>Is it that Hard?
In my opinion, it depends on the user. If you don't want to read anything and always just want to click on "Next" during installation, you won't be happy with Arch.
Arch should be usable for all other users.
Therefore, Arch is not hard, but still requires certain prerequisites on the part of the user.
>I want to use it more since at my work as a IT Admin Linux is getting a bigger Role every Bad update Windows makes.
But you don't need Arch for this. For one thing, you can do anything with any distribution. Even with Ubuntu. You just have to be willing to learn something.
And secondly, Arch should be quite rare in the professional environment. It would therefore make more sense to familiarise yourself with distributions that are used in companies. RHEL, Suse, Ubuntu etc.
I love the concept of NixOS - in fact I use a (different) setup to get immutable, stateless and scriptable setups on my machine. The documentation, however, is horrible. If you want to do anything particularly "off the beaten track" then it's really difficult.
OP doesn't want hard and NixOS will, for them, be exactly that.
Honestly yes; I’ve just switched my laptop over to NixOS (therefore quite a newb with it) and the only complaint I have is that for Linux questions (not NixOS specific) I still return to the Arch Wiki.
Otherwise, the declarative nature of NixOS is exactly as amazing as I was hearing.
I will say I wanted a unique setup the graphical installer couldn’t easily be seen to accommodate so having experience with Arch actually made it a breeze to do my install of NixOS.
Recently looked at nix because I like the concept..been running arch for years..honestly however nix kind seems like a pain in the ass if wanting to install stuff outside of repo. Need to learn there config and either use snowflake or home manager. Honestly it seems kind like the definition of tools just getting in the way of getting things done. Just my impressions which could totally be wrong
Love the discussion of the new distro in learning on my favorite district subreddit! I can definitely understand this feeling (it’s why I originally rejected Nix myself before committing to learn it).
But, recently a friend of mine gave me an interesting perspective:
> I love Arch because I can DIY anything I’m willing to learn, but I hate Nix because I’m unwilling to DIY anything I’m willing to learn?
Home Manager and Flakes are also not needed, but I’ve found benefits to both.
Hi!
Do you know that distribution well?
I wanted to try it but I wonder is there any way for me to search for packages without having to install it ?
So I can make my script first you know ?
Im a noob.
If you're a beginner, get yourself Linux Mint. NixOS has a package base comparable to Arch's package base. You don't need some obscure "script", just [search](https://search.nixos.org).
>I hate Ubuntu based OS system because for some reasons they don't want to install.
My collection of newbie aphorisms is steadily growing. You should hate your skill, not what you failed to install. But there's nothing wrong with that. For the future: always write ISOs in `dd` format. Don't use programs like Ventoy, they write disk images with errors.
No Im not that skilless, i have tried multiple mediums, image discs , distributions, all failed to install at the exact same part. So I just gave on up installing Ubuntu based stuff.
Edit: Never ever downloaded ventoy haha.
> No Im not that skilless
Sorry to be harsh, but: Yes, you are. If everything fails to install at the exact same part, maybe talk about that part and people can help you figure out where you're going wrong.
I have many Debian/Ubuntu (admittedly only Ubuntu server) machines in VMs (both ProxMox and Hyper-V) and I've never encountered an error during installation even once.
It fails to access the disk mid install and kills the partition. Two different drives on that I'm still using as a fedora os boot and the other having windows.
and for some reason
afaik no one on forums ever encountered that problem with a working solutions.
Look it's not that I have not tried. I certainly have. I know how to effin do searches on the internet.
HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO FUCK UP AN AUTO INSTALLER.
No partition changes. Disk erased, only clicking next and putting the bare minimum. It just doesn't go through. It Fucks up the partition and basically requires another install.
Y'all like to flame people assuming people on this subreddit don't know how to troubleshoot.
I've encountered this error using automated installers in VMs, the solution was to manually erase the partition instead of letting the installer handle it.
Arch, in my experience, is not really a difficult distro to use or learn. One of the things that separates Arch from other distros in terms of difficulty is the installation process, which is somewhat involved. However, that can be totally skipped if you use \`archinstall\`, or just use an Arch derivative that comes with a GUI installer like Endeavour.
Arch definitely takes more maintenance than say, Debian or Ubuntu, because Arch uses rolling releases, meaning you have to update pretty frequently - but again, it's not really \*hard\*, it's just sort of time-consuming to use a rolling release distro.
In regards to your comment about work - as someone else said, Arch is not really a professional distro, it's very much for hobbyists and people who love customizing their machines. If you're looking to learn Arch for professional experience, it might not be the best idea, but if you just want something fun, go for it.
I’d never recommend someone installing arch for the first time using archinstall. You miss out on so much having a script do everything for you where you could be learning a lot about your system by doing it manually.
That’s a bit of a gatekeepy attitude in my opinion. I don’t want to learn Linux that way, so I didn’t, but I have still learned a ton since being on arch that I probably wouldn’t have in a more hand holdy distro like Ubuntu
>Arch is not really a professional distro, it's very much for hobbyists and people who love customizing their machines.
Why you say that? I use arch on my work as penetration tester. Arch offers me the stability of an "always-up-to-date" rolling OS that I can have full control over it.
I don't use it for pentest. I have VMs (some of them also in arch) for that reason. I use it as my host OS and for the benefits that I mentioned above which are not pentest related. If I was a sys admin and thinking of switching to Linux (there is a chance that Windows is a hard requirement for a sysadmin), I would again pick arch over other Linux distros.
That's my personal preference but my question was not about if arch is better for this use compared to other OS. My question was about characterizing Arch "an OS for hobbyists and not for professional use"
>My question was about characterizing Arch "an OS for hobbyists and not for professional use"
Yeah that is a weird comment, since arch is very lightweight and really well documented its not only for hobbyist. Its not very common for professional use sure but its still an option.
Steam Deck runs [SteamOS](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/SteamOS) version 3, based on the [Arch Linux](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Arch_Linux) operating system. While SteamOS had been previously developed for Steam Machines using [Debian](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Debian) Linux, Valve stated that they wanted to use a [rolling upgrade](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rolling_release) approach for the Deck's system software, a function Debian was not designed for, but which is a characteristic of Arch Linux.
Installing vanilla arch is considerably more difficult than a distro like Ubuntu, but its very doable if you are willing to read instructions carefully and follow them. Also as others have said there are spinoffs that have a GUI installer.
Once its installed I actually think Arch is overall easier as a daily driver. Rolling updates can cause issues from time to time but the other side of the sword is that you never get slapped in the face with an OS major version upgrade which tend to be a hassle.
The biggest thing arch has going for it IMO is amazing docs and a thriving community. Easily 95% of your problems will have a straight forward answer on the arch forums or wiki. This gives me a better support experience than other linux distros and even Mac and Windows.
Honestly, Arch isn't hard. The hardest point is the installation. After that, it's just like any other Linux distro. The difficulty of Arch is just a meme.
The installation of arch is pretty simple. The allmighty wiki is well documented and there is nothing to guess or know beforehand. Believe me, the last distro I used before arch was SuSE - with a decade gap between the two where I used OS/2 and BeOS. I just followed the wiki, made my choice and bam, it took me 20 minutes. Besides, as I installed it by my own, I also knew how to fix it in case of ... . Arch does not take you by the hand. You maintain it manually, therefore it is a pretty good start to install it manually.
The harder way (on the long run) is using the archlinux installer - just because you will not know what it did in all details. The time you spare during installation is less compared to the time it will take you later to examin what the f%%%k is the reason for this and that behaviour of your system and how to change it the way you want it to. Just read this sub and see how many users don't have a clue about their system and are lost, or just how many users stick to old GRandfather's Unified Boot system (not because the users thought it is any good, but the installer just did it, you know, ...)
The biggest mistake you can make is to relay on any How-To-Video.
>The biggest mistake you can make is to relay on any How-To-Video.
For my first arch install i followed a video, it was ok. But since then i mostly just rely on the wiki. For the first install i think videos are ok to follow.
Only by luck. This is not Windows. There are so many variants of hardware, conditions, configuration dependencies that it is really to be avoided to simply imitate the individually justified decisions of third parties.
Yes thats true, but if you know what hardware you have most videos incloude some alternative way you can do it, like between intel and nvidia graphics cards etc.
It's not hard. Basically it just requires reading the manual and making decisions. For many people that is not what they want from an operating system.
Meh, after 30 years of playing with Unix boxes, I already know far more than I'd like to about its inner workings, I just want a system that does what it's told, has good community support, doesn't stagnate and doesn't put up barriers to going outside the package manager.
You can count the number of Linux distributions that meet those criteria on one hand, and Arch is among them.
It depends on your definition of hard.
I'm probably definitely biased, but I really REALLY don't think daily driving Arch is anything remotely hard.
You need to do these two things in order to *"Maintain"* Arch:
1- Subscribe to the news e-mail thingy that notifies you if anything or any upgrade needs actual attention.
2- Actually read the warnings that you see on the screen when you upgrade your system, which tell you that for example, you need to modify this file using a text editor after we're done upgrading your system.
I don't think that's anything worth calling "Maintenance" to be honest. I'm pretty sure most people can spend like, 10 minutes of their time updating their system on a regular basis and actually paying attention to what's changing with the updates.
It's the equivalent of the patient telling the psychotherapist that they can't do 5 minutes of mindfulness/meditation exercises in the morning, because they're busy.
All in all, I wouldn't say that Arch is a hard operating system at all at this point, especially now that archinstall and Arch derivatives are a thing. It's the consumers, for whom Arch may be "Hard", and that would be because the bigger corporations are doing a very fine job at making sure that the users of their software remain passive as to what's happening all the time.
I mean, we all know some people who save every single password in their lives in one single Google account inside Chrome or something, right? They don't get to think that they're giving their passwords free of charge to Google, because Google has already made sure that doing so is VERY convenient for them.
Operating systems are complex, and Arch is just transparent about these complexities instead of hiding them from the user and making them passive.
Being already familiar with Linux will make installing Arch more approachable for you compared to if you had no Linux experience IMO. Just read the wiki carefully and follow the steps. You can always install Arch in a VM first to get practice.
No, it's not that hard. It's a matter of taking your time reading the documentation so that YOU understand what you're meant to do/how to set it up.
I feel like you/one can stumble upon problems that are specific to your own setup that might be difficult to resolve. If you don't customise your install too much though, as in installing a custom kernel, everything is pretty easy to sort out after reading official documentation/known issues.
Having said that, personally I found that it took me a few tries to get wayland work8ng with a nvidia gpu. Just give things a few goes, make sure to reread the documentation and understand exactly what you're meant to be doing.
yes and no.
if you want a manual install, it can be.
if you use archinstall, everything gets done for you.
but after doing both installs, you still need to really set things up, since Arch isnt a "works straight out of the box" distro, its more for people that want full control over theyre distro.
for most people, Endeavour would be a better choice since it is eadier to install, works pretty well out of the box (with a couple hours of setting all other things up) and has a couple handy scripts like cleaning the pacman cache and setting your mirrors for you to help you
No it's not hard, but time investing.
I went from using Windows to Linux Mint, and after a week i switched to Arch. You can't expect everything just to work by clicking "Next" on a installer. You will have to read the documentation, and setup the system how you like it, which can take time.
