I'm gonna get flamed but...

Mr Green · 2006-09-21 10:57:36

Hi,

A good friend of mine has been asking for help on the forums ...

He is new to Linux but you have to start somewhere, we all did ;-)

Maybe Arch is not the best distro for someone new to linux or is it?

Five minutes of your time is all I ask...

I'm going to help him as much as I can (doomed he is lol!)

[/rant]

dtw · 2006-09-21 11:12:08

Mr Green wrote:

Maybe Arch is not the best distro for someone new to linux or is it?

I think we all know it's not the best really. Linux is a paradigm shift from Windows. The whole concept of kernels, pkgs and daemons is something we all take for granted. However, when you move over from Windows there is a massive learning curve just to cover the basics. In my opinion you are much better off just coming to terms with those basics in a nice safe and ideally highly pateint and newbie friendly environment with a few GUIs to hide the bits you really don't need to know about just yet.

It may take 3 days, two weeks or six months to familiarise yourself with these basics but once you have then Arch, and similar distros are always here - you don't need to start out with Arch to end up using it - why rush in at the deep-end?

Cerebral · 2006-09-21 11:25:56

I personally don't think I could have started with Arch - it was Unix/Solaris experience from the school labs + a test-run of Fedora on my home machine that allowed me to get comfortable enough to try Arch.

I'd suggest, for a first-timer, something along the lines of Ubuntu I think, and encourage / help them to learn the command line and all the things that make linux lovely.

clarence · 2006-09-21 12:25:00

I agree with Cerebral. Ubuntu or if they are really keen (like really really really keen) gentoo.

stavrosg · 2006-09-21 12:29:02

If you really can devote some time to aid him at first, he could start with Arch, too.
But in general, I agree with the people above that a newbie-oriented distro with lots of guis would fit better.

For me, if it wasn't mandrake's (now madriva) control center and KDE, I'd never get hooked with linux and eventually find arch.

hypermegachi · 2006-09-21 12:59:26

how willing is he to learn about linux? how competent are they in windows?

if either of the above is true, stay away from all newbie distros. they won't learn anything about linux. they will just learn newbie distro.

FUBAR · 2006-09-21 13:21:17

A friend of mine wanted to learn Linux. He only had Windows-experience. So explained to him Arch was a good way to really learn Linux. But I also told him it would probably cost him a lot of time and effort to get things running. He's been using Arch for over a year now and he seems very happy with it. I don't know if he ever uses Windows anymore, probably just for games.

So Arch doesn't have to be a bad choice, but you should be clear about its philosophy. If your friend wants to learn Linux and put some effort into it, Arch is the way to go!

I obviously had to help out my friend from time to time, but I'd expected it to be a loooot more than it turned out to be.

tomk · 2006-09-21 13:29:11

stavrosg wrote:

If you really can devote some time to aid him at first, he could start with Arch, too.

I was going to say that too - you did say he was a good friend, right?

Otherwise, it depends how much time and patience your friend has. If he's prepared to be methodical, and to read docs and search the forum/wiki/web instead of (or at least before) asking questions, he could do it all by himself. That's not a glib answer, btw - I started with Debian, similarly regarded as a "hard" distro at the time, and I still remember not having a single clue what I was doing e.g. the elation at getting as far as an xdm login screen, followed by complete bafflement when presented with twm. However, I resisted the prevailing advice to install Mandrake/Suse/whatever, and kept at it. Fortunately, I was unemployed at the time, so I had no shortage of opportunity to track down the problems and undo the mistakes, and I learnt a hell of a lot very quickly.

If it was me, I'd try sticking with Arch - with possibly some help from a good friend.

Mr Green · 2006-09-21 13:32:20

ok ok ok .... woah!!!

No he has Arch install up & running X etc ... thats half the battle the install...

Of Course keeping it running & adding to it different thing but like whats been said it takes time

As I was told when I first started Linux (many times!!!!) search & RTFM after a while it sinks in ... you have to know where to look (gg!!!!)

