I think there’s benefits with more recent packages, the package manager (pacman) and the AUR. But if you’re new or don’t have much experience then something like Ubuntu or Mint is a more sensible distro to begin with. At least they start with some applications and such so you know what’s out there and how some things work.
You learn more about the components of your system, and therefore learn more about fixing things or debugging what could be wrong. Arch is only difficult once.
I wanted to say exactly this.
I started out on Ubuntu and it was this scary thing that just worked. If something broke id run to google and see what I did wrong and blindly follow answers that added a lot of crap to my system. I was so afraid of poking anything that lay outside my /home.
Eventually I hopped around a bit and landed on Arch after a few other systems that never really seemed right.
3 years later If I break something I can actually understand why most of the time and if I cant, the Arch forums explain what I need.
Using arch made me slow down trying to fix stuff because there was less to break. And if something broke, it was something that I installed myself and thus knew about. (Apart from some really horrible python and js that refused to be purged back to the fires of hell)
All in all Id never go back to a hand- holdy system, Its my system, yes its wonky as hell sometimes, but I know whats going on there and on tge off chance something vreaks on a deadline, ive got an arch stick with all my important scripts to reinstall my system if needs be.
If you just want to fire up your system with arguably sane defaults and use it, no there really isn’t. Where Arch shines is in providing a mostly blank slate for people with opinions about how their system should be set up. It provides the tools and documentation then mostly stays out of the admin’s way.
Single most concise description of Arch on the internet right here.
Archwiki is probably the best Linux documentation in existance. It greatly lowers the barrier of entry.
Seems like you answered your own question. Arch is not for people who want something that works out of box. If you want a GUI, suspend on lid close, sleep on idle, etc. by default, don’t do Arch. You have to be prepared to debug issues, configure lower level OS features, and read a lot through the wiki and web searches of you are going to use Arch.
it is. But that’s a good thing, you learn a lot along the way!
If you want something that comes out of the box just working it’s the wrong place to start though.
Nothing is enabled after installation. While it can be a daunting task to manually hook up your PC to the wifi manually, this philosophy lets you hand-pick the services which you actually want to run, catering for a very personalised and clearly defined system.
It depends what you want out of your system. If you just want a “plug and play” machine that will do most things reasonably well, by all means stick with Ubuntu.
If you want complete knowledge of exactly what you’ve got installed (and just as importantly what’s not been installed) and how it’s been set up, and tuned and tweaked to your ideal requirements, Arch is a great choice.
Arch is a rolling release that gets the newest software once it’s available. Ubuntus is Debian-based and it’s also following the principle of stability over modernity so there’s a big difference between how recent software you’re gonna run on those two types of distros. But if you want to try the rolling approach you doesn’t have to go directly for arch, you can use some Arch-based distro like Manjaro. I know there are also Arco, Artix and Garuda that are arch based but I don’t tested them. You could use them, experience pacman and aur but without struggle of setting up arch and once you get comfortable you may want to give arch a try
I want to point out that stable in this context doesn’t necessarily mean less buggy but means that the system changes less.
