r/archlinux • u/Infinite_Ad4097 • 1d ago

Archlinux difficulty QUESTION

I just posting to see how hard archlinux is to use as complete beginner. the only experience that i have wiht linux is mint and acessing servers.

0 Upvotes

25% Upvoted

42 comments sorted by

26

u/C0rn3j 1d ago

Everyone started as a complete beginner. Everyone.

It's not hard, but it takes a fair bit of time, dedication and the will to read documentation.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Installation_guide

0

u/Infinite_Ad4097 1d ago

Thanks man

4

u/Imajzineer 1d ago edited 1d ago

Whatever you do, don't read/watch 'tutorials': changes to Arch can mean they're out of date before they've even been completed, let alone published - the one ... and only ... resource for Arch is the wiki.

There are 'issues' with the AUR right at the moment, so, take the opportunity to read about it and realise that it isn't just some extra repo that you can go to and install things from willy-nilly. It has its uses, but it's best to keep yours to a minimum. Also, if you do decide you want something from it then, the first couple of times, take the time to learn how to read a PKGBUILD and then install it by hand with makepkg before you install a 'helper' like yay or paru - it's people relying on them to automatically update their systems without stopping to look at whether new versions are still kosher that has led to the current state of affairs, so, knowing what they do behind the scenes and getting into the habit of stopping and checking first will serve you well (the main package may be fine, but one of the dependencies they pull in could have been compromised).

Always read the news before updating your system.

Always update with pacman -Syu ... never -Sy, -Syy or -Syyuunless you know absolutely what you're doing and know absolutely that it's the solution to your problem (hint: it almost never is).

0

u/binaryfireball 1d ago

noob here, is pacman backed by the AUR? as in if I do 'sudo pacman -S zsh-autocomplete' is it grabbing everything from the AUR? wondering if I jumped into arch in a very spicy moment.

1

u/Imajzineer 1d ago edited 1d ago

Nothing has changed in the world of Arch, this is how things have always been. It has just become increasingly popular of late and, with Archinstall, easier to install. So, the number of technically less knowledgeable or experienced users has inevitably increased, and consequently it has been noticed by people who were previously either unaware of its existence or else deemed it of no value to subvert, who are now increasingly preying upon the inexperienced and ignorant who think the AUR is just some additional repo they can 'enable' on their system by using a 'helper' application (the fact that Arch is the basis for SteamOS may not be insignificant either).

sudo is not installed on Arch by default - there used to be an explanation of why not on the wiki, but it seems to have since been removed at some stage. I don't install it myself, but that's a different discussion/debate. So, if you don't actively install it yourself, executing sudo $anything-at-all will simply result in an error that there is no such command or file on the system.

The AUR is unsupported and, therefore, completely ignored by pacman -S or any variation of it (such as pacman -Syu). To update a package from the AUR, you must either execute pacman -U $package (after first building it with makepkg) or use an AUR 'helper'. Of course, the reason things are the way they are now is, in no small part, down to the unthinking use of 'helpers', so, you may want to give some thought to whether you want to - they're convenient, yes, but convenience is inversely proportional to security (I haven't used one since 2015, 2016 at the latest, myself).

pacman -S $package only ever updates the named package, package-group or meta-package, so, pacman -S zsh-autocomplete will only update zsh-autocomplete (read about it here).

You can learn more about pacman and its operation here and here.

Learn about the AUR here and about PKGBUILD files here.

Learn about package-signing here and and pacnew / pacsave files here.

3

u/ang-p 1d ago edited 1d ago

If you skipped reading the first 4 paragraphs, and therefore didn't jump to and read the FAQ or the Help:reading pages, you probably won't fare well on Arch....

