Basic arch's difficulty is that it installs jack for you, to the point of stupidity to a extent imo, it's entirely possible to install arch without network drivers or even i believe a display adapter, hence why i almost never suggest installing vanilla arch unless you want to challenge yourself to build your system yourself.
3.Arch, arch is bleeding edge and all that entails, it usually updates integral files like gpu drivers and even the linux kernel within a week of release, arch has the second biggest amount of spin off distros, notable ones are all basically easier to install and use versions of arch (usually with software centers to make it even easier), endeavor os, gaming based garuda linux and catch all current favorite of the gaming community cachy os, i believe the more work based omarchy is also based on arch.
I will say this outright, never install base arch unless you want to build basically a arch based distro from kind of scratch, there are definitely reasons to do it if you know exactly what your doing, but for most users who want a working system it's not worth it unless you want to learn or challenge yourself.
I will definitely say after you've gave me a bit of what Arch is about, I'll appreciate it since I didn't know most of Arch's main issues can be negated if you're using a distro that has most of the stuff covered for you, such as SteamOS. IIRC SteamOS, despite using Arch is also Immutable, which I'm wondering how the hell is that distro even possible to have something like that. maybe that would be the better solution to my NVIDIA Laptop, but I still wouldn't use Linux on there generally speaking due to Paraec no having hosting capabilities on there. I've tried Sunshine/Moonlight and it does work! it just doesn't have its UI and other things to be exactly as straightforward and easy to learn as Parsec.
2.Fedora, fedora is technically a spin off of red hat enterprise for the non enterprise market but became bigger than red hat itself over time, it's something of a middle ground on the update schedule between debian and arch, distros most known from the fedora pipeline are nobara and bazzite, fedora has the smallest amount of distro spins.
Of all the distro kinds there is, the RHEL lineup has to be the best of the bunch. the perfect middle ground for being consistent whilst staying as stable as it can be. i also see it as a spiritual successor to Debian for how similar the dnf package manager is to apt but done MUCH better than it.
I will definitely say after you've gave me a bit of what Arch is about, I'll appreciate it since I didn't know most of Arch's main issues can be negated if you're using a distro that has most of the stuff covered for you, such as SteamOS. IIRC SteamOS, despite using Arch is also Immutable, which I'm wondering how the hell is that distro even possible to have something like that. maybe that would be the better solution to my NVIDIA Laptop, but I still wouldn't use Linux on there generally speaking due to Paraec no having hosting capabilities on there. I've tried Sunshine/Moonlight and it does work! it just doesn't have its UI and other things to be exactly as straightforward and easy to learn as Parsec.
Of all the distro kinds there is, the RHEL lineup has to be the best of the bunch. the perfect middle ground for being consistent whilst staying as stable as it can be. i also see it as a spiritual successor to Debian for how similar the dnf package manager is to apt but done MUCH better than it.
The main problem with steam os currently is it's built around amd gpu's, making nvidia support not that great.
As for fedora, not sure i agree with that stance, but fedora does kinda have to work since red hat enterprise which fedora is based on, is a paid os that MUST work or red hat loses money.
The main problem with steam os currently is it's built around amd gpu's, making nvidia support not that great.
As for fedora, not sure i agree with that stance, but fedora does kinda have to work since red hat enterprise which fedora is based on, is a paid os that MUST work or red hat loses money.
Yeah I see what you mean. I've only meant that because I had better success getting Fedora to run on my stuff than literally any other distro. it's also the one that I know that convinces me to learn more about the terminal more
I jumped around between quite a few distros before settling on Fedora with cachyos kernel for my gaming rig, but I do really like vanilla Debian as well.
The 'just work' nature of things is more attractive to me now, since I don't have as much time to mess around and tinker as I used to.
Regarding GPU support, Intel and AMD are on excellent level, while the other one manufacturer was always pain in ass (citing Linus: “F@(k you, nvidia!”). The same for motherboard chipsets actually.
All Open Source drivers (kernel modules) work mostly well nowadays, but for some cutting edge cards or cheap crappy silicon chips you may need not only fresh kernel, but firmware blobs too, which might come separately. Check your prospective distro wiki page or forums or simply do web search about your chip model support status. Sometimes those fancy ubuntu or arch forks simply cannot keep up or don’t care or even lacking of any support details.