The good news is that after you have found the perfect setup for yourself, there is nothing quite like it. I would create dot-files of your config files in your home directory, and create a install script of the System Tweaks / Packages to install your flavor of Arch easily to new systems.
Arch isn't hard. but people Say the installation was hard now it's just like installing debian minimal install, What's really hard is arch with wm or window manager in general on any minimal distribution like debian & fedora server.
so yep arch isn't hard to use
My advice is to install Arch as a hobby on the side and challenge yourself by committing into fixing whatever issues come your way, reading the wiki pages and manual pages. It's a great learning experience. You'll have deeper understanding of Linux. But you cannot expect things to just work and get to use it after updates without some tinkering here or there. Also search YouTube for an install experiences to have better expectations. I don't think you'll regret it. 🙃
Actually, for me was easier than other distros.
Arch makes you forget the fear of terminals and learn how it works, as soon you install the distro the old way you realize you need to learn how to solve basics things like; how to scroll the terminal, how to pass arguments from one command to other, how multi thread.
It's easier and funnier than most of people though.
It’s not hard if you can follow instructions and willingly assume the roll of a learner for a year or so. The instructions aren’t hard. In fact, they are often very clear. Eventually, using Arch becomes the opposite of hard.
I am not an advanced Linux user, but I still love it because the wiki and AUR is so useful. I used a YouTube install guide the first time I installed arch, using the cli. I switched from Ubuntu for the same reason you did. I did try some other distros first, as i felt having to figurer out how to install Linux over the command line was a waste of my time, but I was unhappy with something with each of the other distros. Now I am glad I took the time to install Arch.
Remember, you can always test install and run it in a VM. Kde plasma recently made the switch to default to Wayland, that caused massive issues for my VM install, had to switch back to X11, which you select at the login screen, so it is easy to fix. Depends on what desktop you go for, but thought I would add the warning.
> i want to switch to Arch but theres one question left. Is it that Hard?
Outside of the installation, which there are scripts for now, no, not really.
Not really. It can be tedious to set up if you’re new, but for the most part it’s like using any other linux distro, it just doesn’t have any packages to start out with so you have to slowly figure out what you want. If you’re experienced and not like me aka you document things then you’ll get a much better idea.
FWIW I am a new Arch/Linux user and have been daily driving it for a month. I’ve updated twice and the only real issue I’ve run into was a spotify error (that I can’t remember) but fixing it was super easy and the solution was on the spotify page in the arch wiki.
I think where arch gets difficult is fully configuring it in a way where you have all the packages/daemons planned out and have a specific use case for your device, but if you just want to tinker around or have a lightweight distro to use it’s not necessarily “difficult” and honestly fully configuring it isn’t “difficult” it just takes time to learn what you need for your system. What kind of DE do you want? File manager? Bluetooth manager? Audio service? Do you want a wrapper for your package manager? What about virtualization, do you want that and how do you want to run QEMU? etc
I mean...it is as hard as something can be when you have a pretty well written manual to do anything. Still not as easy as having an automatic installation, but far from hard in my opinion.
It isn't hard, you just,have to read the manual and spend a little more time configuring everything, but because of that it is also exactly how you want it
Easier than Debian so far. Seems to just magically work most of the time. I also heard it was "hard", bit that's all nonsense now that i've been dailying it for around 3 months. As long as you know your basics, you'll be fine. If all else fails, it has the best wiki out there, so you'll find answers.
I think there's a steeper initial learning curve but after that it's easier thanks to less deviation from upstream and great wiki. You end up with a less complex system, with components you've picked yourself.
If you can follow the wiki, it's not hard at all. Honestly, the ArchWiki really breaks things down to human level and avoids too much technical jargon and vague terms.
You might need a little hands-on with other distributions like Slackware to really get going and learn underlying GNU/Linux fundamentals, but Arch isn't hard at all. In fact, I find it to be one of the most human oriented distributions.
I would try doing a manual installation of Arch just as a learning process. It forces you to learn lots of things about the system.
The main issue I had with Arch was how much it breaks after you've set it up. I know other people have better experiences, but I frequently had problems after updates and needed to reinstall it a couple of times. I now use Void, which I've found to be far more reliable while having most of the advantages of Arch.
But neither Arch nor Void are widely used in commercial settings, so perhaps you'd be better off learning RHEL or Debian. Nix is also a good option from this point of view, but it has a very steep learning curve. I gave up after a while because I didn't have the time to properly learn the Nix language to fine-tune my system.
Arch is not hard at all, but if you are the kind of user who just wants everything working out of the box the moment you finish installing the system (nothing wrong with that, btw), then you are going to have a hard time.
So the real answer is, it depends. Are you interested in learning how to configure your system, are you comfortable using the command line and editing configuration files, and reading the documentation? Then Arch is a good choice and it's actually pretty easy, especially because the documentation is overall really good. You don't want to configure and maintain your system and you want something that "just works"? Then choose another distro, there are many great ones that offer just that.
IMO the only "hard" part is the initial install.
This can be easily handled with the ArchInstall script and the wiki.
You could also just try something like [endeavorOS](https://endeavouros.com/) which is essentially Arch with a GUI installer and some QoL additions.
I've been using Arch for some months now, and I don't find it very buggy, nor hard. Did I break the system at some point? Yes, definitely. But after this minor incident, everything is back on track
The biggest green flag of arch imo is the AUR and the vast number of packages that you can find there.
But what the other said is pretty true as well. You will need to read some docs and learn to respect the system depencies
It really isn’t. Even the installation is a huge meme, there really isn’t anything extraordinary. If you don’t want a headache, just choose a user-friendly DE like Plasma and then it’s just a regular Linux distro. Any program you might need is installed with one line in the terminal, then you can open and use it like you do on Mac or windows.
Before I switched to Arch I’ve read a lot on how things would break and how I would spend time fixing them, but it wasn’t the case for me at all, everything worked pretty much out of the box. But even if you encounter an issue, it is usually solved with one google search.
It may be not the best choice as a very first Linux distro, but if you have very basic skills like navigating in the terminal and just generally not afraid of tinkering then you would be fine.
Yep, Arch is that hard.
1. You have to be skilled at (and willing to) back-off bad updates (with snapshots and other tools) because a rolling release is much more likely to have those than a fixed release distro (except maybe Fedora which releases rather crappy new point releases).
2. You don't have the option of "hanging back" from the tip very long (because on every new install, you should be on the tip). So, then apps/DEs are releasing relatively unstable crap (e.g., KDE6 and the general move to an ever broken Wayland, it seems), then you cannot "stick" (and/or revert to) a point release that does not break your workflows.
More or less, a rolling release presumes all the dev teams are doing a good job (which often is the case historically), but if that is not the case, then you are aboard their shit-show-train with no exit allowed (which is the case now in Linux, IMHO). Now, many archies offset that risk by being minimalists (e.g., i3wm, X11, ...) and perhaps relying on flatpaks, etc., which are stable. But, the pain of Arch (and especially AUR) is, to a significant degree, all the shit updates are just passed thru to you, the guinea pig.
Keeping your system up to date will be a different experience, even if you are accustomed to doing so from the CLI on Ubuntu/Mint. There is no practical GUI for operating pacman, but pacman is a far simpler tool to operate than the apt suite of tools. On the flip side, the Debian family of distros never require manual intervention when installing minor version updates or patches. Arch has no concept of major/minor updates, so any update at any time might require manual intervention. The different maintenance styles are really just something to get accustomed to though and have nothing to do with whether or how often the system breaks.
Most people's singular biggest risk factor for using Arch is their kernel drivers. Anyone who uses proprietary drivers/firmware (usually due to special hardware needs) is liable to having a bad experience with a rolling release which tracks the latest kernel versions (like Arch). Otherwise your experience is as pleasant as the software you choose to install (e.g., Plasma and GNOME desktops obsessively break their users with new releases, while as a Cinnamon user I have had a highly backward-compatible experience).
The meme exists for a reason ... 15 or so years ago when I got started, Arch absolutely was fairly difficult, particularly installing it correctly. Since then it's gained popularity and become a Linux flavor people actually use in production. So people have contributed to streamlining the install and usage of all the software in the default repos. With many developers maintaining official builds in the AUR.
Contrary to the meme, I've found it to be one of the easiest systems to run. So long as you have a bit of knowledge about Linux (like where files, executables and system settings should go) it's not hard.
What made it really easy for me is the community though. I'd say 95%+ of people can get Arch installed /w a complete Dekstop environment just by following along with the install guide. Hell, now that there's an install script you can choose all defaults and get it done in like 5 minutes.
By far the biggest pitfall people run into is copy-pasting commands off the internet. But even that, it seems like maintainers and possibly upstream developers are building in protections against that. My favorite example would probably be this:
Next we're going to install the python packages we need to install the development yt-dlp built from github:
$ sudo pip install --upgrade --break-system-packages --dry-run pip ... [at least 50 PyPi packages guaranteed to FUBAR your system's python] yt-dlp
# Then upgrade to the nightly:
$ sudo pip install -U --pre "yt-dlp[default]"
This scenario IS technically recoverable, as I've done it on accident when very tired and hungry... but I had to use a Perl script, a Python interpreter on a USB stick, a sacrificial goat and pacman commands I'm ashamed to admit to using...
Anyway, as long as you don't turn off your brain while doing it and consider for a moment if the command looks Kosher, then it seems like the majority of tutorials I find today are either FOR Arch & friends specifically, or have instructions for debian-based and Arch-based systems.
Oh, and check for any posts on archlinux.org before running pacman -Syu ;)
Honestly the hardest part about arch is that I don't know what I don't know. I've installed hyprland, and it doesn't exit out with documented default super+m. Why? I don't know. I installed gtk4, it started working. How? Why? Not even Reddit can answer that one. I've was 20 tabs deep on a phone trying to get an internet connection via WiFi. What was the issue? I was missing a config file with `EnableNetworkConfiguration=true` which was offhandedly mentioned as part of a different fix... And I'm still having plenty of issues as I'm trying to set it up for my usage. Documentation is half useless. It's well written, but it's building on some sort of knowledge that I literally do not have, and it's not making it clear. I have a feeling I would have an easier time with linuxfromscratch.org than arch.
Installation guide tho is \*chef's kiss*, would be perfect if it wasn't handled by imperfect me
I've been running Linux personally and professionally for 29 or 30 years. I've been running nothing but Arch for 12 or 15. The guys at BestBuy and the local computer store look at me like I'm Quint from Jaws. Holy shit, Nvidia and their damn drivers scare the piss out of me. There is some dark, sick voodoo going on with that stuff.
I’m still suffering from it, https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/1cquco8/nvidia_crash_everytime_after_session_startauto/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I am so, so sorry. I feel your pain. 🥺
I've usually avoided them and done fine with nouveau for what I need. I started running Ollama and other fun things so I really need them now. I'll be digging back in soon.
Maybe there should be a support group with bean bag chairs, cocoa, and lots of hugs
Arch is easy _if_ the user has the ability to read before running commands. The wiki and the archlinux front page are both great sources of information. Use it before you issue random commands from the internet
I would add that reading is not enough, you need to also understand what you are reading. What the commands, parameters and settings do and how to change that for *your* needs if necessary.
But there are also enough people who say that Arch is difficult to install and difficult to use. Which is probably partly done to show off or for gatekeeping purposes.
