I think it's clear that nobody is right here. For one, I think it's perfectly fine to say that you're only intending to ship to experienced users who can bootstrap their own system properly; Arch has always been about shipping a very minimal base system, and it's just outright not going to work for the average user. I mean, the biggest thing it has going for it is a community package repo that is quite literally just comprised of glorified shell scripts - it's a dangerous system.
Sure, I get the appeal of trying to get average users into Linux, and I can even sympathize with people who truly love the underlying structure of modern *nixes. But if you see yourself as someone "liberating" Arch, you're obviously going to see their developers as captors. In reality, this is what consensus-based software development looks like. These people are doing their thing, you're doing yours.
> Sorry other Arch users, like it or not, you’ll have to support Manjaro users. Same way Ubuntu users look to Debian documentation for help
Arch quite explicitly *doesn't* offer support on anything, not just Manjaro users. That's the point of rolling-release distros; they're giving you a chance to build a towering software stack that can collapse at any moment, and it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't tip over. Your desktop environment could completely change in an innocuous update. Your kernel could be swapped out with the wrong package. These are not tiny non-issues, they're problems that will stop novices in their tracks when they would have otherwise been perfectly fine on a stable distro.
Sometimes you will find merchants at the bazaar who insult the customer. Rather than change something that doesn't match your needs why not find one of the thousand other distros? I don't believe every community follows the rtfm attitude, and many work quite well. Sorry you had a bad experience. A lot of the documentation exists for the product because of high strung elitists and they will not be friendly, but that is what a lot of people associate with Arch brand. I think you will find highly skilled Gentoo users, which might not have as much of the attitude.
TLDR
Expecting a community to change for you is unrealistic.
If a community wants to make it hard for new users to get on-board and it is totally for expert users, what's wrong with that? They all decide together and if that's all they want, more freedom and power to them. Too bad they'll be off-limits for new users (including myself, never installed Arch), I'll find another distro. But, I respect them for their right to collectively do whatever they want.
About the only obligation they have back to the larger Linux community is GPL license and making the source code available.
Exactly. Arch would have faded into obscurity if it didn't have the infamy of being a difficult challenge. People use it BECAUSE they want to feel like they've accomplished something difficult.
It would be nice if Arch could be made easy to use, and the community could be less hostile to new users, without falling into obscurity, but it's an impossible catch-22.
Really? I don't think that's why Arch is well known. If you gave me just that description I'd be very confident you meant Gentoo.
In my mind, Arch's reputation is not that of a challenge, but more of an ongoing projects that you can soak up as over much time you'd like to dump into it. Basically the OS equivalent of a daily-drivable project car.
Though to be fair, I think one of the pillars of that reputation is the quality of the wiki. And I've been increasingly finding the wiki not living up to my expectations over the last however many years. But (somewhat concerningly) the Arch wiki seems to be as strong as ever relative to other sources, so I'm not sure how that balances out.
> But (somewhat concerningly) the Arch wiki seems to be as strong as ever relative to other sources, so I'm not sure how that balances out.
This is a very troubling observation. I think that the open-source world would lose a truly great source of information should the Arch Wiki go away, and there is an clear problem with quality all across the Linux desktop space at the moment.
I use Arch because I just want a desktop that's fast while still being able to handle my requirements. I'm also looking into employing it for setups that have very non-standard boot sequences or hardware requirements (think vGPU gaming across multiple virtualised domains) that are impossible to achieve on mainstream distributions without making the ongoing operation of the OS too brittle.
OP here. One goal: Make Arch's documentation for installation better so that more people trying Linux (if they pick Arch first) have a better experience. It seems that to do this, the entire project needs to have a cultural shift in the attitude towards newcomers.
People that pick arch first, should probably pick manjaro first if they are not comfortable with arch or if they don't read the wiki articles thoroughly.
Imo arch is not supposed to be veterans only (see gentoo or lfs), but it's also not supposed to be for people that say pop OS is hard.
The Linux disto scene is open for a reason, if you don't like one disto, pick another one.