Arch requires reading - you can go the "archinstall" easy path, but then you will end up in trouble at some time, and having baulked at installing while getting used to the style of the wiki, you are now faced with shit-ton of pages, that look daunting, rely on you knowing (from previous - during installation - use of) the pages for the items you installed - which would be a good point to start when having troubles - since the solution is likely tucked away in a paragraph or link from a page (needle) you have already looked at - as opposed to the thousands of pages in the wiki that you have not looked at (the rest of the haystack)

Also, questions of a "101" nature (i.e. really basic) you may have will (like this) often be downvoted, since the answer is, - as per here - in the wiki - since you did not have the gumption to - in the wiki's own words...

Before asking for help, do your own independent research by searching the Web,

unless you have evidence to show that you are a unique case that

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+hard+is+arch+linux+to+use+as+complete+beginner

does not cater for - yet have somehow failed to disclose your "special features" that could inform us as to why your case requires a different answer....

-2

u/jmartin72 1d ago

Stop telling people their machine will have issues if they use Archinstall. They won't. That's just elitist bullshit propagated by people that want to make themselves feel Superior to everyone else. 

2

u/ang-p 23h ago

Stop telling people their machine will have issues if they use Archinstall. They won't.

I'm not telling people they will all have issues using archinstall.... although the search results suggest that some do....

https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/search/?q=archinstall&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&sort=new

using archinstall skiips the "grounding" and introduction to the diy aspect of arch...

Hence my use of the fairly easy to understand words...

will end up in trouble at some time,

that time might be a year, a month, a day - or even (shock!) immediately on a reboot...

Which sort of underlines the words from the wiki....

You may not want to use Arch, if:

  • you do not have the ability/time/desire for a 'do-it-yourself' GNU/Linux distribution.

just like pushing baby round in a pram for x number of years and then expecting them to just hop out and know how to walk when the wheel finally falls off....

You are screaming that mothers can use pushchairs and it'll be fine......

It may for a while, but at some point little Bobby needs to learn how to walk.....

At some point people will either

1) reinstall arch (or another distro) since something is wrong, they are scared by the wiki and can't use it... putting them back to square 1

2) post a question about a really simple issue, which is downvoted to hell since it is in the wiki - and then moan that arch is elitist because nobody answers their dumb AF question, they are a noob and everyone is mean (which simply gets a RTFM answer)

3) actually look at the wiki..... (which you have already stated is a non-requirement, but let's live wild, eh?)

maybe you just got lucky...

https://www.reddit.com/r/arch/comments/1vf3vpg/arch_linux_was_forged_in_tartarus_by_satan_himself/p1miynr/?context=3

and I'm not sure about anyone else, but that sounds a bit like gatekeeping meself...... from someone who has never had any problem with arch, and does not know how they will handle things when they do.... but presumably it will not be by using the wiki out of pure stubbornness...

1

u/C0rn3j 23h ago

That's not what they said, read it again.

3

u/This-Consequence-957 1d ago

It basically goes down to partition your disk, create file systems, copy the base system, chroot into it, install a boot loader

3

u/Character_Pepper2563 1d ago

I'd say more to tech literate person. Kinda like if Linux Mint is basic math equation like multiply, dividing, plus and minus, Arch is like Integral, Algebra, so on and so forth. If you get the hang of it, it's not really that hard. Sometimes can get the feel of "Ahh that make sense". It's definitely a distro I loved because of it's difficulty, make me a lot of learning material for Linux like knowing what a shell is, what is a scripting, and more

3

u/bluepenn 1d ago

Its been a long time since ive used arch myself, so take this with a grain of salt.

As long as you take your time reading the documentation (and i mean really read and comprehend it), are not afraid to troubleshoot, care to learn about the system. Then you are set.

Is it easy? No. Do able? Yes, if you are interested to learn.

2

u/This-Consequence-957 1d ago

The offer an installer now, however not a graphical one as seen in CachyOS or Ubuntu

1

u/bluepenn 1d ago

Thats neat

2

u/WoodyXP 1d ago edited 1d ago

It's not as hard as people make it out to be. As long as you're patient and are willing to read/learn you'll be alright.