Me, me, me! (Not a power user or developer, but still!)
I am barely new to linux, but even before Windows went down the gutter, I jumped ship.
One thing I don't particularly like about Linux, that the whole development ecosystem hasn't created a solution for, is how unstable the kernel is. Even for distros that are not rolling release, something seems to break every so often that requires a "getting your hands dirty" fix.
It's been an issue for the several years I've used it now, so atleast since I switched, it hasn't been addressed.
One of my friends was turned away from giving the OS a chance because his installation seemed to suffer a cascading series of breakage for zero apparent reason.
The Wayland and Rust rewrite projects could not be completed soon enough...
Post automatically merged:
Oh, and the difficult/maintanance Arch requires definitely seems blown out of proportion.
That title seems to belong to Gentoo, instead.
I jumped around between quite a few distros before settling on Fedora with cachyos kernel for my gaming rig, but I do really like vanilla Debian as well.
The 'just work' nature of things is more attractive to me now, since I don't have as much time to mess around and tinker as I used to.
Well like i said, fedora is fine, i just personally have a disdain for it, function wise it's a good middle ground between arch and debian.
Debian is fine, my personal issues aside, if your not into gaming, using debian is perfectly fine and even with gaming depending on "what" games you play even then it's fine to go debian, if your goal is absolute stability, debian based distros all the way.
Nice grandia avatar btw.
Me, me, me! (Not a power user or developer, but still!)
I am barely new to linux, but even before Windows went down the gutter, I jumped ship.
One thing I don't particularly like about Linux, that the whole development ecosystem hasn't created a solution for, is how unstable the kernel is. Even for distros that are not rolling release, something seems to break every so often that requires a "getting your hands dirty" fix.
It's been an issue for the several years I've used it now, so atleast since I switched, it hasn't been addressed.
One of my friends was turned away from giving the OS a chance because his installation seemed to suffer a cascading series of breakage for zero apparent reason.
The Wayland and Rust rewrite projects could not be completed soon enough...
Post automatically merged:
Oh, and the difficult/maintanance Arch requires definitely seems blown out of proportion.
That title seems to belong to Gentoo, instead.
I don't know what odd hardware your using, but i've literally had only one thing break for me in my year on garuda linux (arch based) that wasn't 100% my fault, and that was kde plasma, specifically a global theme update crashed my DE and i had to reboot kde and delete the theme, haven't had issues ever since, otherwise it's been FAR more stable than windows.
Yeah honestly it feels like it might be more of a hardware issue to me, since i've not had any issues personally and your experience implies it may be related to hardware, either a rare incompatibility, or possibly a short in a usb socket (common cause of BSOD's on windows).
Well like i said, fedora is fine, i just personally have a disdain for it, function wise it's a good middle ground between arch and debian.
Debian is fine, my personal issues aside, if your not into gaming, using debian is perfectly fine and even with gaming depending on "what" games you play even then it's fine to go debian, if your goal is absolute stability, debian based distros all the way.
Nice grandia avatar btw.
I don't know what odd hardware your using, but i've literally had only one thing break for me in my year on garuda linux (arch based) that wasn't 100% my fault, and that was kde plasma, specifically a global theme update crashed my DE and i had to reboot kde and delete the theme, haven't had issues ever since, otherwise it's been FAR more stable than windows.
Yeah honestly it feels like it might be more of a hardware issue to me, since i've not had any issues personally and your experience implies it may be related to hardware, either a rare incompatibility, or possibly a short in a usb socket (common cause of BSOD's on windows).
For starters, my friend is very familiar with MacOS, and I think the proper term to describe him would be 'a power user,' as he develops software for, and on his Macbook.
Since he uses Windows on his desktop for gaming, he wanted to give Linux a try (because Windows has been circling the drain for quite some time now,) and since he was already very familiar with Unix, and I already have Arch installed, I recommended he try Arch out.
My friend and I both use(d) Arch, I installed it using 'archinstall', my friend installed it the old fashioned way. We both use(d) KDE as our DEs. We did not run any mystery commands we read about on tech websites, either. Did not ever use partial system upgrades, we kept our installations up to date, we even installed a package that prevents system updates from applying until you read the latest Arch news on packages that require manual intervention.
I do not think hardware is the problem, either. It wasn't like we installed any esoteric or poorly supported hardware, or bought parts from seedy suppliers or manufacturers, either.