I actually like the structure of the wiki, including the installation guide. The first time I installed arch on my system, I almost broke it, and that was horrifying at the same time as it was an incredible learning experience. The wiki is actually built in a way that forces people to pay attention to what you are reading vs skimming through the text (that people with incredibly short attention span are doing more and more).
So, should we make the arch installation guide better?
> Immediately assumes you have a system with gpg installed, or know how to install it and use it, but doesn't mention torrents will verify this for you (I think?)
So here you are saying that there should be a note about torrent signature verification?
> lists USB, Disc, or PXE as options, doesn't indicate that USB is typical
"typical" is relative in time, so is "common", and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this.
> doesn't explain why UEFI might be prefered / better if on newer hardware/living along side Windows
This is an installation guide, so as not to make the guide bigger than it is and with more tangents. If one needs more info on uefi or legacy, one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources.
> Sort of implies `ip link` enables the network interface
I'm sorry, it does not:
> Ensure your network interface is listed and enabled
A few lines down:
> Connect to the network: (...) Wi-Fi—authenticate to the wireless network using iwcl.
> doesn't include any information about making Arch live along side other OS's
Again, this is an installation guide for installing arch on a machine. If people want to install arch on a machine with another OS, then look on the first line:
It is, just not directly. You'll have to go to the link in the first line, which includes way more different installation variants other than windows or mac. Imo, arch should not cater for mac, or Windows or any other user. The links are there, you just need to read and click them.
For anything arch, you really need to sit down and read the articles carefully, no skimming allowe...
Why should it be easier for first timers to use Arch ? It does require to know a lot, so if those people are going to pick Arch first they will be spending hours and hours reading all the needed resources. And no, this is not optional: to use Arch, you're supposed to know how all the parts work. If not, many other distributions will be perfect for you.
Small question: what, in your opinion, is the definition of "better experience"? On one hand you can hide the hardware from users and make a limited form of success simple and easy (see windows + mac). On the other extreme you can present them with a large wiki of well-documented behaviors, and they will have to select the behaviors they want in their system; at times sacrificing one for another because of fundamental incompatibilities, nonexistent interfaces, or some hardware differences. Down one path hurts new users abilities to learn about reality, down the other path hurts users who are disgusted by reality. I think the choice of community boils down to a choice of goal, the definition of "better experience", and Arch pretty strongly does not take any stances there. You're on your own to make up a goal and navigate to it.
As I point out in the guide, just some guidance as to what paths are well worn. Presenting people with a list of every possible boot loader and file system, leaving them to research every option, isn't great. On top of that, the current guide doesn't even warn users to do a backup before doing Patitioning/FS stuff. I'm not saying to make a bunch of decisions for the user, I'm saying we should steer them to common answers and let them look up the more esoteric stuff with time.
The Linux world suffered from its own Eternal September, where every kid with some spare time has tried to install Linux and they're tribal about it. Of course Arch Linux requiring a little more time investment tends to attract that demographic of people with a lot of free time to learn, teenagers, that by definition are not fully matured emotionally. And some of those are insufferable.
I've been using Linux as a teenager since 2001, and it saddens me to read places where these congregate in mass, like /r/linux, and see the massively unfriendly and elitist attitude of some Linux users, berating others for using more user friendly distros or just because they're immature asshats.
One can write a whole book about how emotionally immature and insecure people become bullies when in front of a screen, but it's way off topic for this post.
Gentoo is quite niche nowadays, I don't think it's getting many new users, I see it mentioned by old time users, rather than people that have just switched to it.
In fact, in 21 years of using Linux I've never played with Gentoo. I should remedy that.
> So, which is it? Is arch a system that supports users wanting to learn the depths of Linux and that are willing to dive in head first, or is it exclusively for Linux veterans that already know most of the complexity involved?
I used Arch about 8 years ago or so, when I was a University student. I remember my head was stuck in the (absolutely excellent!) Arch Linux wiki learning how to do various things. (Previously, I'd used Linux Mint, and was comfortable with basic command line tools). IIRC, my experience installing it on a MacBook Air involved mainly flipping between the main installation guide, and the page with MacBook-specific details.
