
People can't grasp the concept of using a console over a gui. You mean I have to read to use an OS is probably what'd they'd come to think. Honestly, I didn't learn much when I first installed Arch. Knowledge comes with use. Even the simple Mint user will at some point end up doing something pretty advanced (back when I used it for the first time, I compiled software and the kernel from source so I could run kernel 3.4 without having to wait).
In a way you've answered your own question. You pointed out that you had used other Linux distros before trying Arch. Although you say that you had limited experience, you understood the concepts of working with the CLI, Sudo, Samba and /dev/sbX in Linux. Most importantly you understood the somewhat technical documentation of an Arch install procedure. You don't need to know any of this if you are a user of the three main user environments, Windows, Android and Mac. A huge number of people in the later group have never heard of Linux, nor would they gain anything if they switched. As @ironjaeger said about about those who had tried Linux, "More and more people are using it just like they used to do wit Windows : Surfing internet, having access to their multimedia content, chat, read or create text files or spreadsheets... It sounds like a total waste of Linux potential".
Clearly, you've got the Linux bug, like most of us here and want to go as deep as you can. For enthusiasts like us it's a wonderful adventure, for the rest it's a nightmare!
In reference to your Samba woes, this video from the delightful Nixie Pixel is one of the best.
I had the same impression. Since we had already learned the ropes a bit, it made sense, but you have to realize, and this is part of the answer, how arbitrary that information is. (pacstrap? mkfs.ext4? ln -s?) Doesn't sound too logical does it? Unfortunately even open-source software is prone to fault. I personally find Linux with much room for improvement from a design and architecture standpoint as well. Studying the history of Unix shows some important reason as to why. So it's not that managing a computer is difficult, but the particular system and software in a lot of ways.
I am still trying to learn more about distros, but will say this: it's more than just installing. You do have to check the Arch home page on a regular basis and manually keep it stable... Maybe ironjaeger can help.
@jrs91 what i love the most about Arch is AUR. It's the most beautiful alternative to the creepy PPAs for debian based distros. Arch is also a big opportunity to learn using BKGBUILD. You can say Arch is a playground full of different lego parts. do as you want, break things, reinstall, build, break ... and don't forget to always take notes, you may even result in making a dedicated blog if you organize the topics. If you have a problem with any component in your computer, Arch is a very informative tool to debug and fix . at least that's what's Arch for me
from somebody who spent 2 days trying to get mpd to work [failed, went with Mopidy, which doesn't save playlists with Ncmpcpp. FML.] the cripplingly frustrating things are what the manuals do not cover. i can follow a guide, i can google an issue, but if i'm trying to install Arch and the Arch wiki doesn't cover error X or quirk Y, you've just added at least half an hour to my process, that's if i have another machine or my phone to google issues with. and when it seems like NOBODY else is having your issue, you then have to be bothered to go and post on a forum, hope it's a quick reply and you don't get told to "google X". all of which is cool, if you've got a day to burn and you have something you REALLY really wanna do linux. which is no, most of the time. it's the chicken and the egg issue. if you're not new, humps like that are no bother. you just rattle on the keys a bit and done, sorted. if you're new, you're basically telling somebody to climb mount Everest for ice, when 7/11 has 3 pound bags 15 for 5 quid.
Windows holds your dick for you but doesn't do anything. Good for those who like that stuff but eh for everyone else.
Arch would not be a good jump-to-X for anyone. Going from the most simpleton of UI's to black screen-grey text.... No. A simmilar experience I think would be OpenSuSe with KDE. I think that would work out great because it is similar-ish, but allows you to figgle things about and such and see what happens. It also is the most stable thing that has the highest amount of developments from a company that ISN'T ubuntu. Not that Ubuntu is bad or anything, not knocking it at all, but if you have to choose a system that is limited to DEB only that's kinda lame :\
I personally prefer arch but sadly the way I work on my comps is I can screw around with a laptop for a week and not care but if I am migrating OS's on a desktop everything gets backed up, games, videos I am working on, POL and Wine prefixes, EVERYTHING, and the OS I am jumping to has to be reasonable in use and prepackaged for everything. Sadly my attempts at having that with arch have not turned out well. Something always goes wrong no matter what unless it's arch itself. Sadly I can't install base arch because I have no clue how the FStab stuff works yet for having a separate /home drive (I call it @home as a .Hack reference [ I have an SSD to handle all the boot stuff anda 750 GB drive that everything gets installed into ]) and that limits me greatly. I would LOVE if antergos wasn't such a piece of crap. Nothing ever goes well and apparently a lot of people who install also go in afterwards on a disc and fixes things like grub and the login manager (I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THAT). Grub and the login manager are always my issues and no matter what I do it never fixes so I am stuck with ubuntu because it's my second. I haven't used opensuse in SO LONG so I don't know how to use it anymore XD it's on my laptop and I am learning it every day.