I would say to someone new try Knoppix (or Archie!!) get the feel for Linux as you say coming from Windows things are very different but in a good way ...

No.. I'll try to sus out how much or far he has got see what happens Arch is not for everyone but....

One of my pet hates is newbie bashin' .... A Linux guru had the time & patience to tell me how to get started I in turn do the same.. if that person is willing to learn ;-)

There are millions of new Archers it seems so sorting the wood from the trees is more difficult but thats what a forum is for Asking Questions

I know I can count on all my Norse Death FM buddies (posty!!!!) for help if I in over my head

'Kjøp en øl til meg'

Right I'm off to hide before Dusty logs on lol

KerowynM · 2006-09-21 16:10:11

It's hard for me to think about starting with Arch because I didn't, but I can say Arch was the best linux experince I've ever had. Arch documentation is possibly the best of the bunch. I'd say cutting your teeth on Arch might be the best answer. To learn Linux is going to be an ordeal no matter which distro you pick, may as well go with one with decent docs.

Edit: The other alternative is Gentoo. I realize it sounds bizzare but after years of gimping along with other distros Gentoo taught me just about everything I know.

clarence · 2006-09-21 16:17:55

I'd be interested to know how someone completely new to linux would get along with Arch as a first distro.......

phrakture · 2006-09-21 16:19:17

KerowynM wrote:

Edit: The other alternative is Gentoo. I realize it sounds bizzare but after years of gimping along with other distros Gentoo taught me just about everything I know.

I'd agree with that to an extent. Being that gentoo is built from the ground up, most of the documentation is "run this, now run this, now run this" - you get exposed to alot of different tools/commands which, if a user is curious about them, can teach you alot and give you good direction.

Mr Green · 2006-09-21 16:44:44

Well they seem to have got the grasp of Arch maybe they know more about linux than I thought...

No.. I think Arch has got good docs, forum, wiki .. so taken a step at a time .. no reason why desktop is not beyond reach

Maintaining, building on that takes time but it does for everyone....

Apart from Cactus heisubercool

luke · 2006-09-21 20:33:48

I actually learned Linux by figuring out Arch. I started with a blank hard drive and the 0.6 beta CD. I think it is a great way to learn Linux and not just learn to use Linux.

Most people I know who have tried Linux and have quit, did so b/c they didn't really want to learn, they just wanted to use something different.

Those that stuck with Linux, and learned to love it, wanted to actually learn/figure stuff out, and they did better with minimal solutions that they had to build up (Slack, Arch, Gentoo).

zeus · 2006-09-21 22:04:57

i think arch is disigned for advanced users.
for beginners - ubuntu is perfect.

Dusty · 2006-09-21 22:43:06

I've answered this before. Arch is good for my parents and sister. I update it when I see them, which isn't often. If they wanted to learn the details they could, but they are satisfied with knowing how to open a browser. Arch isn't hard to learn, for those who want to learn Linux. Neither is it hard to use for those who want to learn to use it.

However, I'm surprised noone has mentioned LFS yet. That's what you do to really learn Linux.

Dusty

iphitus · 2006-09-21 23:52:32

And if they dont want to learn about linux at all and just want to use the desktop..

Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 10

or the latest suse release.

They work out of the box, and are the first distro i've used where I have not once had to open a command line to do anything except SSH.