I think "curious beginners" trying Arch will absolutely have 30+ tabs of the wiki open to read things. Maybe some people prefer an opinionated guide.. but I found what was there accessible enough anyway.
EDIT: I think for the criterion "an OS that just works, doesn't require effort put into it, etc." then e.g. Arch Linux or NixOS are terrible OSs to recommend. I don't think that's a big problem, though.
> Similarly, we can not in good conscience have an install guide that doesn’t make it extremely clear that a user should make a full disk back up prior to doing anything
Hahahaha. Well, yes. But expertise is gained from making mistakes; and I'm sure many people who make such mistakes ignored warnings like that anyway. :o) (I've lost data from bad disk partition operations a few times).
I feel like Arch used to be simpler to install, right? Not that it was done for you or anything, but I recall being really impressed back when with how straightforward it was using the wiki.
I moved from Arch to Gentoo and then back again, and strangely Arch seems harder for it. Not just the install, but including it. My impression is that the wiki is noticeably less useful now, though of course it's still extremely useful. But it increasingly reminds me of digging for hints on Gentoo, when I recall it feeling like the authors were almost prescient at times.
Though I suppose I feel similarly about internet search in general, so maybe I should be a little slower in blaming the wiki...
Don't think there will be. The whole "linux the hard way" has very little appeal to the wider audience. All the new users will go to Manjaro just like Ubuntu grabbed mindshare from debian thanks to being just that little bit easier (and then same for mint).
I personally look at the arch documentation occasionally but avoid interacting with the community. The elevated blood pressure is just not worth it
But some of us want to learn, like me. I've looked at Arch several times before, but never went for it, mostly because of it's reputation but also from toxic answers etc. Communities like this is often a big obstacle.
There's a huge difference between those who don't even bother googling something before going to a forum for answers, and those who ask because they're stuck or have gotten lost in documentation without getting anywhere.
You have to be very confused to claim Arch is for novices.
I used various Linuxes for 12 or so years and I'm still lost if I try to install Arch. Just 5-10 minutes later I'm like "fuck this, I got better things to do" and off to Manjaro I go. And I have a fully working system another 5-10 minutes later.
And that doesn't even touch on what do you think a "novice" is. If you mean people coming from Windows, your best bet is Endeavour / Manjaro / Mint, and never even mention Arch.
I know people like to hate on it, but Fedora has given me the most stable daily user experience over a variety of systems over the past 5 years and is what I run on any productivity-related system I have.
I use Manjaro at home mostly as an excuse to learn a different ecosystem and I can't really say it's better or worse than Mint, Ubuntu, Pop, etc.
Ah, I am not hating on it (nor do I know people doing it) it's just my observation that for grandmas Mint and Manjaro seem to work best in terms of least WTFs per hour.
I personally like Manjaro because I burned out on having to micro-manage Linux. Or I got spoiled by my iMac Pro, don't know. In any case I love the already working system I get. My home server is in Manjaro and I only ever had one problem with it (when SSH hard-deprecated several algorithms a few months ago). To me it's perfect because you (1) get a working system in just a few minutes of installation procedure and (2) you can then fine-tune as much as you want.
I am not hating on any other distros though. Linux and all of its distros are an acquired taste so hey, whatever tickles people's fancy, let them enjoy it. ^_^
I don’t think the official messaging is inconsistent, although it could be worded better. Please don’t also mistake random users to be the official source of information. I am also a random user and these are my opinions.
Arch can definitely be used by beginners. The only required skill is the willingness and ability to invest time into the process. There shouldn’t be a minimum knowledge bar to try Arch. However, the willingness to RTFM and Google are undoubtedly necessary.
You have some good ideas about useful things to know during first time installation. However, the installation guide is not the place for this. The current format is a good compromise, and it is not the right place to provide more background. Instead, supplementary information should be added to existing pages/new pages and linked from the guide.
I think the problem with the current guide is it links out to too much context. It should only link to pages that are absolutely necessary to be read and any further diving should happen from the linked pages. Note: I don’t think the actual guide should have more information added, but rather that some information should be moved.
The forest-of-links approach is the one that scales and doesn’t get a bunch of outdated documentation. A beginner can and should read some of the linked pages. This is part of the time investment.