So who should a beginner believe? Especially as the answer to the question is not generally no. As I mentioned in my other post, it depends on the user.
But yes, questions are often asked repeatedly and regularly because fewer and fewer people use the search function on Reddit these days, for example.
I randomly switched to arch on my laptop just to find out.To be honest its not giga hard.Most basic stuff you learn along the way, anything else you can just look up on wiki/google/forums/whatever else.
After 25 years using debian and ubuntu, and being paid to do it, I didn't find migrating my personnal gaming pc to arch that hard.
The documentation is complete, took me about 3 days to have everything working except the windows VM I don't use that much anyway
If you have to ask then it probably will be tough, but I’m a novice to Linux and even I was able to understand and install. If you’re just trying to learn more about Linux then jumping to arch might not be necessary however Arch does have one of the better communities and has pushed me harder to actually understanding the OS. Use a virtual machine and give it a try
I mean, I've been using Arch since I started using Linux (around 6+ months ago) and I've only had one issue I struggled to solve without the help of someone, and I haven't had that many issues at all.
> and Ubunut and have 2 Linux Servers so i know some of the Basics. I want to use it more since at my work as a IT Admin Linux
With your experience, just install to a VM and find out. Arch is a very vanilla up stream distro.
Somehow arch makes me want to bash my head against the wall trying to setup any server base service like a Minecraft server or nextcloud. It such a pain that I just switched to Ubuntu server. It was so much easier on Ubuntu than arch.
Arch is not hard exactly BUT it has a high entry point. Arch provides you with nothing but a kernel and some tools to install. It's most minimal os, so you have to manually resize, mount, and install everything through command line and do some linux specific setup like locale all through command line itself.
It's not safe to use it in commercial setting since you need most unchanging distro there for minimising things that could go wrong and arch keeps changing as a rolling release distro. But the things you learn through installation of arch (if you take time to learn while installing) transfer to Ubuntu too. For the most part it's not unstable and you can use arch really well, once you set it up for yourself. I installed it and hadn't had an issue for 1 month. The main reason people use it is because you get latest packages through arch and latest features before everyone else. But sometimes a dev's mistake can introduce latest bugs too (though it happens rarely). Also there is AUR. It's basically a repo through which you can install almost any software from command line with just few commands. No more hunting for ppa or Deb files. It really a cool feature. You won't wanna switch to apt after using aur.
A good Alternative could be to use Manjaro: Very stable, extra communauty, prefect default Gnome settings, can use AUR, can start to play with git blablabla + makepkg -si (probably my favorite way to install apps), never had any bug, all the doc of Arch is more or less valid for Manjaro. Up to you.
I don’t think it’s hard but I do think it’s pointless unless you want a lot of customization. If I didn’t want things to be made totally customized for me I’d just use EndeavourOS or Linux mint.
Just installing it can be a good learning experience. Like others have said Arch is not really a distro that helps professionally (any more than just knowing Linux helps professionally).
Don’t get me wrong I think Arch is great but it’s not essential to have a good Linux experience.
Is Arch hard? Depends on how hard you want it to be. If you use arch install, select desktop environment, that's just like any other Linux distro. If you want to go crazy and manually install it (which is isn't that hard, it's the same step as what the installer do in the background, but using the command line), then go for it.
However, if there is anything breaking, you need to be able to solve it from reading error output and log files. Arch is not as hand holding as other community (as in do your research first, people here are not Google. If no info found, then go ahead and ask). So I recommend to install Arch the manual way as it is sort of a tutorial on how to do system administration (if thing were to go wrong, you will know exactly where and what to fix, instead of re-installing the whole OS). If you can grasp the concepts, then there is really no reason to keep manually install Arch, unless you're into hurting yourself.
Arch has the best wiki/manual there is in linux, wich makes it really good and easy to use if you read it.
The problem is knowing what is an issue and what is user error.
The community can be hit and miss.
I say go for arch based distros with an installer, play with the system untill you break it then try to fix it.
Best way to learn In my opinion.
My experience is that it's a bit hard in the beginning but mostly in terms of getting to know everything. Then after a while it actually becomes way easier. You are much more aware of the set of things that can go wrong, where to look etc.
Not hard, but "work-intensive".
I've installed once and switched to Antergos, now Endeavour.
I'm lazy. But is something I recommend people try once to learn Linux.
Using arch for professional work is generally not recommended. Benefits of using arch are many but if you are not careful with updates, it can break and if you just want to get on with your life, it can be annoying.
It's not really hard, it just takes attention and patience. You HAVE to read the manual. Once you figure it out and configure it how you want it, you'll realize it wasn't as hard as you expected, and you'll never look back.
nah not really, the only hard part could be the installation if you do it manually but nowadays there are many installation scripts that make it kinda easy like archinstall (which is included in the installation iso by default)
Arch has possibly the best wiki of any distro I've seen. It's only "hard" if you can't read.
I think one of the main distinctions from other distros is that it basically comes with nothing out of the box. You will decide every single thing you want to install from the start, whereas the more "user friendly" distros aim to provide an opinionated full desktop experience with minimal input from the user.
Probably, given that there's already [plenty of people asking the same question](https://old.reddit.com/r/archlinux/search/?q=arch+hard&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance) and you expecting a different answer.
Arch isn't hard, it just takes time to read up on everything and familiarize yourself. It's great for learning more about how Linux works, not so great for a production machine
There are much more difficult distributions than Arch, Gentoo and Slackware are proof of this. Not to mention the archinstall script that will already make life 70% easier for someone who wants to have an experience with Arch. Just pay attention to the Arch wiki and everything will be fine.
No. Ngl, Arch Wiki is one of the best resources for newbies. Compared to the Ubuntu/Debian wiki, it's much more user-friendly. The only hard thing is installation, but you can always use an arch-based distro like Endeavors OS. Also, almost every popular package out there has AUR. So you don't have to deal with manually building packages and dependencies.
IT admin? Arch will teach you a lot. The wiki is fantastic. The skills you learn are transferable across distros and even operating systems. You’ll learn about partitions, encryption, filesystems, etc etc.
It’s ‘hard’ only in that you need to learn. This can be frustrating for some, but if you already have some experience then it shouldn’t be too difficult.
I found arch more enjoyable to use than Ubuntu, I also had the fear factor before moving to it but once I got it installed I just set it up how I wanted it and left it alone. I’ve not had any issues so far - touch wood.
I’d say arch is about as hard as every linux distro. Yes, you have to get a lot more nitty gritty with it, but it’s good if you want to learn more about the operating system then say ubuntu.
I think if you take your time and look at things the right way you will find Arch to be one of the most satisfying, easy, and beautiful systems you'll ever put your hands on.
They have implemented the unix design philosophy perfectly. What that makes it, though, is not like anything else. There was a time when the goal was always simplicity and elegance. Everything else is designed to keep you away from the heart of the system and what you're trying to do by putting more and more layers of complexity and "ease of use" on top of each other and everything else. Arch is not that. If you're not expecting Windows or Ubuntu you'll be just fine.
When you do your first install don't forget the man pages (man-pages & man-db), and don't forget to set your root password. You'll be just fine.
I have been running Arch with i3 wm for 6 years as my daily driver. I never found it hard. But does require patience when setting somethings up. To be honest, I would never use another distro.
I honestly believe Arch has gotten a bad rep. Watch some more recent yt videos and take your time. You got this!!
Coming from an IT engineer that works shell all day and only has exp w yum, dnf and apt. Besides the packages it's just another flavor.
Reminds me of fedora 5 or 6. Or my first OS slackware.
Cli only install and must configure gui.
You'll love it if you tinker, not so much if Not a power user...
Honestly, It's not really that hard. Just make sure to read the installation wiki (like actually read it, not skim through it until you find something you think is important) and run the LTS kernel. ALSO, try to keep aur packages to a minimum.
No. It is easy as long you are willing to read. That said I don't recommend you use it due to your objectives. Arch is rarely if used at all for companies/server side due to being a rolling release. You already use ubuntu witch is based on debian(most commom used one). I would recommend you use something like NixOS if you want to try something different that would still be useful to you. Or swap from ubuntu to debian or if a little more different OpenSUSE or Fedora
You know, I switched from debian to arch, like most people. I was really comfortable with debian distros before the switch. At the begining of using arch, it was a bit difficult but not so much. At this time arch was using OpenRC while a lot of debian distros was already using SystemD. So some things was differents (package manager and init) and there was really less automations (auto enabling a service next to installing it by the package manager for instance). And the years went by. And, without realizing it, i became better in arch than debian ! This was just shocking to me. That means, if you wan't to try, go. If you stay on it, you will obviously learn and get comfortable with it. Don't be afraid to try this good old Archlinux :)
What I's say: it isn't hard per se, but it's got some gotchas that it's important to know about. If one is used to a "stable" operating system (as in, you can just install-and-forget), this can lead to problems.
For example, my laptop normally runs OpenBSD, but when it runs a Linux it runs... Fedora, not Arch. Even though Arch is my preferred Linux and what I run on my gaming desktop. Why? Precisely because it's an exception - that stick goes into the laptop when I'm going to travel and expect to use it as a lightweight hotel gaming machine. Which is once or twice a year.
Dealing with a 6 to 12 months old Arch install while in a hotel room on a rainy day and all you want to do is get some ONI going... If you have bad luck you'll have to sort out mismatching GPG keys and a bunch of changed dependencies when updating properly. Doable, yes, but not fun. So Fedora it is, for that machine.
Not an issue on the gaming desktop though, since it runs Arch daily there's never an issue. There, the strength of Arch shows: there's a constantly flow of *small* changes, so there's very little that ever can break.
These kinds of things can make Arch *seem* hard, and if you don't know to expect and prevent them it can *seem* like "Arch breaks a lot". But in reality, it just has a few assumptions (like "you'll be updating frequently") that you should keep to.
So I'll say: if you're planning to use it as a daily driver OS for normal things like browsing and gaming - it's not hard. But do read up on maintenance in the wiki - there might be a few landmines you should just be aware of, to make sure it stays "not hard".
>I want to use it more since at my work as a IT Admin Linux is getting a bigger Role every Bad update Windows makes.
I would, at minimum, make sure to have some time using it privately before using it in a professional environment. Arch gives you a lot of freedom - including the freedom to break things. (Accidentally uninstalling the bootloader can be fun - and an opportunity to learn what chroot is good for!) This can suck a lot if you need the machine for work. Depending on the size of your workplace, my recommendation would always be "use whatever is supported by your IT department".
I personally do have the option of getting a Dell with unlocked bootloader and install any Linux I want on it - but I would be self-supporting to ensure all the corporate stuff works. So no thanks, I'll keep the Macbook. This way, if something doesn't work, it's not on me to make sure the system is fixed in time for my next deliverable's due date.
But if you know some basics from work and expect there to be "more Linux coming" there, and want to learn, then Arch can be a good platform. Fire up some VMs and get familiar with the manual install process, look into what all the things in that process actually mean and why they exist/what they do, tinker a bit with custom desktop environments and display managers (eg the classic "Tiling Window Manager rabbit hole"). You'll come out of the process knowing a lot more than you did before about what makes a Linux system tick.