James

dolby · 2006-09-22 00:41:56

my previous linux experience was rather small. 1,5 year with fedora which i used as a windows user. everything with a how to,just installed what i wanted and then updated every now & then.
on june 2nd i switched to xubuntu & started to learn some more on the cli etc. been using arch for more than a month now since the begining of august and i learned to apreciate very much the lack of gui for everything and the fact that im slowly getting to know how to mess with the actual config files rather than having a gui for everything & not even use the keyboard. that costs time though & a lot of stupid questions on forums,irc & everywhere on the net.
at first i thought that arch seriously lacked documentation, but the last week i feel the air changing. maybe the problem was me lacking knowledge & time to spare. arch makes me feel safe & confident & i dont think im ever switching to anything unless something drastic occurs

only thing that might seem hard when migrating from windows to any distro & that is the linux packaging system, the numerous programs that are equivalent to the one they were familiar with & the fact that u get most of the programs u. if u learn to handle that then u can at least create a tollerable working environment.
arch has a very easy to learn packaging system even for a total n00b.
the only people that i would recommend to try arch without any previous linux experience would be ppl with patience, time to read & will to learn
in other words i totally agree with this: f you are a beginner and want to use Arch, just be warned that you MUST be willing to learn. Before asking any question, do your own independent research by googling, searching the Wiki, and searching the forum (and reading past FAQs). If you do that, you should be fine.

benplaut · 2006-09-22 05:39:23

.

Last edited by benplaut (2021-06-25 12:44:58)

icrave · 2006-09-22 07:15:40

benplaut wrote:

arch is not for newbies.

arch is for all people... but all people are not for arch.

Mr Green · 2006-09-22 07:28:00

ubuntu .... well yes & no ...

Install wise, running no different to XP (yuk!) it freakin updates itself lol

For me a livecd is good way to start Linux

Arch not for learning Linux ? well I'm using it & I know fsck all about linux rofl

If an old dog like me can use it then.......

onearm · 2006-09-22 09:02:12

icrave wrote:

benplaut wrote:
arch is not for newbies.
arch is for all people... but all people are not for arch.

Better: arch is for all people...but all people are not for linux

icrave · 2006-09-22 09:23:24

And the best mistake in linux (community-users) is think that all people should use linux.

Lone_Wolf · 2006-09-22 15:41:15

I setup a dual boot sytem with arch & windows XP for a friend of mine (i take care of updates for arch about once a month). While my friend prefers windows , he uses arch for playing some older games (scummvm and dosbox stuff), enemy Territory and such.
He was very glad to have arch available three times in the past 6 months to get on the net when his xp gave problems. (we ended up re-installing XP for the 4th time in 3 years ) .
When windows games become playable/available on linux, he'll probably switch completely.

An AL system that is configured well can be used by anyone that knows how to work a keyboard and mouse and is willing to learn.

tlaloc · 2006-09-23 16:27:15

If Arch would have been my first distro, it would have blown me straight through the door - not for beginners, in my eyes. Absoulte beginners should try Suse or Ubuntu for a "first contact" phenomenon.

Now, I'm very happy with Arch - since it forces me to learn new things every day. But many people (especially so-called "beginners") don't want that at all - they just want a working system.

Arch is probably at its best as your third or fourth distro.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-09-21 10:57:36

I'm gonna get flamed but...

#2 2006-09-21 11:12:08

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#3 2006-09-21 11:25:56

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#4 2006-09-21 12:25:00

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#5 2006-09-21 12:29:02

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#6 2006-09-21 12:59:26

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#7 2006-09-21 13:21:17

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#8 2006-09-21 13:29:11

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#9 2006-09-21 13:32:20

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#10 2006-09-21 16:10:11

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#11 2006-09-21 16:17:55

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#12 2006-09-21 16:19:17

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#13 2006-09-21 16:44:44

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#14 2006-09-21 20:33:48

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#15 2006-09-21 22:04:57

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#16 2006-09-21 22:43:06

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#17 2006-09-21 23:52:32

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#18 2006-09-22 00:41:56

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#19 2006-09-22 05:39:23

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#20 2006-09-22 07:15:40

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#21 2006-09-22 07:28:00

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#22 2006-09-22 09:02:12

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#23 2006-09-22 09:23:24

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#24 2006-09-22 15:41:15

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

#25 2006-09-23 16:27:15

Re: I'm gonna get flamed but...

Board footer