The install script is fairly new. It’s also not aimed at new users, but rather experienced ones looking to automate some of the process. The support issue you ran into is a perfect example of why forest-of-links is the better approach. The support forum thread has become out-of-date, and is now providing inconsistent information by saying that manual installation guide installation is the ONLY supported method.
I don't think it's fair to call him a random user. He's a regular of the forums with over 6k posts. Plus, it wasn't just this one user. On the forums, one of the admins directly made their opinion of how to handle new users clear, boiling down to let them experience trial by fire. Yes, Arch is and should be difficult. But that doesn't mean it should be made extra difficult by listing out incredibly esoteric options for each step and leaving the user to research every single one. That is ridiculous and will only get worse with time. You shouldn't have to research every weird fringe file system and a half dozen weird boot loader to find out that most people are using ext4 or btrFS and Systemd-boot or Grub. Just some pointing to good paths. It's one thing to RTFM, it's another to RTF all the Ms for everything ever, which I think you agree with by saying
> It should only link to pages that are absolutely necessary to be read and any further diving should happen from the linked pages
I know when I first installed arch in 2014 I used the beginner's guide, which was much easier to follow. And, yeah, I did have at least some experience with Ubuntu before that, but not very much. I'd largely disliked Linux up to that point because installing software was a major PITA (adding PPAs is still a PITA, and now we have the mess of Snap, Flatpack, AppImages, etc. on top of it) and after getting Arch actually working I found a system that made things convenient to the point of justifying the work, plus it let me customize the heck out of my system (i3wm, RT kernel for making music, etc.)
> Sorry other Arch users, like it or not, you’ll have to support Manjaro users.
No, Arch users won't have to. Arch users are all benevolent, contributing to the forum because they like it, helping other people because they enjoy it. They have no obligation to do anything for anyone.
I second this thought, open source is all about figuring things out yourself and promoting individual independence. Designing documentation as if a group of engineers are suddenly required to give their time to some "newb 'customer' who doesn't have the patience to RTFM" is hurtful both to veterans (wasted time) and new users (deprives them of experiencing reality). They will have to stand on their own feet and giving out wheelchairs does not promote a great community, it treats the arch community as a business which has some requirement to actively participate in someone's personal life/project in order to uphold an artificial guarantee of "success" as defined by that person. Success is earned by your labor, not guaranteed by the set of tools used.
I wonder if the name makes it more of magnet for topminds and true scotsmen.. Joker emoji, story checks out. Lesson learned: a name is a flag, and if you've gotta tell people you're smart, you're an asshole.
I managed to install Arch on extremely non-standard hardware while in uni a few years ago, and have never looked back. The Arch community were extremely helpful and kind during that process. Every interaction I have ever had with them has been positive. This interaction strikes me as someone being angered by an obvious attempt at infiltration by another individual (who cares nothing for the community values and only wants things to be vaguely "inclusive")and lashing out aggressively.
Arch doesn't want things inclusive, it wants things done its way. There is nothing wrong with that, Gatekeeping is not a negative term, it's how communities stay internally consistent. Gatekeeping is a community's immune system, and communities who don't do it get sick and die.
>Sorry other Arch users, like it or not, you’ll have to support Manjaro users.
And we do, by providing the wiki. No we are not going to troubleshoot your different distro on our forums, but most issues on Manjaro can be solved by a quick glance at the relevant wiki page. No one will even know you're using Manjaro AND you will have the satisfaction of solving it yourself. Or just use the Manjaro forums. This is an intended workflow, as the Arch wiki links to the Gentoo wiki in the Cron page, since the Gentoo community wrote such a comprehensive guide. That's not Gentoo "supporting Arch users" that's the Arch community acknowledging when really good work has been done, and not duplicating it unnecessarily.
It's a shame, but seems so common to the whole of the internet these days.
Arch seemed goofy to me. But FreeBSD is pretty terrible on my laptop and I like that very small base that I add what I need on to, and not the "all the things for beginners". I've enjoyed my past 6 or so months with it.
I've normally used Debian personally for Linux for the past 15 years, but wanted to try something new.