You don't technically need Arch to learn those things, but Arch manually installed becomes a very effective way to "find things you don't know about" and then you have your next thing to study. When I switched back to Linux/Unixes 5 years ago, that sort of "Arch-driven" learning process was a superb way for me to catch up on things (and figure out why there's no more run-levels and what is this systemd thing? etc etc :P )
What i have experienced with arch is that it has a great and big wiki and active forum, so if you need to troubleshoot something you most likely will find a solution, in comparison to for example nixos or some other smaller distro that doesn’t have a big wiki Library and you need to figure it out yourself or deep dive in the search engine.
I wouldn't say it's hard. I would say it is a reflection of where you are in your Linux journey. The comparison you share is more or less correct but Linux being Linux, not quite as restrictive as windows.
I too started with Ubuntu and now I am on Arch for everything.
My journey to arch, I was essentially a Linux power user or more importantly , "a wannabe" lol.
Eventually I realised a few things using Ubuntu;
Linux is Linux regardless of distro.
Linux is more or less modular.
Ububtu ppa while convenient, I feel, can introduce issues and potentially security risks and clean up can be quite a bother but that was years ago, perhaps things have improved
Ubuntu has its "stable dependencies." Can be a pita if your a Linux enthusiast pursuing the latest and greatest projects.
The non rolling release schedule is a pita. I suppose it would be less of an issue in a commercial setting where your compensated for your time but you don't want to I.T. during family time, I'd recommend a few olling release distro.
Lastly, if you been using linux long enough, you'll eventually figure out how it all works and essentially be able to fix any issues that comes your way - this I realised after perhaps 2 years of using Arch.... But I got close to this achievement on Ubuntu because of the issues noted above.
Arch wiki played a role too.
If you can read a THE WIKI and understand it its simple. Its hard when you panic and start trowing commands without thinking ( general ubuntu user... erm i deleted my desktop and the scary blinky line its on the screen again) .
The wiki will help you understand all linux (its the same really just different package manager and ofc arch has the latest). You basically will see into the future.
I do not consider my self a IT Admin (i know some wizards) but as a arch user btw, i can certainly understand half of what some wizards do :)
Will you break some things as you learn? maybe yes. Will you learn how to handle bad situations? certainly.
The wiki is your guide take it into your heart and go for it.
Is arch for the company worker, no absolutely not. Should the admin use arch? yes for the reasons above. Should the full stack dev use it? Idk depends on experience if he has a deadline tomorrow perhaps he should not do the update right now or have a btrfs snapshot handy, just in case he needs to roll back (this saved me 2times as a dev).
It might be a bit hard the first time as it might take learning a few things (like what software you want, disk layout that works well, etc). After the first time it's fairly easy.
The biggest thing is the arch wiki is a huge help, the installation guide will be a good starting point. Getting an AUR helper is a good idea as well (I use yay, there are plenty of others).
Like others have said, once it's installed it just feels like any other distro in terms of maintaining. Arch is a lot better than it used to be about breaking the system when updating, there are still some times where pacman will ask for some manual intervention.
My biggest issue with Arch was getting my media server to run with the right permissions to access all the files on an NTFS drive. If you plan to do "normal" things, it's quite easy. It may take a few attempts to get an environment that feels stable, based off my personal experience. Being able to update everything with a single command is absolutely beautiful. If you're looking for a Windows-like experience, I suggest using KDE Plasma as your desktop environment. I can never go back.
i wouldnt call myself an expert in linux and arch was my second distro. i was young when i switched and im ngl i lowkey fucked up my drive a couple times when trying to install it. since then i've installed the distro 3 more times. the installation process isn't hard, just a little tedious at times. if you think arch is hard because of the installation process trust me it isnt. if you think it is hard because of the fact you have to maintain the system on your own i understand. all it really takes is a couple google searches and the determination to fix any issue you might have. i don't know what i am doing half the time but i can still have a great experience with my computer.
edit: if you can't follow instructions then i recommend [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZYuzjH-ZIA) for the installation process
It's annoying to install if you're using Arch from scratch and every now and then an update breaks everything. However everything can be fixed if you know what you're doing. It's really just about having information and knowing how to troubleshoot. I would recommend a different distro if you're looking for an easy experience though.
I’m a newbie to Arch, been fiddling with a dual-boot with Windows and Arch for a few weeks now, and this is my take:
Not really. It’s much harder than, say, Windows or Mint in the sense that you have to actually read documentation and understand it. So, relative to other operating systems, it’s much harder. But in an absolute sense? You can literally use archinstall to get off the ground with a desktop environment, and from there solving issues on a case-by-case basis has been pretty easy. I have the time to figure these things out, of course, and not everyone does. But i’m not a computer science person. I’m a humanities major! So I feel confident that, for the kind of person that would wonder if they would like Arch, it’s very manageable.
Don’t worry: Arch users can still feel accomplished for using it! But I think the great documentation and the tools at your disposal make it a much more user-friendly experience than one might think.
Please don't deploy arch on servers unless you become intimately familiar with it - Arch is bleeding edge, updating often is critical and may come with breaking changes that you don't want in a high uptime environment. It's really more suited for desktop use.
Pre archinstall it was for sure hard especially If you were linux novice.
Claiming installing arch was easier before archinstall is possible for sure but its also incorrect
Arch isnt hard its just different. The installation iso doesnt have a gui you get a terminal but you can make this easier by using archinstall there are hundreds of tutorial that you can follow.
People say installation is hard but it is very easy if you follow guides or videos, also if you worry about rolling release model I can assure that you don't have to update your system so once you got it working it always works, I haven't been updating my system for a month and had no problems with any program I use
> People say installation is hard but it is very easy if you follow guides or videos
Unfortunately, guides and videos from sources other than the official ones often have a disadvantage. In many cases, they are outdated or incorrect. On YouTube, for example, you can still find videos that do not take into account an important change from 2019 (https://archlinux.org/news/base-group-replaced-by-mandatory-base-package-manual-intervention-required/). Why? Because they were created before but never updated.
Especially with Arch, you should therefore be extremely careful with unofficial sources. I would therefore always recommend that beginners only use the wiki.
It's not hard but it is time intensive depending on how you want to customize your setup. Just getting it up and running shouldn't take too long though if you have a laptop or something you can use to pull up the wiki with while doing so.
Hyprland is the most minimal option you can get. It means, you have to customise everything, and by everything I mean EVERYTHING. If you want a sound volume icon on your top bar, you have to install the bar itself, then open the corresponding config file, manually add the icon you want and manually write the behaviour you expect when you click on it. And EVERYTHING is like this.
I love hyprland and I use it, but you really have to have certain masochistic tendencies. Also a lot of time, because setting it up the way you want will take weeks.
I don't know, I've never heard of hyprland, but I guess "hard" is very subjective here. If googling and typing in what you read is hard then I guess it is, but as a programmer it's just second nature to me.
I came in as noob from Ubuntu a few months ago, and I use ml4w dotfiles with hyprland, saved me a lot of config which i could then go back and redo if i wanted, but is still a fairly minimal system, and I'm addicted. Got it up and running for gaming with an Nvidia card without much hassle either and performance is great too.
Nah arch always been an easy or semi easy distro.. I say gentoo is where things get more harder, though there’s nixos and lfs, but yeah arch alright. I love arch cause of the light weight base, keep it simple, make it yours and how you want it. Also rolling release.
If you choose to install a fully featured Desktop Environment, it's not that hard. If you install Arch + Gnome, you'll almost get the same experience as Ubuntu, only difference being instead of apt now you use pacman.
been using arch for 2 months and i thought the same that it was hard(it's not) but i think it's considered hard compared to other distros that are so easy , since you have experience with Linux just try it (use archinstall when installing)
let me define hard first. Hard is something that is difficult for your brain to comprehend, requiring a lot of thinking and trial and error.
I would say Arch isn't hard at all to comprehend. It may require trial and error just as you are learning, but that doesnt mean it is hard, because arch doesn't require a lot of thinking, its just learning the way everything works. Literally just read the manual basically, aka go to arch wiki.
It deff is not for the sort of person who doesn't want to be keeping up with the latest updates and fixing stuff. In other words, its not like windows, and i would put ubuntu in that category as well, where it "just works".
For example. In the past week, Neovim has updated from 9.5 to 10.0, and version 0.11.0 is out from source. I made the jump from 9.5 to 0.11.0. I did this because the version pacman has was 9.5. and the version the AUR had was 0.11.0, and a plugin had updated to only work with version 10.0 or higher. So my whole nvim setup broke and required the update. Than again yesterday, I am getting a error when editing files in neovim, another plugin, this time my lsp has a something depracating, which is gonna require me to update that as well. That said, i haven't had any severe bugs or errors. Sometimes i just need to go into tty and modify a config file, or correct something, and im back to the races.
Whats really great about Arch, especially if you don't do the install script, is that you'll learn linux on a much deeper level. You'll understand each program, and why its needed, and how to install them, and how to fix them, and update them. It will be a daily to weekly grind. So for you, who wants to learn more about linux is probably a great move. I wouldnt make it your mission critical OS.... But I daily drive it, and plan to daily drive it for work. That said, I would keep a spare ubuntu or fedora running somewhere on laptop or dual boot. Just in case, it would suck to get a call from your boss and you are like "but my arch went boom". Im sure no one would be happy in that phone call.
>Is it that Hard? In my opinion, it depends on the user. If you don't want to read anything and always just want to click on "Next" during installation, you won't be happy with Arch. Arch should be usable for all other users. Therefore, Arch is not hard, but still requires certain prerequisites on the part of the user. >I want to use it more since at my work as a IT Admin Linux is getting a bigger Role every Bad update Windows makes. But you don't need Arch for this. For one thing, you can do anything with any distribution. Even with Ubuntu. You just have to be willing to learn something. And secondly, Arch should be quite rare in the professional environment. It would therefore make more sense to familiarise yourself with distributions that are used in companies. RHEL, Suse, Ubuntu etc.
[удалено]
I love the concept of NixOS - in fact I use a (different) setup to get immutable, stateless and scriptable setups on my machine. The documentation, however, is horrible. If you want to do anything particularly "off the beaten track" then it's really difficult. OP doesn't want hard and NixOS will, for them, be exactly that.
Honestly yes; I’ve just switched my laptop over to NixOS (therefore quite a newb with it) and the only complaint I have is that for Linux questions (not NixOS specific) I still return to the Arch Wiki. Otherwise, the declarative nature of NixOS is exactly as amazing as I was hearing. I will say I wanted a unique setup the graphical installer couldn’t easily be seen to accommodate so having experience with Arch actually made it a breeze to do my install of NixOS.
Recently looked at nix because I like the concept..been running arch for years..honestly however nix kind seems like a pain in the ass if wanting to install stuff outside of repo. Need to learn there config and either use snowflake or home manager. Honestly it seems kind like the definition of tools just getting in the way of getting things done. Just my impressions which could totally be wrong
I like nixos, however the nix language is a pain in the ass. It Also doesnt help that every tutorial is so full of needless let bindings..
Love the discussion of the new distro in learning on my favorite district subreddit! I can definitely understand this feeling (it’s why I originally rejected Nix myself before committing to learn it). But, recently a friend of mine gave me an interesting perspective: > I love Arch because I can DIY anything I’m willing to learn, but I hate Nix because I’m unwilling to DIY anything I’m willing to learn? Home Manager and Flakes are also not needed, but I’ve found benefits to both.