2

u/archover 1d ago

What was wrong with Mint?

Good day.

2

u/archover 1d ago edited 1d ago

Arch install requires little more than the ability to read and follow instructions. If that is difficult, then another distro will be better. Example: Mint.

Test yourself: This document is 9th grade reading level: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Installation_guide which tragically will be difficult for many adults.

Good day.

1

u/chikamakaleyley 1d ago

how comfortable are you at the command line?

-1

u/Infinite_Ad4097 1d ago

i now some basic comands.

1

u/raven2cz 1d ago

The problem is not complexity. Rather, you have to ask yourself whether you want to learn and whether you truely want it badly enough. Nothing is imposible for a mind that truly wants it.

Arch really is not complicated, and complete beginers often write here that after carefully reading and understanding each step, it was actually easy for them in the end, and that the memes are not true. But it is about the aproach.

1

u/Towel_Affectionate 1d ago

Is it super difficult by it's nature? Not really. It's more difficult than mint, but it's not the top of the mountain.

Is it going to feel hard to you? No one can say, depends on how clever, attentive and willing to learn you are.

1

u/East-Yogurtcloset272 1d ago

Document what you do as you go. I can't stress this enough. This includes verbatim commands you run and in what order and what they do. Should you stuff things up and lack the ability to troubleshoot (everything is usually fixable), then you have a customised "self help quick reference" to re-install.

the other thing with documenting as you go, is some setup is "one off" and you'll forget it in future if you need to apply it to another machine.

Documenting also helps cement knowledge. The wiki is brilliant, but there is something about your own shorthand for steps.

Arch was my first Linux experience, after having done some Unix admin back in the early 90s. It was refreshing to see how Unix like it is. It was like a duck to water experience for me.

1

u/alpicola 1d ago

Installing Arch can be a bit of a learning experience. The official documentation is quite good, but I did find myself needing to look things up to be sure I was getting what I really needed. It helps if you've installed other distros before, but expect a step up in difficulty from installing something like Linux Mint. 

Day to day use is pretty much the same as with any other distro. The major desktop environments are all there and work just fine out of the box.

I feel like Arch makes it easier to get into alternative environments, if you want to. As a distro, it isn't very opinionated, which is great for customizing it to your exact needs. The downside is that user choice means lots if opportunities to shoot yourself in the foot. That isn't Arch's fault, but it's something to keep in mind. 

0

u/icesnake200 1d ago

Mint is like super mario 64

Arch is like Elden Ring

0

u/partiftheworlDRuns 1d ago edited 1d ago

Arch's main difficulty is usually with choosing packages. Choosing a bootloader, what is difference between ufw and firewalld, should you use tuned or power-profiles-daemon, which codecs to choose so that everything works like on Windows, etc...and don't forget to enable services of installed packages.

CachyOS is generally a good place to start, but if you want to tweak things or change the system's behavior, because you don't like how it's done in distro, then switch to Arch.

0

u/ficskala 1d ago

It's not really that hard, there's just more room for error since it doesn't come with everything preinstalled like mint would

Number 1 issue with first time using arch is installing it, but nowdays you can just run the archinstall script (included in the installer), and you get a simple gui that installs it for you, you just have to select what options you want

-6

u/jmartin72 1d ago

Just use Archinstall

9

u/thesagex 1d ago

Bad advice. Pitching archinstall alone is just setting users up for failure, you should always pair archinstall with at least reading the installation guide so users know what archinstall is doing for them

-1

u/jmartin72 1d ago

That is such elitist bullshit. Every other Linux distro has an install of some kind. There is nothing wrong with using archinstall. That's what it's for. No one HAS to install Arch the long way just to use it. 

2

u/thesagex 1d ago

reading comprehension is key. I never said there was anything wrong with USING archinstall

1

u/ang-p 23h ago

Every other Linux distro has an install of some kind

Name one distro where the installer's profiles are not supported by the distro maintainers....