All in all Arch would be a good "Now that you learned some stuff, try this on for size!"
Many try to use Linux as dual boot when they are trying out linux for absolutely first time ever (that's in my opinion is a 'beginner' ) or they wanna wipe out linux from say C drive but wanna keep the other drives intact ( like I did) so in cases such as these installing from console can be a little confusing and many are just scared to screw up and lose precious data. Note I have never tried arch myself and its been only a few months since I have switched over to linux as my sole operating system. Therefore these were the reasons why I didn't try out arch. I felt I would require more linux expertise to install arch the way I want it to and have it run stable for me.
i wanna switch to arch because the idea of having it seems cool, to me it looks like it might be the best distro, but my problem is because windows already does everything i need i would have to re learn everything and probably sacrifice a lot of convenience to the point where i would get pissed off and quit halfway through.
Arch is used by new Linux members all the time, its the Linux Community, that says that Arch Linux is not for new members and so maybe there is not as many new users using it as say Ubuntu or Mint. But because of the documentation that is their anyone can install and use and master Arch.
I only used Ubuntu for about 5 months before I installed and used Arch, and I may have used Linux but I had no Linux experience so to say. I used it (Ubuntu) like a newbie would, I never used the terminal, never used nano or vi. I used the graphical version of everything, and always asked the forums to fix my problem instead of RTFM.
And then when coming to Arch, because I was RTFM because I did not want to get flamed by the community I learned more and used Linux more then ever. I am now fluent in the terminal and fixing things when they bork. I would recommend installing Arch for those who want to "use" Linux and not to those that just want others to fix their problems for them.
In my opinion, the way Linux Distro's are nowadays, installing Arch is no harder then installing a light-bulb, you just have to read the manual.
I'm an arch user and I don't want noobs using arch. I want them to get used to how the system works, be comfortable with the command prompt, THEN after learning some stuff if they want to try arch then by all means they can.
"But why? It's a good system!" you may ask.
I agree, it's great. In fact if I knew how to get it to work for my desktop I would use it every day (I have my reasons not to though). However lets look at the history of computing. Unless you used an Apple Ii or IBM or something equivelant, stopped using computers for... say.... 3-40 years (?), and came back you would just have to learn linux (probably the same way @DeusQain did but he can chime in on that) by base standards. You're used to the text and you're not scared of it. I used Dos on a PIi MMX for YEARS, until about 2006! Then I got a laptop for school. The dos machine is just what I had and I didn't really need anything else and the only reason I got a new machine was that I was slow on writing but I could keep up in typing.
Anyways, now as history has gone on the format has changed. Where if you were fancy you had an Apple Ii e (or w/e) now it has changed to if you can afford to get one you probably have a windows machine (or w/e). Also keep in mind in the 80's people laughed at the mouse. It never took off as an Idea until the first graphical OS's came out and even then they were laughed out by big companies like IBM, Packard Bell, and Hewlett. Now when I think of 1984 I think of Job's speech about the new "Mac Classic" and how it had a mouse and said hello to the crowd. This was ground breaking and those companies that thought it was stupid were being surrounded by amazed people in standing ovation. It was in the news for christ sakes. As the format has gone from text to GUI, as well as computers not only becoming more affordable and more popularized, the industry has changed to make it as stupid as possible (OSX and Windows) which isn't bad, but a user like me who uses Linux and BSD doesn't like walls.
Now back to the point. With all that said above (you can search all of this btw), it is easy to see why someone SHOULD NOT jump to linux right on to the Arch platform unless there is something there that they recognise. If you end up looking at a black screen with something in the corner that says
root@rootfs ~$]
then yeah I probably would be scared too. I'm used to being in a little box with a window and someone showing me what they want me to see. If you grow up your entire life like that and someone takes the box away you're going to be scared. That's human nature and that undeniable.