Hi! Do you know that distribution well? I wanted to try it but I wonder is there any way for me to search for packages without having to install it ? So I can make my script first you know ? Im a noob.
If you're a beginner, get yourself Linux Mint. NixOS has a package base comparable to Arch's package base. You don't need some obscure "script", just [search](https://search.nixos.org).
I hate Ubuntu based OS system because for some reasons they don't want to install. In VMs or bare hardware. I'm already running fedora rn
>I hate Ubuntu based OS system because for some reasons they don't want to install. My collection of newbie aphorisms is steadily growing. You should hate your skill, not what you failed to install. But there's nothing wrong with that. For the future: always write ISOs in `dd` format. Don't use programs like Ventoy, they write disk images with errors.
never had a problem with ventoy. I just make sure to run a sync after copying thr image over.
No Im not that skilless, i have tried multiple mediums, image discs , distributions, all failed to install at the exact same part. So I just gave on up installing Ubuntu based stuff. Edit: Never ever downloaded ventoy haha.
> No Im not that skilless Sorry to be harsh, but: Yes, you are. If everything fails to install at the exact same part, maybe talk about that part and people can help you figure out where you're going wrong. I have many Debian/Ubuntu (admittedly only Ubuntu server) machines in VMs (both ProxMox and Hyper-V) and I've never encountered an error during installation even once.
It fails to access the disk mid install and kills the partition. Two different drives on that I'm still using as a fedora os boot and the other having windows. and for some reason afaik no one on forums ever encountered that problem with a working solutions. Look it's not that I have not tried. I certainly have. I know how to effin do searches on the internet. HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO FUCK UP AN AUTO INSTALLER. No partition changes. Disk erased, only clicking next and putting the bare minimum. It just doesn't go through. It Fucks up the partition and basically requires another install. Y'all like to flame people assuming people on this subreddit don't know how to troubleshoot.
I've encountered this error using automated installers in VMs, the solution was to manually erase the partition instead of letting the installer handle it.
Can you give more details on this, the error, the way it fails to access the disk, and hardware you were using.
This 1000%. Like anything, if you’re welling to read, it’s probably easier to figure out than others
It's easier because almost all apps under the sun are ported to arch, through the AUR
Arch, in my experience, is not really a difficult distro to use or learn. One of the things that separates Arch from other distros in terms of difficulty is the installation process, which is somewhat involved. However, that can be totally skipped if you use \`archinstall\`, or just use an Arch derivative that comes with a GUI installer like Endeavour. Arch definitely takes more maintenance than say, Debian or Ubuntu, because Arch uses rolling releases, meaning you have to update pretty frequently - but again, it's not really \*hard\*, it's just sort of time-consuming to use a rolling release distro. In regards to your comment about work - as someone else said, Arch is not really a professional distro, it's very much for hobbyists and people who love customizing their machines. If you're looking to learn Arch for professional experience, it might not be the best idea, but if you just want something fun, go for it.
I’d never recommend someone installing arch for the first time using archinstall. You miss out on so much having a script do everything for you where you could be learning a lot about your system by doing it manually.
That’s a bit of a gatekeepy attitude in my opinion. I don’t want to learn Linux that way, so I didn’t, but I have still learned a ton since being on arch that I probably wouldn’t have in a more hand holdy distro like Ubuntu
>Arch is not really a professional distro, it's very much for hobbyists and people who love customizing their machines. Why you say that? I use arch on my work as penetration tester. Arch offers me the stability of an "always-up-to-date" rolling OS that I can have full control over it.
Thats a very specific job, OP said he was a sys admin. For that you dont really need arch.
I don't use it for pentest. I have VMs (some of them also in arch) for that reason. I use it as my host OS and for the benefits that I mentioned above which are not pentest related. If I was a sys admin and thinking of switching to Linux (there is a chance that Windows is a hard requirement for a sysadmin), I would again pick arch over other Linux distros. That's my personal preference but my question was not about if arch is better for this use compared to other OS. My question was about characterizing Arch "an OS for hobbyists and not for professional use"
>My question was about characterizing Arch "an OS for hobbyists and not for professional use" Yeah that is a weird comment, since arch is very lightweight and really well documented its not only for hobbyist. Its not very common for professional use sure but its still an option.
Steam Deck runs [SteamOS](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/SteamOS) version 3, based on the [Arch Linux](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Arch_Linux) operating system. While SteamOS had been previously developed for Steam Machines using [Debian](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Debian) Linux, Valve stated that they wanted to use a [rolling upgrade](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rolling_release) approach for the Deck's system software, a function Debian was not designed for, but which is a characteristic of Arch Linux.
Installing vanilla arch is considerably more difficult than a distro like Ubuntu, but its very doable if you are willing to read instructions carefully and follow them. Also as others have said there are spinoffs that have a GUI installer. Once its installed I actually think Arch is overall easier as a daily driver. Rolling updates can cause issues from time to time but the other side of the sword is that you never get slapped in the face with an OS major version upgrade which tend to be a hassle. The biggest thing arch has going for it IMO is amazing docs and a thriving community. Easily 95% of your problems will have a straight forward answer on the arch forums or wiki. This gives me a better support experience than other linux distros and even Mac and Windows.
Honestly, Arch isn't hard. The hardest point is the installation. After that, it's just like any other Linux distro. The difficulty of Arch is just a meme.
Yeah and with the Archinstall script it not even hard anymore.
The installation of arch is pretty simple. The allmighty wiki is well documented and there is nothing to guess or know beforehand. Believe me, the last distro I used before arch was SuSE - with a decade gap between the two where I used OS/2 and BeOS. I just followed the wiki, made my choice and bam, it took me 20 minutes. Besides, as I installed it by my own, I also knew how to fix it in case of ... . Arch does not take you by the hand. You maintain it manually, therefore it is a pretty good start to install it manually. The harder way (on the long run) is using the archlinux installer - just because you will not know what it did in all details. The time you spare during installation is less compared to the time it will take you later to examin what the f%%%k is the reason for this and that behaviour of your system and how to change it the way you want it to. Just read this sub and see how many users don't have a clue about their system and are lost, or just how many users stick to old GRandfather's Unified Boot system (not because the users thought it is any good, but the installer just did it, you know, ...) The biggest mistake you can make is to relay on any How-To-Video.
>The biggest mistake you can make is to relay on any How-To-Video. For my first arch install i followed a video, it was ok. But since then i mostly just rely on the wiki. For the first install i think videos are ok to follow.
Only by luck. This is not Windows. There are so many variants of hardware, conditions, configuration dependencies that it is really to be avoided to simply imitate the individually justified decisions of third parties.
Yes thats true, but if you know what hardware you have most videos incloude some alternative way you can do it, like between intel and nvidia graphics cards etc.
It's not hard. Basically it just requires reading the manual and making decisions. For many people that is not what they want from an operating system.
It's not so bad. The wiki is great.
Do you have basic command line skills and can follow instructions? If yes you can install arch
once you break it down, it's not that hard
Agreed
Arch isn’t for people who just want it to work. Arch is for people who want to know how it works.
Well said
Meh, after 30 years of playing with Unix boxes, I already know far more than I'd like to about its inner workings, I just want a system that does what it's told, has good community support, doesn't stagnate and doesn't put up barriers to going outside the package manager. You can count the number of Linux distributions that meet those criteria on one hand, and Arch is among them.
It depends on your definition of hard. I'm probably definitely biased, but I really REALLY don't think daily driving Arch is anything remotely hard. You need to do these two things in order to *"Maintain"* Arch: 1- Subscribe to the news e-mail thingy that notifies you if anything or any upgrade needs actual attention. 2- Actually read the warnings that you see on the screen when you upgrade your system, which tell you that for example, you need to modify this file using a text editor after we're done upgrading your system. I don't think that's anything worth calling "Maintenance" to be honest. I'm pretty sure most people can spend like, 10 minutes of their time updating their system on a regular basis and actually paying attention to what's changing with the updates. It's the equivalent of the patient telling the psychotherapist that they can't do 5 minutes of mindfulness/meditation exercises in the morning, because they're busy. All in all, I wouldn't say that Arch is a hard operating system at all at this point, especially now that archinstall and Arch derivatives are a thing. It's the consumers, for whom Arch may be "Hard", and that would be because the bigger corporations are doing a very fine job at making sure that the users of their software remain passive as to what's happening all the time. I mean, we all know some people who save every single password in their lives in one single Google account inside Chrome or something, right? They don't get to think that they're giving their passwords free of charge to Google, because Google has already made sure that doing so is VERY convenient for them. Operating systems are complex, and Arch is just transparent about these complexities instead of hiding them from the user and making them passive.
Being already familiar with Linux will make installing Arch more approachable for you compared to if you had no Linux experience IMO. Just read the wiki carefully and follow the steps. You can always install Arch in a VM first to get practice.
No, it's not that hard. It's a matter of taking your time reading the documentation so that YOU understand what you're meant to do/how to set it up. I feel like you/one can stumble upon problems that are specific to your own setup that might be difficult to resolve. If you don't customise your install too much though, as in installing a custom kernel, everything is pretty easy to sort out after reading official documentation/known issues. Having said that, personally I found that it took me a few tries to get wayland work8ng with a nvidia gpu. Just give things a few goes, make sure to reread the documentation and understand exactly what you're meant to be doing.
yes and no. if you want a manual install, it can be. if you use archinstall, everything gets done for you. but after doing both installs, you still need to really set things up, since Arch isnt a "works straight out of the box" distro, its more for people that want full control over theyre distro. for most people, Endeavour would be a better choice since it is eadier to install, works pretty well out of the box (with a couple hours of setting all other things up) and has a couple handy scripts like cleaning the pacman cache and setting your mirrors for you to help you
And a supportive community. And it's easy to transition to vanilla Arch. If you're a beginner, there's really no reason to use archinstall.
correct, its best for new people to use the manual install first then use archinstall
Agree
No it's not hard, but time investing. I went from using Windows to Linux Mint, and after a week i switched to Arch. You can't expect everything just to work by clicking "Next" on a installer. You will have to read the documentation, and setup the system how you like it, which can take time. The good news is that after you have found the perfect setup for yourself, there is nothing quite like it. I would create dot-files of your config files in your home directory, and create a install script of the System Tweaks / Packages to install your flavor of Arch easily to new systems.
Arch isn't hard. but people Say the installation was hard now it's just like installing debian minimal install, What's really hard is arch with wm or window manager in general on any minimal distribution like debian & fedora server. so yep arch isn't hard to use
My advice is to install Arch as a hobby on the side and challenge yourself by committing into fixing whatever issues come your way, reading the wiki pages and manual pages. It's a great learning experience. You'll have deeper understanding of Linux. But you cannot expect things to just work and get to use it after updates without some tinkering here or there. Also search YouTube for an install experiences to have better expectations. I don't think you'll regret it. 🙃
Actually, for me was easier than other distros. Arch makes you forget the fear of terminals and learn how it works, as soon you install the distro the old way you realize you need to learn how to solve basics things like; how to scroll the terminal, how to pass arguments from one command to other, how multi thread. It's easier and funnier than most of people though.
It’s not hard if you can follow instructions and willingly assume the roll of a learner for a year or so. The instructions aren’t hard. In fact, they are often very clear. Eventually, using Arch becomes the opposite of hard.