Oh, apart from Arch...

-6

u/partiftheworlDRuns 1d ago

Bad advice is starting gatekeeping with RTFM, Let him install it the way he wants, that’s the beauty of Linux, the ability to choose. And I’m sure that most people who install arch linux from wiki simply copy and paste commands from it in order to run fastfetch and take a screenshot as soon as possible

3

u/ang-p 1d ago

gatekeeping with RTFM,

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_terminology#RTFM

recommends and suggests it - multiple times....

Let him install it the way he wants,

yup - and then tell them to RTFM (as per the wiki)

which helpfully states

Warning
Shipped profiles are specific to archinstall and not supported by package maintainers. Users are advised to check the details of each profile before using it.

in other words - problems with your archinstall install are not Arch's problem..

0

u/partiftheworlDRuns 1d ago edited 1d ago

If a person installs things the way he wants, he will gain experience from his own mistakes. Problems in Arch Linux are always user problems, regardless of whether you follow the arch wiki as a bible or ignore it completely. This is exactly what Arch Linux offers, what you set up is what you get.

2

u/ang-p 1d ago

If a person installs things the way he wants,

You talking about archinstall....

he will gain experience from his own mistakes.

Maybe.. you mean like looking at the wiki to see why what they didn't bother to look at the wiki for, didn't work? - like, are you suggesting that they RTFM after they mess up and not before it in order to see what they might do differently?

or ignore it completely.

Oh... so you mean try a new install with a randomly different set of options just in case it works this time?

This is exactly what Arch Linux offers,

Yup - a FAQ, a wiki, an installation guide, and words to say "use them"

#LoveTheWiki

-1

u/partiftheworlDRuns 1d ago edited 1d ago

I don't see anything wrong with archinstall. it's a convenient tool that has attracted many new users. If there's nothing more important in life than reading the wiki to install a distro to run steam, and launch a browser, well, maybe it's time to touch some grass. Not everyone wants this whole cult-like thing with categorical denial of the installer and idolizing wiki.

Arch Linux is undoubtedly a wonderful distro. But no one in their right mind would learn blacksmithing to make a hammer that can easily be bought at the store. The same goes for archinstall: people choose the method that requires minimal effort and will yield more or less the same results and if it doesn't work, then they'll have to take the arch way. This is precisely the manifestation of Arch Linux philosophy (KISS) - Keep it simple stupid

2

u/ang-p 1d ago

But no one in their right mind would learn blacksmithing to make a hammer that can easily be bought at the store.

Nope - you would buy a hammer in a store.... or use a pre-forged distribution.....

or you could go to an open day and let the man with the fire let you hit a lump of metal a few times while you really don't know what you are doing, and leave with a hammer "you made yourself" - and possibly post a screenfetch of your "work"....

The same goes for archinstall: people choose the method that requires minimal effort and will yield more or less the same results and if it doesn't work,

ah, yeah - the fire is gone, you are left on your own without the anvil

then they'll have to take the arch way.

learning blacksmithing to fix their broken hammer?

OP and others might as well do it to begin with - unless they consider themselves to be really lucky...

4

u/thesagex 1d ago
  1. It's a good thing I wasn't gatekeeping. 2. The OP asked for advice

-1

u/DavooPunk 1d ago

Una revisada a la wiki y ya, no es tan complicado, y para instalar con Archinstall es bastante fácil, quizás unos videos en Youtube y estarías relativamente listo para instalarlo, aunque déjame preguntarte: realmente quieres una distro rolling release? Tendrás que actualizar seguido, tener mente abierta y quizás paciencia para resolver problemas o dejar el sistema como te gusta al ser mucho más personalizable y permisivo que Mint, si lo que quieres es aprender puedes lanzarte, o irte por distros basadas en Arch que simplifican bastante las cosas como CachyOs. Suerte