It probably is a good way to learn that's a big step easier than Linux-from-scratch (which is a fun exercise if you have time). And it's a good way to keep a very up-to-date Linux system.
But I do have the advantage of just needing the Arch-specific tips: mostly understanding pacman and yay. I've been doing this a long time, I pick the tools I like, and I already know how to configure them (or where to look to remember).
But honestly, it'd be rough if you don't have Unix/Linux experience. Getting the hardware working, learning all the vocabulary, etc. before you can even really use anything is rough, unless you have a lot of time and patience. Especially if you're expecting a Mac or Windows desktop experience.
I could see a lot of users moving from Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, etc. down to something less batteries-included, though.
ah. I've seen posts like these before. These are Trojan Horse discussions. Nothing constructive ever comes out of these.
A person with a website and a furry avatar passive-aggressively going after all elements of a community they dislike, and then egregiously trying to get the internet mob on their side when their self-righteous crusade that-just-so-happens-to-radically-alter-some-large-aspect-of-the-community gets shut down. I suppose it takes an interesting kind of bravado to try and insert your guide into the arch wiki installation page, after the troll explicitly told you to delete it because it was bad.
I also don't think that a demand that the entire culture change to be more welcoming is a proportionate response. Some cultures don't want to be welcoming to just anyone. Arch prides itself on having a very high entry bar and filters out the ones who don't make it. You may not like it, some people may be dicks, but that is their choice to make. Gatekeeping in a limited sense is literally something everyone does in some measure - in picking friends and dates, hiring, immigration etc. It's not an unalloyed bad thing™
its weird but this problem is rooted in youtubers/discords who don't have the slightest clue what the community values or what Arch/Manjaro is jumping in and pumping millions of newcomers into a distro that doesn't want them. if 5-10 youtubers understood their audience, did their research responsibly and picked the right distro to recommend before pumping out a video that hits millions (cough LTT cough), a lot of this could have been avoided.
49 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 97.4 ms ] threadSure, I get the appeal of trying to get average users into Linux, and I can even sympathize with people who truly love the underlying structure of modern *nixes. But if you see yourself as someone "liberating" Arch, you're obviously going to see their developers as captors. In reality, this is what consensus-based software development looks like. These people are doing their thing, you're doing yours.
> Sorry other Arch users, like it or not, you’ll have to support Manjaro users. Same way Ubuntu users look to Debian documentation for help
Arch quite explicitly *doesn't* offer support on anything, not just Manjaro users. That's the point of rolling-release distros; they're giving you a chance to build a towering software stack that can collapse at any moment, and it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't tip over. Your desktop environment could completely change in an innocuous update. Your kernel could be swapped out with the wrong package. These are not tiny non-issues, they're problems that will stop novices in their tracks when they would have otherwise been perfectly fine on a stable distro.
TLDR Expecting a community to change for you is unrealistic.
I think the writer is saying there should be some change, for everyone’s benefit, but specifically for new users.
I don’t know if they are right or wrong about that but that’s different than “ Expecting a community to change for you”.
About the only obligation they have back to the larger Linux community is GPL license and making the source code available.
It would be nice if Arch could be made easy to use, and the community could be less hostile to new users, without falling into obscurity, but it's an impossible catch-22.
In my mind, Arch's reputation is not that of a challenge, but more of an ongoing projects that you can soak up as over much time you'd like to dump into it. Basically the OS equivalent of a daily-drivable project car.
Though to be fair, I think one of the pillars of that reputation is the quality of the wiki. And I've been increasingly finding the wiki not living up to my expectations over the last however many years. But (somewhat concerningly) the Arch wiki seems to be as strong as ever relative to other sources, so I'm not sure how that balances out.
Maybe it doesn't, and I'm just behind the times.
This is a very troubling observation. I think that the open-source world would lose a truly great source of information should the Arch Wiki go away, and there is an clear problem with quality all across the Linux desktop space at the moment.
I don’t know / not worried about that.
I’m just saying the person’s point wasn’t that there should be change just for themselves.
Sorry you had to deal with an asshole, OP.
The arch folk definitely seem unfriendly, which is a shame, because that's not how I recollect it from 2007.