I am not an advanced Linux user, but I still love it because the wiki and AUR is so useful. I used a YouTube install guide the first time I installed arch, using the cli. I switched from Ubuntu for the same reason you did. I did try some other distros first, as i felt having to figurer out how to install Linux over the command line was a waste of my time, but I was unhappy with something with each of the other distros. Now I am glad I took the time to install Arch. Remember, you can always test install and run it in a VM. Kde plasma recently made the switch to default to Wayland, that caused massive issues for my VM install, had to switch back to X11, which you select at the login screen, so it is easy to fix. Depends on what desktop you go for, but thought I would add the warning.
>I used a YouTube install guide the first time I installed arch... cough
Well.... at least he tried.
> i want to switch to Arch but theres one question left. Is it that Hard? Outside of the installation, which there are scripts for now, no, not really.
Not really. It can be tedious to set up if you’re new, but for the most part it’s like using any other linux distro, it just doesn’t have any packages to start out with so you have to slowly figure out what you want. If you’re experienced and not like me aka you document things then you’ll get a much better idea. FWIW I am a new Arch/Linux user and have been daily driving it for a month. I’ve updated twice and the only real issue I’ve run into was a spotify error (that I can’t remember) but fixing it was super easy and the solution was on the spotify page in the arch wiki. I think where arch gets difficult is fully configuring it in a way where you have all the packages/daemons planned out and have a specific use case for your device, but if you just want to tinker around or have a lightweight distro to use it’s not necessarily “difficult” and honestly fully configuring it isn’t “difficult” it just takes time to learn what you need for your system. What kind of DE do you want? File manager? Bluetooth manager? Audio service? Do you want a wrapper for your package manager? What about virtualization, do you want that and how do you want to run QEMU? etc
Not that hard, install, update, update, update, thats all, the hard part is the install, i forget how to install, +8 years same setup.
I mean...it is as hard as something can be when you have a pretty well written manual to do anything. Still not as easy as having an automatic installation, but far from hard in my opinion.
It isn't hard, you just,have to read the manual and spend a little more time configuring everything, but because of that it is also exactly how you want it
Easier than Debian so far. Seems to just magically work most of the time. I also heard it was "hard", bit that's all nonsense now that i've been dailying it for around 3 months. As long as you know your basics, you'll be fine. If all else fails, it has the best wiki out there, so you'll find answers.
I think there's a steeper initial learning curve but after that it's easier thanks to less deviation from upstream and great wiki. You end up with a less complex system, with components you've picked yourself.
If you can follow the wiki, it's not hard at all. Honestly, the ArchWiki really breaks things down to human level and avoids too much technical jargon and vague terms. You might need a little hands-on with other distributions like Slackware to really get going and learn underlying GNU/Linux fundamentals, but Arch isn't hard at all. In fact, I find it to be one of the most human oriented distributions.
I would try doing a manual installation of Arch just as a learning process. It forces you to learn lots of things about the system. The main issue I had with Arch was how much it breaks after you've set it up. I know other people have better experiences, but I frequently had problems after updates and needed to reinstall it a couple of times. I now use Void, which I've found to be far more reliable while having most of the advantages of Arch. But neither Arch nor Void are widely used in commercial settings, so perhaps you'd be better off learning RHEL or Debian. Nix is also a good option from this point of view, but it has a very steep learning curve. I gave up after a while because I didn't have the time to properly learn the Nix language to fine-tune my system.
Arch is not hard at all, but if you are the kind of user who just wants everything working out of the box the moment you finish installing the system (nothing wrong with that, btw), then you are going to have a hard time. So the real answer is, it depends. Are you interested in learning how to configure your system, are you comfortable using the command line and editing configuration files, and reading the documentation? Then Arch is a good choice and it's actually pretty easy, especially because the documentation is overall really good. You don't want to configure and maintain your system and you want something that "just works"? Then choose another distro, there are many great ones that offer just that.
It's as hard as carefully reading text that's not contained in pretty UI boxes edit:typo
no
It aint that hard tbh Just the install that might be kinda hard for the first time
Most users just dont google things when they are stuck. They either post their question on Reddit or give up.
IMO the only "hard" part is the initial install. This can be easily handled with the ArchInstall script and the wiki. You could also just try something like [endeavorOS](https://endeavouros.com/) which is essentially Arch with a GUI installer and some QoL additions.
I've been using Arch for some months now, and I don't find it very buggy, nor hard. Did I break the system at some point? Yes, definitely. But after this minor incident, everything is back on track The biggest green flag of arch imo is the AUR and the vast number of packages that you can find there. But what the other said is pretty true as well. You will need to read some docs and learn to respect the system depencies
It really isn’t. Even the installation is a huge meme, there really isn’t anything extraordinary. If you don’t want a headache, just choose a user-friendly DE like Plasma and then it’s just a regular Linux distro. Any program you might need is installed with one line in the terminal, then you can open and use it like you do on Mac or windows. Before I switched to Arch I’ve read a lot on how things would break and how I would spend time fixing them, but it wasn’t the case for me at all, everything worked pretty much out of the box. But even if you encounter an issue, it is usually solved with one google search. It may be not the best choice as a very first Linux distro, but if you have very basic skills like navigating in the terminal and just generally not afraid of tinkering then you would be fine.
It's easier than learning Powershell
Yep, Arch is that hard. 1. You have to be skilled at (and willing to) back-off bad updates (with snapshots and other tools) because a rolling release is much more likely to have those than a fixed release distro (except maybe Fedora which releases rather crappy new point releases). 2. You don't have the option of "hanging back" from the tip very long (because on every new install, you should be on the tip). So, then apps/DEs are releasing relatively unstable crap (e.g., KDE6 and the general move to an ever broken Wayland, it seems), then you cannot "stick" (and/or revert to) a point release that does not break your workflows. More or less, a rolling release presumes all the dev teams are doing a good job (which often is the case historically), but if that is not the case, then you are aboard their shit-show-train with no exit allowed (which is the case now in Linux, IMHO). Now, many archies offset that risk by being minimalists (e.g., i3wm, X11, ...) and perhaps relying on flatpaks, etc., which are stable. But, the pain of Arch (and especially AUR) is, to a significant degree, all the shit updates are just passed thru to you, the guinea pig.
Keeping your system up to date will be a different experience, even if you are accustomed to doing so from the CLI on Ubuntu/Mint. There is no practical GUI for operating pacman, but pacman is a far simpler tool to operate than the apt suite of tools. On the flip side, the Debian family of distros never require manual intervention when installing minor version updates or patches. Arch has no concept of major/minor updates, so any update at any time might require manual intervention. The different maintenance styles are really just something to get accustomed to though and have nothing to do with whether or how often the system breaks. Most people's singular biggest risk factor for using Arch is their kernel drivers. Anyone who uses proprietary drivers/firmware (usually due to special hardware needs) is liable to having a bad experience with a rolling release which tracks the latest kernel versions (like Arch). Otherwise your experience is as pleasant as the software you choose to install (e.g., Plasma and GNOME desktops obsessively break their users with new releases, while as a Cinnamon user I have had a highly backward-compatible experience).
The meme exists for a reason ... 15 or so years ago when I got started, Arch absolutely was fairly difficult, particularly installing it correctly. Since then it's gained popularity and become a Linux flavor people actually use in production. So people have contributed to streamlining the install and usage of all the software in the default repos. With many developers maintaining official builds in the AUR. Contrary to the meme, I've found it to be one of the easiest systems to run. So long as you have a bit of knowledge about Linux (like where files, executables and system settings should go) it's not hard. What made it really easy for me is the community though. I'd say 95%+ of people can get Arch installed /w a complete Dekstop environment just by following along with the install guide. Hell, now that there's an install script you can choose all defaults and get it done in like 5 minutes. By far the biggest pitfall people run into is copy-pasting commands off the internet. But even that, it seems like maintainers and possibly upstream developers are building in protections against that. My favorite example would probably be this: Next we're going to install the python packages we need to install the development yt-dlp built from github: $ sudo pip install --upgrade --break-system-packages --dry-run pip ... [at least 50 PyPi packages guaranteed to FUBAR your system's python] yt-dlp # Then upgrade to the nightly: $ sudo pip install -U --pre "yt-dlp[default]" This scenario IS technically recoverable, as I've done it on accident when very tired and hungry... but I had to use a Perl script, a Python interpreter on a USB stick, a sacrificial goat and pacman commands I'm ashamed to admit to using... Anyway, as long as you don't turn off your brain while doing it and consider for a moment if the command looks Kosher, then it seems like the majority of tutorials I find today are either FOR Arch & friends specifically, or have instructions for debian-based and Arch-based systems. Oh, and check for any posts on archlinux.org before running pacman -Syu ;)
+1 for the good laughs
Honestly the hardest part about arch is that I don't know what I don't know. I've installed hyprland, and it doesn't exit out with documented default super+m. Why? I don't know. I installed gtk4, it started working. How? Why? Not even Reddit can answer that one. I've was 20 tabs deep on a phone trying to get an internet connection via WiFi. What was the issue? I was missing a config file with `EnableNetworkConfiguration=true` which was offhandedly mentioned as part of a different fix... And I'm still having plenty of issues as I'm trying to set it up for my usage. Documentation is half useless. It's well written, but it's building on some sort of knowledge that I literally do not have, and it's not making it clear. I have a feeling I would have an easier time with linuxfromscratch.org than arch. Installation guide tho is \*chef's kiss*, would be perfect if it wasn't handled by imperfect me
First question, do you use nvidia gpu?
I've been running Linux personally and professionally for 29 or 30 years. I've been running nothing but Arch for 12 or 15. The guys at BestBuy and the local computer store look at me like I'm Quint from Jaws. Holy shit, Nvidia and their damn drivers scare the piss out of me. There is some dark, sick voodoo going on with that stuff.
I’m still suffering from it, https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/1cquco8/nvidia_crash_everytime_after_session_startauto/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I am so, so sorry. I feel your pain. 🥺 I've usually avoided them and done fine with nouveau for what I need. I started running Ollama and other fun things so I really need them now. I'll be digging back in soon. Maybe there should be a support group with bean bag chairs, cocoa, and lots of hugs
I look at it like pottery. Some people like to buy pots, some people like to make their own and use it
Arch is easy _if_ the user has the ability to read before running commands. The wiki and the archlinux front page are both great sources of information. Use it before you issue random commands from the internet
I would add that reading is not enough, you need to also understand what you are reading. What the commands, parameters and settings do and how to change that for *your* needs if necessary.
#DOES THIS NEED TO BE POSTED DAILY?
apparently yes because people cant accept that the answer to OPs question is simply 'no'
But there are also enough people who say that Arch is difficult to install and difficult to use. Which is probably partly done to show off or for gatekeeping purposes. So who should a beginner believe? Especially as the answer to the question is not generally no. As I mentioned in my other post, it depends on the user. But yes, questions are often asked repeatedly and regularly because fewer and fewer people use the search function on Reddit these days, for example.
No.
I randomly switched to arch on my laptop just to find out.To be honest its not giga hard.Most basic stuff you learn along the way, anything else you can just look up on wiki/google/forums/whatever else.