It could very well be a case of PEBCAK; but since we both did it by the book and consulted only the official wiki, I do not understand what we did/are doing wrong. Even looking at his bash history and system logs, I could not find any obvious mistakes or probable causes to his installation breaking over time. In any case, he got frustrated with Linux and gave up since there did not seem to be any obvious cause to everything breaking.
For starters, my friend is very familiar with MacOS, and I think the proper term to describe him would be 'a power user,' as he develops software for, and on his Macbook.
Since he uses Windows on his desktop for gaming, he wanted to give Linux a try (because Windows has been circling the drain for quite some time now,) and since he was already very familiar with Unix, and I already have Arch installed, I recommended he try Arch out.
My friend and I both use(d) Arch, I installed it using 'archinstall', my friend installed it the old fashioned way. We both use(d) KDE as our DEs. We did not run any mystery commands we read about on tech websites, either. Did not ever use partial system upgrades, we kept our installations up to date, we even installed a package that prevents system updates from applying until you read the latest Arch news on packages that require manual intervention.
I do not think hardware is the problem, either. It wasn't like we installed any esoteric or poorly supported hardware, or bought parts from seedy suppliers or manufacturers, either.
It could very well be a case of PEBCAK; but since we both did it by the book and consulted only the official wiki, I do not understand what we did/are doing wrong. Even looking at his bash history and system logs, I could not find any obvious mistakes or probable causes to his installation breaking over time. In any case, he got frustrated with Linux and gave up since there did not seem to be any obvious cause to everything breaking.
This is why i don't think people should install arch unless they are challenging themselves, arch isn't hard to run but vanilla arch is extremely prone to issues due to needing constant upkeep.
If you try linux again i'd suggest cachy os if your going for arch, linux mint if debian and nobara or base fedora if you go for a red hat distro, DO NOT install vanilla arch, you need to know arch through and through to prevent issues on it.
Also you didn't mention exactly what broke on your install, i'm no expert but it sounds like something went wrong in the update schedule.
If you use arch, generally i'd suggest using the chaotic aur over the normal aur if you can, i tend to find it more stable.
This is why i don't think people should install arch unless they are challenging themselves, arch isn't hard to run but vanilla arch is extremely prone to issues due to needing constant upkeep.
If you try linux again i'd suggest cachy os if your going for arch, linux mint if debian and nobara or base fedora if you go for a red hat distro, DO NOT install vanilla arch, you need to know arch through and through to prevent issues on it.
Also you didn't mention exactly what broke on your install, i'm no expert but it sounds like something went wrong in the update schedule.
If you use arch, generally i'd suggest using the chaotic aur over the normal aur if you can, i tend to find it more stable.
I did not know Arch requires more knowledge and experience than that. I kept reading in many comments and forums all over, that it is perfectly usable and somewhat straight-forward as long as you follow the Wiki. Wish I knew that ahead of time, oh well.
In that case, could you recommend a rolling-release distro that has the following:
I did not know Arch requires more knowledge and experience than that. I kept reading in many comments and forums all over, that it is perfectly usable and somewhat straight-forward as long as you follow the Wiki. Wish I knew that ahead of time, oh well.
In that case, could you recommend a rolling-release distro that has the following:
For more ease of use distros cachy os for overall usability and good gaming, garuda linux if you want a gaming desktop focused one, endeavor os is basically vanilla arch with some extra assists, which isn't a bad thing.
I should probably preface the problem with arch linux isn't that it's broken, far from it, it's that it requires you to install everything, so if you don't know 1 obscure dependency, like a library runtime, a program won't work, most more simple to use distros in the arch ecosystem automate some of this, they are all arch, but they take alot of the pain of arch away from it.
Also, the chaotic aur is far more stable and preferred for normal users over the base aur(the aur isn't bad, but it's more closer to a complete wild west and rarely, has a viral package, though they usually get caught fast), i believe both cachy os and garuda linux use the chaotic aur as a default.
Just out of curiosity, what’s “gaming focused” distro? Is it full of pre-installed latest versions of open source games, emulators and Wine wrappers, or something?
I’ve seen some fan made LiveCD/DVD ISO images, like you burn it and boot it up and ready to play anywhere. Is it like that?
I wonder how they hold up over time…
I mean take emulators like PCSX2 or Dolphin, those versions released virtually every day, even few times. I doubt they follow to redistribute all of that.