Imo arch is not supposed to be veterans only (see gentoo or lfs), but it's also not supposed to be for people that say pop OS is hard. The Linux disto scene is open for a reason, if you don't like one disto, pick another one.
I actually like the structure of the wiki, including the installation guide. The first time I installed arch on my system, I almost broke it, and that was horrifying at the same time as it was an incredible learning experience. The wiki is actually built in a way that forces people to pay attention to what you are reading vs skimming through the text (that people with incredibly short attention span are doing more and more).
So, should we make the arch installation guide better?
> Immediately assumes you have a system with gpg installed, or know how to install it and use it, but doesn't mention torrents will verify this for you (I think?)
So here you are saying that there should be a note about torrent signature verification?
> lists USB, Disc, or PXE as options, doesn't indicate that USB is typical
"typical" is relative in time, so is "common", and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this.
> doesn't explain why UEFI might be prefered / better if on newer hardware/living along side Windows
This is an installation guide, so as not to make the guide bigger than it is and with more tangents. If one needs more info on uefi or legacy, one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources.
> Sort of implies `ip link` enables the network interface
I'm sorry, it does not:
> Ensure your network interface is listed and enabled
A few lines down:
> Connect to the network: (...) Wi-Fi—authenticate to the wireless network using iwcl.
> doesn't include any information about making Arch live along side other OS's
Again, this is an installation guide for installing arch on a machine. If people want to install arch on a machine with another OS, then look on the first line:
> For alternative means of installation, see Category:Installation process (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Installation_proce...).
Which includes a link to the following article: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows
> Also doesn't recommend users do a backup first, if they're using a disk with data on it
Agree, this should probably be added in.
> it's probably worth saying systemd-boot and grub are the most common two options
Echoing my points above:
> "typical" is relative in time, so is "common" and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this.
> If one needs more info (...), one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources.
-
> doesn't clarify that still aren't enough to have a graphical environment
This is going to sound harsh but, imo a graphical environment is not an essential package.
> On that note, the https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows page isn't even linked in the installation guide.
It is, just not directly. You'll have to go to the link in the first line, which includes way more different installation variants other than windows or mac. Imo, arch should not cater for mac, or Windows or any other user. The links are there, you just need to read and click them.
For anything arch, you really need to sit down and read the articles carefully, no skimming allowe...
> doesn't clarify that still aren't enough to have a graphical environment
By reading the installation guide thoroughly, you'll actually see this on the post installation section:
> See General recommendations for system management directions and post-installation tutorials
Where "general recommendations" is an article containing a section for graphical user environments (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/General_recommendations#Gra...).
Just asking.
The Linux world suffered from its own Eternal September, where every kid with some spare time has tried to install Linux and they're tribal about it. Of course Arch Linux requiring a little more time investment tends to attract that demographic of people with a lot of free time to learn, teenagers, that by definition are not fully matured emotionally. And some of those are insufferable.
I've been using Linux as a teenager since 2001, and it saddens me to read places where these congregate in mass, like /r/linux, and see the massively unfriendly and elitist attitude of some Linux users, berating others for using more user friendly distros or just because they're immature asshats.
One can write a whole book about how emotionally immature and insecure people become bullies when in front of a screen, but it's way off topic for this post.
In fact, in 21 years of using Linux I've never played with Gentoo. I should remedy that.
But maybe that joke has died down a bit lately?
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/install-gentoo
I used Arch about 8 years ago or so, when I was a University student. I remember my head was stuck in the (absolutely excellent!) Arch Linux wiki learning how to do various things. (Previously, I'd used Linux Mint, and was comfortable with basic command line tools). IIRC, my experience installing it on a MacBook Air involved mainly flipping between the main installation guide, and the page with MacBook-specific details.
I think "curious beginners" trying Arch will absolutely have 30+ tabs of the wiki open to read things. Maybe some people prefer an opinionated guide.. but I found what was there accessible enough anyway.
EDIT: I think for the criterion "an OS that just works, doesn't require effort put into it, etc." then e.g. Arch Linux or NixOS are terrible OSs to recommend. I don't think that's a big problem, though.