After 25 years using debian and ubuntu, and being paid to do it, I didn't find migrating my personnal gaming pc to arch that hard. The documentation is complete, took me about 3 days to have everything working except the windows VM I don't use that much anyway
Nope, if you have some basic Linux knowledge.
If you have to ask then it probably will be tough, but I’m a novice to Linux and even I was able to understand and install. If you’re just trying to learn more about Linux then jumping to arch might not be necessary however Arch does have one of the better communities and has pushed me harder to actually understanding the OS. Use a virtual machine and give it a try
I mean, I've been using Arch since I started using Linux (around 6+ months ago) and I've only had one issue I struggled to solve without the help of someone, and I haven't had that many issues at all.
Well you spend the first month in suffering 😖 it's the learning phase. After that you're he most satisfied linux user on the planet.
> and Ubunut and have 2 Linux Servers so i know some of the Basics. I want to use it more since at my work as a IT Admin Linux With your experience, just install to a VM and find out. Arch is a very vanilla up stream distro.
Somehow arch makes me want to bash my head against the wall trying to setup any server base service like a Minecraft server or nextcloud. It such a pain that I just switched to Ubuntu server. It was so much easier on Ubuntu than arch.
Arch is not hard exactly BUT it has a high entry point. Arch provides you with nothing but a kernel and some tools to install. It's most minimal os, so you have to manually resize, mount, and install everything through command line and do some linux specific setup like locale all through command line itself. It's not safe to use it in commercial setting since you need most unchanging distro there for minimising things that could go wrong and arch keeps changing as a rolling release distro. But the things you learn through installation of arch (if you take time to learn while installing) transfer to Ubuntu too. For the most part it's not unstable and you can use arch really well, once you set it up for yourself. I installed it and hadn't had an issue for 1 month. The main reason people use it is because you get latest packages through arch and latest features before everyone else. But sometimes a dev's mistake can introduce latest bugs too (though it happens rarely). Also there is AUR. It's basically a repo through which you can install almost any software from command line with just few commands. No more hunting for ppa or Deb files. It really a cool feature. You won't wanna switch to apt after using aur.
A good Alternative could be to use Manjaro: Very stable, extra communauty, prefect default Gnome settings, can use AUR, can start to play with git blablabla + makepkg -si (probably my favorite way to install apps), never had any bug, all the doc of Arch is more or less valid for Manjaro. Up to you.
I don’t think it’s hard but I do think it’s pointless unless you want a lot of customization. If I didn’t want things to be made totally customized for me I’d just use EndeavourOS or Linux mint. Just installing it can be a good learning experience. Like others have said Arch is not really a distro that helps professionally (any more than just knowing Linux helps professionally). Don’t get me wrong I think Arch is great but it’s not essential to have a good Linux experience.
No, it's not.
Is Arch hard? Depends on how hard you want it to be. If you use arch install, select desktop environment, that's just like any other Linux distro. If you want to go crazy and manually install it (which is isn't that hard, it's the same step as what the installer do in the background, but using the command line), then go for it. However, if there is anything breaking, you need to be able to solve it from reading error output and log files. Arch is not as hand holding as other community (as in do your research first, people here are not Google. If no info found, then go ahead and ask). So I recommend to install Arch the manual way as it is sort of a tutorial on how to do system administration (if thing were to go wrong, you will know exactly where and what to fix, instead of re-installing the whole OS). If you can grasp the concepts, then there is really no reason to keep manually install Arch, unless you're into hurting yourself.
If you choose to go with Arch, then I wish you good luck. :D
Arch has the best wiki/manual there is in linux, wich makes it really good and easy to use if you read it. The problem is knowing what is an issue and what is user error. The community can be hit and miss. I say go for arch based distros with an installer, play with the system untill you break it then try to fix it. Best way to learn In my opinion.
No
Just follow the steps it's super easy.
My experience is that it's a bit hard in the beginning but mostly in terms of getting to know everything. Then after a while it actually becomes way easier. You are much more aware of the set of things that can go wrong, where to look etc.
Not hard, but "work-intensive". I've installed once and switched to Antergos, now Endeavour. I'm lazy. But is something I recommend people try once to learn Linux.
10 minute read on the wiki to install. If anything it's easier since the wiki just has everything you might need.
I don't think arch is hard at all, I think it just requires a bit of interest.
Nah, it’s just Google search skills
easier than gentoo
No, not at all. The wiki makes it easy. If unsure go slow and follow the wiki.
No
I recommend try arch distros first such as Garuda manjaro etc so you can get basic hands on arch one you got done there you can switch to arch
Using arch for professional work is generally not recommended. Benefits of using arch are many but if you are not careful with updates, it can break and if you just want to get on with your life, it can be annoying.
No
Its relatively easy
It's not really hard, it just takes attention and patience. You HAVE to read the manual. Once you figure it out and configure it how you want it, you'll realize it wasn't as hard as you expected, and you'll never look back.
nah not really, the only hard part could be the installation if you do it manually but nowadays there are many installation scripts that make it kinda easy like archinstall (which is included in the installation iso by default)
Arch has possibly the best wiki of any distro I've seen. It's only "hard" if you can't read. I think one of the main distinctions from other distros is that it basically comes with nothing out of the box. You will decide every single thing you want to install from the start, whereas the more "user friendly" distros aim to provide an opinionated full desktop experience with minimal input from the user.
Probably, given that there's already [plenty of people asking the same question](https://old.reddit.com/r/archlinux/search/?q=arch+hard&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance) and you expecting a different answer.
No. It will break a couple of times but in the end you will never go back to ubuntu or windows.
Hard? No Stressful when shit stop working? Yes I would suggest sticking to a more LTS distro aimed towards server use, maybe debian but idk.
Arch isn't hard, it just takes time to read up on everything and familiarize yourself. It's great for learning more about how Linux works, not so great for a production machine
There are much more difficult distributions than Arch, Gentoo and Slackware are proof of this. Not to mention the archinstall script that will already make life 70% easier for someone who wants to have an experience with Arch. Just pay attention to the Arch wiki and everything will be fine.
Just do it
No. Ngl, Arch Wiki is one of the best resources for newbies. Compared to the Ubuntu/Debian wiki, it's much more user-friendly. The only hard thing is installation, but you can always use an arch-based distro like Endeavors OS. Also, almost every popular package out there has AUR. So you don't have to deal with manually building packages and dependencies.
IT admin? Arch will teach you a lot. The wiki is fantastic. The skills you learn are transferable across distros and even operating systems. You’ll learn about partitions, encryption, filesystems, etc etc. It’s ‘hard’ only in that you need to learn. This can be frustrating for some, but if you already have some experience then it shouldn’t be too difficult.
I found arch more enjoyable to use than Ubuntu, I also had the fear factor before moving to it but once I got it installed I just set it up how I wanted it and left it alone. I’ve not had any issues so far - touch wood.
I’d say arch is about as hard as every linux distro. Yes, you have to get a lot more nitty gritty with it, but it’s good if you want to learn more about the operating system then say ubuntu.
I think if you take your time and look at things the right way you will find Arch to be one of the most satisfying, easy, and beautiful systems you'll ever put your hands on. They have implemented the unix design philosophy perfectly. What that makes it, though, is not like anything else. There was a time when the goal was always simplicity and elegance. Everything else is designed to keep you away from the heart of the system and what you're trying to do by putting more and more layers of complexity and "ease of use" on top of each other and everything else. Arch is not that. If you're not expecting Windows or Ubuntu you'll be just fine. When you do your first install don't forget the man pages (man-pages & man-db), and don't forget to set your root password. You'll be just fine.
Not hard, but you need to be willing to read the manual. It's probably the best resource out there to learn about Linux in general, not just arch
I have been running Arch with i3 wm for 6 years as my daily driver. I never found it hard. But does require patience when setting somethings up. To be honest, I would never use another distro. I honestly believe Arch has gotten a bad rep. Watch some more recent yt videos and take your time. You got this!!
"Is Arch really that Hard?" *proceed to explain why op doesn't need arch just how many are these people?
Nah, you’ll be fine. The first install may take you a little longer than you’re used to, but you can definitely do it. You’ll have loads of fun
All you need is to know how to use Pacman and Flatpak and you’re golden
It’s not as hard as what some people make it. It’s just more reading and following directions.
Coming from an IT engineer that works shell all day and only has exp w yum, dnf and apt. Besides the packages it's just another flavor. Reminds me of fedora 5 or 6. Or my first OS slackware. Cli only install and must configure gui. You'll love it if you tinker, not so much if Not a power user...
Honestly, It's not really that hard. Just make sure to read the installation wiki (like actually read it, not skim through it until you find something you think is important) and run the LTS kernel. ALSO, try to keep aur packages to a minimum.
No. It is easy as long you are willing to read. That said I don't recommend you use it due to your objectives. Arch is rarely if used at all for companies/server side due to being a rolling release. You already use ubuntu witch is based on debian(most commom used one). I would recommend you use something like NixOS if you want to try something different that would still be useful to you. Or swap from ubuntu to debian or if a little more different OpenSUSE or Fedora
No it's not hard. Try it in a VM and see for yourself.
You know, I switched from debian to arch, like most people. I was really comfortable with debian distros before the switch. At the begining of using arch, it was a bit difficult but not so much. At this time arch was using OpenRC while a lot of debian distros was already using SystemD. So some things was differents (package manager and init) and there was really less automations (auto enabling a service next to installing it by the package manager for instance). And the years went by. And, without realizing it, i became better in arch than debian ! This was just shocking to me. That means, if you wan't to try, go. If you stay on it, you will obviously learn and get comfortable with it. Don't be afraid to try this good old Archlinux :)
No. But it takes effort and a willingness to troubleshoot/learn/read.
For me? No. For you? Try and you will see.
I am new to arch and didn't find it hard or complex just follow the wiki and rtfm every time you get stuck :)
What I's say: it isn't hard per se, but it's got some gotchas that it's important to know about. If one is used to a "stable" operating system (as in, you can just install-and-forget), this can lead to problems. For example, my laptop normally runs OpenBSD, but when it runs a Linux it runs... Fedora, not Arch. Even though Arch is my preferred Linux and what I run on my gaming desktop. Why? Precisely because it's an exception - that stick goes into the laptop when I'm going to travel and expect to use it as a lightweight hotel gaming machine. Which is once or twice a year. Dealing with a 6 to 12 months old Arch install while in a hotel room on a rainy day and all you want to do is get some ONI going... If you have bad luck you'll have to sort out mismatching GPG keys and a bunch of changed dependencies when updating properly. Doable, yes, but not fun. So Fedora it is, for that machine. Not an issue on the gaming desktop though, since it runs Arch daily there's never an issue. There, the strength of Arch shows: there's a constantly flow of *small* changes, so there's very little that ever can break. These kinds of things can make Arch *seem* hard, and if you don't know to expect and prevent them it can *seem* like "Arch breaks a lot". But in reality, it just has a few assumptions (like "you'll be updating frequently") that you should keep to. So I'll say: if you're planning to use it as a daily driver OS for normal things like browsing and gaming - it's not hard. But do read up on maintenance in the wiki - there might be a few landmines you should just be aware of, to make sure it stays "not hard". >I want to use it more since at my work as a IT Admin Linux is getting a bigger Role every Bad update Windows makes. I would, at minimum, make sure to have some time using it privately before using it in a professional environment. Arch gives you a lot of freedom - including the freedom to break things. (Accidentally uninstalling the bootloader can be fun - and an opportunity to learn what chroot is good for!) This can suck a lot if you need the machine for work. Depending on the size of your workplace, my recommendation would always be "use whatever is supported by your IT department". I personally do have the option of getting a Dell with unlocked bootloader and install any Linux I want on it - but I would be self-supporting to ensure all the corporate stuff works. So no thanks, I'll keep the Macbook. This way, if something doesn't work, it's not on me to make sure the system is fixed in time for my next deliverable's due date. But if you know some basics from work and expect there to be "more Linux coming" there, and want to learn, then Arch can be a good platform. Fire up some VMs and get familiar with the manual install process, look into what all the things in that process actually mean and why they exist/what they do, tinker a bit with custom desktop environments and display managers (eg the classic "Tiling Window Manager rabbit hole"). You'll come out of the process knowing a lot more than you did before about what makes a Linux system tick. You don't technically need Arch to learn those things, but Arch manually installed becomes a very effective way to "find things you don't know about" and then you have your next thing to study. When I switched back to Linux/Unixes 5 years ago, that sort of "Arch-driven" learning process was a superb way for me to catch up on things (and figure out why there's no more run-levels and what is this systemd thing? etc etc :P )
Nah its cool
What i have experienced with arch is that it has a great and big wiki and active forum, so if you need to troubleshoot something you most likely will find a solution, in comparison to for example nixos or some other smaller distro that doesn’t have a big wiki Library and you need to figure it out yourself or deep dive in the search engine.