Yes, I get you. And if people would under stand the system before jumping to Arch, that would put to bed the idea that Arch users are mean. Which is an idea that always goes around from time to time. But in fact they are trying to teach you that figuring things out thru the manual is a better way to get things done, and after you fix what was broken you can feel some self-worth.
I could not deny that I got pissed off in the IRC helping newbs with arch. Sadly, because of that, I am not the only one who would get pissed off. People don't understand that ISO's can be burned wrong, be broken from certain sources, etc. After a while they just start bashing and trolling so we do what any IRC would do and ban them. Not willing to read the wiki? Screw you get out of here.
When I used Arch I was intimidated by the community, so I would always ask the Ubuntu community for help, of course I would not tell them that I was using Arch. I wonder if any other Arch users do the same. Because there are problems out there that all Linux Distro's face.
I tried installing arch a few times to no avail. I'm a very enthusiastic linux user: I get excited about learning new skills, I read a dozen linux blogs, and I lurk this section of the forum when I have free time. I followed the Arch install guide, and after two times failing at various points, I finally got to the end of the Beginner's Guide, and found myself ready to introuduce the GUI and software... and I was completely lost. I watched a few videos on youtube, and paused them to copy the commands they used, but it never ended up working for me. I want to come back to it, but it won't be on my main computer.
I'm not opposed to learning the process of how to work with linux; in fact, it excites me. I just don't know where to look for the rest of the pieces to the puzzle. That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with graphical installers, because in the end they just get you into the boat. You still have to bail it yourself when the time comes.
Currently I use Korora. It's an out of the box experience based on Fedora. i've used Ubuntu (Unity, Unity + Gnome, Gnome, Xubuntu), Mint, Fedora, and Manjaro but Korora is so far my favourite. What I like about Arch is pacman, the AUR, and the documentation, so I wouldn't be opposed to using something like Antergos (if the Cnchi installer wouldn't break every time I try to use it), or the upccoming VeltOS or Apricity.
Anyway, if someone can direct me to a good guide/tutorial on what to do after the Beginner's Guide ends, I'll give it another go, but despite being fun (I always enjoy a challenge), I just can't pretend like it's a better way to do things. There are many ways to learn, and bricking your system is not a fun part of the lesson.
One day I would like to have Linux Distro's have better plug and play with each other. Then you can still keep your Korora install, but install and use pacman so you can use the AUR. Or role with Arch and use portage. BTW. Apricity is looking outargues, it so user friendly I may go back to Arch.
It Requires you to know how a decent amount of Commands to even get anywhere..
Of course you can google everything but you still need to know what the command does besides knowing the "Name" of it. it's almost like Gentoo you need to build everything and start from the ground up. the amount of un-neccessary tasks you need to do just get Arch Running is pretty absurd for the basic or "New User". if anything it will discourage them. why build something when you could just download another distro that's already built for you?
The Distro is Bleeding Edge
Yes the benefit is you get things a bit faster than rolling release distros, but that doesn't mean it's stable. so you can expect to be diagnosing issues every time you update Arch. which for most is not a good thing. some people complain that the distro is so bleeding edge that they just get tired of trying to diagnose things that they just switch to a rolling release distro to save the headache. for an new users perspective, this would be a massive un-neccessary headache to deal with.
Your System is Unique..
Before i get backlash.. the reason i put this here, is of course if you're using Arch. you DID build it from the ground up.. so the con that comes to building it. is your system is unique to you. which is a good thing from your perspective. but a bad thing in others. it's much more difficult to diagnose things.. the system is made for you how is everyone else supposes to help you? they don't know what's going on? that's also a problem from a New User's perspective..
These are the main reasons in my personal opinion, Arch isn't recommend for beginners.. It requires the User to be much dedicated on diagnosing and understanding the issues wrong with the distro and you need to be much more familar with the commands so that you know what you're doing. Googling answers isn't always going to help.
HOWEVER the benefits of this, is you get a broader understanding using a much more "Dificult Distro". personally i feel that people learn much more from trial and error as apposed to reading a few forum threads or reading a book on how to get things done. so starting with distros like these will give beginners an edge over users who started off with lets say.. Ubuntu, or Fedora or Mint.
Just wanted to say that the howto on tech net to manage just the privacy settings in Windows X is 23 pages printed to pdf. That's many pages longer than what you have to read to install Arch linux from scratch without prior knowledge.