> Similarly, we can not in good conscience have an install guide that doesn’t make it extremely clear that a user should make a full disk back up prior to doing anything
Hahahaha. Well, yes. But expertise is gained from making mistakes; and I'm sure many people who make such mistakes ignored warnings like that anyway. :o) (I've lost data from bad disk partition operations a few times).
The author also switches, after the food answer from IRC away from the troll to the beginnerfriendlyness of arch.
Installing arch is still way more complex than other distros and that's totally fine as it is. At least from my perspective.
Beginner might just not mean 'person who never ever seen a PC before'.
I switched from suse experience to Gentoo and then to arch
I think what the author is trying to get across is that some arch proponents seem to want to make it needlessly hard.
> Beginner might just not mean 'person who never ever seen a PC before'.
There is a huge space between "person who never ever seen a PC before" and "person who could understand arch'es install guide".
But I did install arch Linux just 2 years ago fresh and had no problems and I still configure and set it up manually.
The installation guide is still very good.
And friends around me use arch Linux based distros.
There are plenty of options also for beginners.
I moved from Arch to Gentoo and then back again, and strangely Arch seems harder for it. Not just the install, but including it. My impression is that the wiki is noticeably less useful now, though of course it's still extremely useful. But it increasingly reminds me of digging for hints on Gentoo, when I recall it feeling like the authors were almost prescient at times.
Though I suppose I feel similarly about internet search in general, so maybe I should be a little slower in blaming the wiki...
It was! There used to be a beginner's guide that was much easier to follow than the current installation guide.
Don't think there will be. The whole "linux the hard way" has very little appeal to the wider audience. All the new users will go to Manjaro just like Ubuntu grabbed mindshare from debian thanks to being just that little bit easier (and then same for mint).
I personally look at the arch documentation occasionally but avoid interacting with the community. The elevated blood pressure is just not worth it
There's a huge difference between those who don't even bother googling something before going to a forum for answers, and those who ask because they're stuck or have gotten lost in documentation without getting anywhere.
I used various Linuxes for 12 or so years and I'm still lost if I try to install Arch. Just 5-10 minutes later I'm like "fuck this, I got better things to do" and off to Manjaro I go. And I have a fully working system another 5-10 minutes later.
And that doesn't even touch on what do you think a "novice" is. If you mean people coming from Windows, your best bet is Endeavour / Manjaro / Mint, and never even mention Arch.
On the contrary, the first rule of using Arch, is telling everyone you use Arch BTW :)
As good a joke that is, it still says nothing about Arch being easy.
It's kind of a badge of honor: "I suffered through this and I gained skills. You should do it too!". It does get annoying at one point though.
I use Manjaro at home mostly as an excuse to learn a different ecosystem and I can't really say it's better or worse than Mint, Ubuntu, Pop, etc.
I personally like Manjaro because I burned out on having to micro-manage Linux. Or I got spoiled by my iMac Pro, don't know. In any case I love the already working system I get. My home server is in Manjaro and I only ever had one problem with it (when SSH hard-deprecated several algorithms a few months ago). To me it's perfect because you (1) get a working system in just a few minutes of installation procedure and (2) you can then fine-tune as much as you want.
I am not hating on any other distros though. Linux and all of its distros are an acquired taste so hey, whatever tickles people's fancy, let them enjoy it. ^_^
Arch can definitely be used by beginners. The only required skill is the willingness and ability to invest time into the process. There shouldn’t be a minimum knowledge bar to try Arch. However, the willingness to RTFM and Google are undoubtedly necessary.
You have some good ideas about useful things to know during first time installation. However, the installation guide is not the place for this. The current format is a good compromise, and it is not the right place to provide more background. Instead, supplementary information should be added to existing pages/new pages and linked from the guide.
I think the problem with the current guide is it links out to too much context. It should only link to pages that are absolutely necessary to be read and any further diving should happen from the linked pages. Note: I don’t think the actual guide should have more information added, but rather that some information should be moved.
The forest-of-links approach is the one that scales and doesn’t get a bunch of outdated documentation. A beginner can and should read some of the linked pages. This is part of the time investment.