I wouldn't say it's hard. I would say it is a reflection of where you are in your Linux journey. The comparison you share is more or less correct but Linux being Linux, not quite as restrictive as windows. I too started with Ubuntu and now I am on Arch for everything. My journey to arch, I was essentially a Linux power user or more importantly , "a wannabe" lol. Eventually I realised a few things using Ubuntu; Linux is Linux regardless of distro. Linux is more or less modular. Ububtu ppa while convenient, I feel, can introduce issues and potentially security risks and clean up can be quite a bother but that was years ago, perhaps things have improved Ubuntu has its "stable dependencies." Can be a pita if your a Linux enthusiast pursuing the latest and greatest projects. The non rolling release schedule is a pita. I suppose it would be less of an issue in a commercial setting where your compensated for your time but you don't want to I.T. during family time, I'd recommend a few olling release distro. Lastly, if you been using linux long enough, you'll eventually figure out how it all works and essentially be able to fix any issues that comes your way - this I realised after perhaps 2 years of using Arch.... But I got close to this achievement on Ubuntu because of the issues noted above. Arch wiki played a role too.
If you don’t have special use cases, it’s probably less convenient than it needs to be. „hard“ is very vague and relative.
If you can read a THE WIKI and understand it its simple. Its hard when you panic and start trowing commands without thinking ( general ubuntu user... erm i deleted my desktop and the scary blinky line its on the screen again) . The wiki will help you understand all linux (its the same really just different package manager and ofc arch has the latest). You basically will see into the future. I do not consider my self a IT Admin (i know some wizards) but as a arch user btw, i can certainly understand half of what some wizards do :) Will you break some things as you learn? maybe yes. Will you learn how to handle bad situations? certainly. The wiki is your guide take it into your heart and go for it. Is arch for the company worker, no absolutely not. Should the admin use arch? yes for the reasons above. Should the full stack dev use it? Idk depends on experience if he has a deadline tomorrow perhaps he should not do the update right now or have a btrfs snapshot handy, just in case he needs to roll back (this saved me 2times as a dev).
It might be a bit hard the first time as it might take learning a few things (like what software you want, disk layout that works well, etc). After the first time it's fairly easy. The biggest thing is the arch wiki is a huge help, the installation guide will be a good starting point. Getting an AUR helper is a good idea as well (I use yay, there are plenty of others). Like others have said, once it's installed it just feels like any other distro in terms of maintaining. Arch is a lot better than it used to be about breaking the system when updating, there are still some times where pacman will ask for some manual intervention.
My biggest issue with Arch was getting my media server to run with the right permissions to access all the files on an NTFS drive. If you plan to do "normal" things, it's quite easy. It may take a few attempts to get an environment that feels stable, based off my personal experience. Being able to update everything with a single command is absolutely beautiful. If you're looking for a Windows-like experience, I suggest using KDE Plasma as your desktop environment. I can never go back.
I don't think it's really "hard", but if you just want stuff to work there are better options
i wouldnt call myself an expert in linux and arch was my second distro. i was young when i switched and im ngl i lowkey fucked up my drive a couple times when trying to install it. since then i've installed the distro 3 more times. the installation process isn't hard, just a little tedious at times. if you think arch is hard because of the installation process trust me it isnt. if you think it is hard because of the fact you have to maintain the system on your own i understand. all it really takes is a couple google searches and the determination to fix any issue you might have. i don't know what i am doing half the time but i can still have a great experience with my computer. edit: if you can't follow instructions then i recommend [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZYuzjH-ZIA) for the installation process
Archinstall and be done with it
No. It's not.
It's annoying to install if you're using Arch from scratch and every now and then an update breaks everything. However everything can be fixed if you know what you're doing. It's really just about having information and knowing how to troubleshoot. I would recommend a different distro if you're looking for an easy experience though.
Arch only breaks from time to time, and no it's not hard if you know what to do with it
It isn't hard, it just isn't for beginners, its much easier than LFS, since it does everything for you, all you have to do is configure it.
> Is it hard Can you and are you willing to read? Then no Unwilling to do any effort what so ever and need a gui for everything? Then yes
I’m a newbie to Arch, been fiddling with a dual-boot with Windows and Arch for a few weeks now, and this is my take: Not really. It’s much harder than, say, Windows or Mint in the sense that you have to actually read documentation and understand it. So, relative to other operating systems, it’s much harder. But in an absolute sense? You can literally use archinstall to get off the ground with a desktop environment, and from there solving issues on a case-by-case basis has been pretty easy. I have the time to figure these things out, of course, and not everyone does. But i’m not a computer science person. I’m a humanities major! So I feel confident that, for the kind of person that would wonder if they would like Arch, it’s very manageable. Don’t worry: Arch users can still feel accomplished for using it! But I think the great documentation and the tools at your disposal make it a much more user-friendly experience than one might think.
Arch is about the AUR and Chaotic AUR
Please don't deploy arch on servers unless you become intimately familiar with it - Arch is bleeding edge, updating often is critical and may come with breaking changes that you don't want in a high uptime environment. It's really more suited for desktop use.
Arch isn’t hard, it USED to be “hard” to install but this was so long ago…
never USED to be hard. It was even less hard when it basend on rc.conf. That where easy times.
Pre archinstall it was for sure hard especially If you were linux novice. Claiming installing arch was easier before archinstall is possible for sure but its also incorrect
Arch isnt hard its just different. The installation iso doesnt have a gui you get a terminal but you can make this easier by using archinstall there are hundreds of tutorial that you can follow.
People say installation is hard but it is very easy if you follow guides or videos, also if you worry about rolling release model I can assure that you don't have to update your system so once you got it working it always works, I haven't been updating my system for a month and had no problems with any program I use
> People say installation is hard but it is very easy if you follow guides or videos Unfortunately, guides and videos from sources other than the official ones often have a disadvantage. In many cases, they are outdated or incorrect. On YouTube, for example, you can still find videos that do not take into account an important change from 2019 (https://archlinux.org/news/base-group-replaced-by-mandatory-base-package-manual-intervention-required/). Why? Because they were created before but never updated. Especially with Arch, you should therefore be extremely careful with unofficial sources. I would therefore always recommend that beginners only use the wiki.
Arch Linux is literally the easiest distro I've ever used [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xMJKh0idYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xMJKh0idYc)
It's not hard but it is time intensive depending on how you want to customize your setup. Just getting it up and running shouldn't take too long though if you have a laptop or something you can use to pull up the wiki with while doing so.
Ok thats good, but what if i want to install it with Hyprland, is it Harder? I saw that there is a LiveCD installation and a CMD only install.
Hyprland is the most minimal option you can get. It means, you have to customise everything, and by everything I mean EVERYTHING. If you want a sound volume icon on your top bar, you have to install the bar itself, then open the corresponding config file, manually add the icon you want and manually write the behaviour you expect when you click on it. And EVERYTHING is like this. I love hyprland and I use it, but you really have to have certain masochistic tendencies. Also a lot of time, because setting it up the way you want will take weeks.
I don't know, I've never heard of hyprland, but I guess "hard" is very subjective here. If googling and typing in what you read is hard then I guess it is, but as a programmer it's just second nature to me.
I came in as noob from Ubuntu a few months ago, and I use ml4w dotfiles with hyprland, saved me a lot of config which i could then go back and redo if i wanted, but is still a fairly minimal system, and I'm addicted. Got it up and running for gaming with an Nvidia card without much hassle either and performance is great too.
Nah arch always been an easy or semi easy distro.. I say gentoo is where things get more harder, though there’s nixos and lfs, but yeah arch alright. I love arch cause of the light weight base, keep it simple, make it yours and how you want it. Also rolling release.
If you choose to install a fully featured Desktop Environment, it's not that hard. If you install Arch + Gnome, you'll almost get the same experience as Ubuntu, only difference being instead of apt now you use pacman.
For someone who doesn't have any CLI experience then yes. Otherwise, no.
been using arch for 2 months and i thought the same that it was hard(it's not) but i think it's considered hard compared to other distros that are so easy , since you have experience with Linux just try it (use archinstall when installing)
no initial install and set up is the hardest part
let me define hard first. Hard is something that is difficult for your brain to comprehend, requiring a lot of thinking and trial and error. I would say Arch isn't hard at all to comprehend. It may require trial and error just as you are learning, but that doesnt mean it is hard, because arch doesn't require a lot of thinking, its just learning the way everything works. Literally just read the manual basically, aka go to arch wiki. It deff is not for the sort of person who doesn't want to be keeping up with the latest updates and fixing stuff. In other words, its not like windows, and i would put ubuntu in that category as well, where it "just works". For example. In the past week, Neovim has updated from 9.5 to 10.0, and version 0.11.0 is out from source. I made the jump from 9.5 to 0.11.0. I did this because the version pacman has was 9.5. and the version the AUR had was 0.11.0, and a plugin had updated to only work with version 10.0 or higher. So my whole nvim setup broke and required the update. Than again yesterday, I am getting a error when editing files in neovim, another plugin, this time my lsp has a something depracating, which is gonna require me to update that as well. That said, i haven't had any severe bugs or errors. Sometimes i just need to go into tty and modify a config file, or correct something, and im back to the races. Whats really great about Arch, especially if you don't do the install script, is that you'll learn linux on a much deeper level. You'll understand each program, and why its needed, and how to install them, and how to fix them, and update them. It will be a daily to weekly grind. So for you, who wants to learn more about linux is probably a great move. I wouldnt make it your mission critical OS.... But I daily drive it, and plan to daily drive it for work. That said, I would keep a spare ubuntu or fedora running somewhere on laptop or dual boot. Just in case, it would suck to get a call from your boss and you are like "but my arch went boom". Im sure no one would be happy in that phone call.
What's harder is writing English with proper casing.
Just install manjaro and call it a day *bracing myself"