Of course you can impress your buddies with “I play on Linux” kinda thing right away, but in long run I’d recommend to stick to common popular variant and simply download latest stuff directly from their project pages. Most likely you get fixes and performance improvements right away.
Anyway, commercial gaming channels like Steam or GOG are absolutely decoupled from specific Linux flavor.
Also by using “non-gaming” OS you most likely receive updates to drivers, firmware, security patches and latest tools to help you tune and optimise your experience.
Just out of curiosity, what’s “gaming focused” distro? Is it full of pre-installed latest versions of open source games, emulators and Wine wrappers, or something?
I’ve seen some fan made LiveCD/DVD ISO images, like you burn it and boot it up and ready to play anywhere. Is it like that?
Pre installed or makes it easy to install gaming related programs such as wine, proton-GE and various emulators, you can do this on your own but having it pre-installed makes initial setup easier and take less time, as the saying goes, time is money.
I wonder how they hold up over time…
I mean take emulators like PCSX2 or Dolphin, those versions released virtually every day, even few times. I doubt they follow to redistribute all of that.
Of course you can impress your buddies with “I play on Linux” kinda thing right away, but in long run I’d recommend to stick to common popular variant and simply download latest stuff directly from their project pages. Most likely you get fixes and performance improvements right away.
Anyway, commercial gaming channels like Steam or GOG are absolutely decoupled from specific Linux flavor.
Also by using “non-gaming” OS you most likely receive updates to drivers, firmware, security patches and latest tools to help you tune and optimise your experience.
I've been on garuda for a year as of i believe december 28th, no issues that weren't my fault.
If i had picked a fedora or debian based one the chances of something breaking (though it's already pretty damn small) are even less as they have longer update cycles, the biggest problem with arch is also it's biggest pro, it get's bleeding edge updates as soon as it can hit the pipeline, meaning if a update is bugged then you might have a problem with the program.
As for emulators, they update along with the package update, provided they aren't a source installed package or applimages, update through a syu update, if your on the canary branch of let's say pcsx2 and it updates daily, then it will update daily, though whether you update or not is up to you.
I don't necessarily agree with sticking to popular distros as some of them do not deserve their popularity at this point (looking at you ubuntu) but in the long run it really depends on what you intend to use denuvo for, i wouldn't suggest garuda or bazzite to someone making a server pc for example.
Uh no, gaming os distros are just designed to make the process of setting up a linux gaming setup easier, they otherwise are no different than any other distro and the aur update schedule is usually maintained by the emulator developers themselves with a few exceptions (azahar prefers flatpak, though there is a aur build), most linux versions are no different than the others at the end of the day, it really comes down to the update schedule, unless your manjaro which is a pain in the neck for all arch linux based distro users due to their changes to their own update scheduler while still using the arch linux core, most distros follow the update path of their "root" distro.
Genuiely asking why? I can assume it's similar stuff to Microsoft, but I'd like to know since a lot of modern Linux peeps seem to have a personal grudge against standard Ubuntu
Genuiely asking why? I can assume it's similar stuff to Microsoft, but I'd like to know since a lot of modern Linux peeps seem to have a personal grudge against standard Ubuntu
As a basic distro it's fine, the problems are more tertiary problems that imo, go against what linux is supposed to stand for, the 2 that come to mind especially is the privacy issues as ubuntu sends usage data back to canonical, now you can turn this off but this shouldn't be something that's on by default.
The second is how militantly they try to force the use of snap packages, snap packages aren't bad on their own, but it's basically trying to make a proprietary system on a operating system that is designed to avoid that.
Basically, ubuntu and canonical made ubuntu too similar to windows.
the 2 that come to mind especially is the privacy issues as ubuntu sends usage data back to canonical, now you can turn this off but this shouldn't be something that's on by default.
The first one shouldn't be much of a problem nowadays if you're able to turn that off, but I do understand how this was an issue when it wasn't able to be turned off previously. I assume becuase of that, it definitely hurt their reputation by doing such.
This... I actually thought that anything that uses Ubuntu you cannot get rid of the snap packages that came with it, and the worst part is that I want(ed) to use an ubuntu based distro that didn't come with them, and the only ones I could think of is the Cinnamon Linux Mint and the KDE Plasma KDE Neon.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