The install script is fairly new. It’s also not aimed at new users, but rather experienced ones looking to automate some of the process. The support issue you ran into is a perfect example of why forest-of-links is the better approach. The support forum thread has become out-of-date, and is now providing inconsistent information by saying that manual installation guide installation is the ONLY supported method.
> It should only link to pages that are absolutely necessary to be read and any further diving should happen from the linked pages
I know when I first installed arch in 2014 I used the beginner's guide, which was much easier to follow. And, yeah, I did have at least some experience with Ubuntu before that, but not very much. I'd largely disliked Linux up to that point because installing software was a major PITA (adding PPAs is still a PITA, and now we have the mess of Snap, Flatpack, AppImages, etc. on top of it) and after getting Arch actually working I found a system that made things convenient to the point of justifying the work, plus it let me customize the heck out of my system (i3wm, RT kernel for making music, etc.)
No, Arch users won't have to. Arch users are all benevolent, contributing to the forum because they like it, helping other people because they enjoy it. They have no obligation to do anything for anyone.
Arch doesn't want things inclusive, it wants things done its way. There is nothing wrong with that, Gatekeeping is not a negative term, it's how communities stay internally consistent. Gatekeeping is a community's immune system, and communities who don't do it get sick and die.
>Sorry other Arch users, like it or not, you’ll have to support Manjaro users.
And we do, by providing the wiki. No we are not going to troubleshoot your different distro on our forums, but most issues on Manjaro can be solved by a quick glance at the relevant wiki page. No one will even know you're using Manjaro AND you will have the satisfaction of solving it yourself. Or just use the Manjaro forums. This is an intended workflow, as the Arch wiki links to the Gentoo wiki in the Cron page, since the Gentoo community wrote such a comprehensive guide. That's not Gentoo "supporting Arch users" that's the Arch community acknowledging when really good work has been done, and not duplicating it unnecessarily.
Arch seemed goofy to me. But FreeBSD is pretty terrible on my laptop and I like that very small base that I add what I need on to, and not the "all the things for beginners". I've enjoyed my past 6 or so months with it.
I've normally used Debian personally for Linux for the past 15 years, but wanted to try something new.
It probably is a good way to learn that's a big step easier than Linux-from-scratch (which is a fun exercise if you have time). And it's a good way to keep a very up-to-date Linux system.
But I do have the advantage of just needing the Arch-specific tips: mostly understanding pacman and yay. I've been doing this a long time, I pick the tools I like, and I already know how to configure them (or where to look to remember).
But honestly, it'd be rough if you don't have Unix/Linux experience. Getting the hardware working, learning all the vocabulary, etc. before you can even really use anything is rough, unless you have a lot of time and patience. Especially if you're expecting a Mac or Windows desktop experience.
I could see a lot of users moving from Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, etc. down to something less batteries-included, though.
Bashing "n00bs" was all the rage even 20 years ago.
I don't have a judgement on this cultural approach. I just point out that it is not something of "these days"
A person with a website and a furry avatar passive-aggressively going after all elements of a community they dislike, and then egregiously trying to get the internet mob on their side when their self-righteous crusade that-just-so-happens-to-radically-alter-some-large-aspect-of-the-community gets shut down. I suppose it takes an interesting kind of bravado to try and insert your guide into the arch wiki installation page, after the troll explicitly told you to delete it because it was bad.
I also don't think that a demand that the entire culture change to be more welcoming is a proportionate response. Some cultures don't want to be welcoming to just anyone. Arch prides itself on having a very high entry bar and filters out the ones who don't make it. You may not like it, some people may be dicks, but that is their choice to make. Gatekeeping in a limited sense is literally something everyone does in some measure - in picking friends and dates, hiring, immigration etc. It's not an unalloyed bad thing™
its weird but this problem is rooted in youtubers/discords who don't have the slightest clue what the community values or what Arch/Manjaro is jumping in and pumping millions of newcomers into a distro that doesn't want them. if 5-10 youtubers understood their audience, did their research responsibly and picked the right distro to recommend before pumping out a video that hits millions (cough LTT cough), a lot of this could have been avoided.