Is Arch Linux hard?

Arch Linux Tux · 2025-01-28 11:09:43

Hey Arch Linux community!

I often hear, that the Arch Linux distribution would be harder than others or the most difficult.

I started out using Ubuntu myself.
I didn't really learn much about linux except installing software using apt-get install.

Then two of my instllations broke at the same time and so I tried out Arch Linux because I heard it would be the best choice.

Since my installation runs stable and I learned a lot not about Arch Linux ‒ but about Linux because of the Arch Wiki!

So my opinion is... :
I think it's best to start out with an easy distribution like MINT or Kubuntu.
But yeah for someone wanting to learn linux Arch Linux is the easiest way (on a hard journey)!

And eventually...
yes, doing it the Arch way using grep, find and reading the man pages beside the Arch Wiki is hard.

I did not find a discussion about the question if "Arch Linux was hard" so I dared to open this thread

Last edited by Arch Linux Tux (2025-01-28 11:21:38)

Whoracle · 2025-01-28 12:17:24

That depends on what people mean by "hard". You've basically got two camps, as far as I can see:

1. You have to learn about your system. People don't like to learn, by and large, and thus prefer systems where they don't have to. So it's "hard" as in "You have to put in some effort."
2. ZOMG YOU NEED IQ OF 1000. People who like to feel superior and thus go around toting "hard" as a badge of honor.

2 is of course just not true. Arch isn't something where ONLY THE MOST INTELLIGENT AND BEST PEOPLE have a chance of taming it. 1 is the "true" case: You have to learn and think about things you don't need to think about elsewhere. That effort gets rewarded by learning something new. If that's worth it for people depends on the specific case.

sekret · 2025-01-28 15:36:15

I'd find distros like debian or derivatives much harder, because what if I want to install some small software within the package manager but that software isn't provided in the official repos? In arch, it's super easy to create a package! So it's super easy to install everything the way it's supposed to be.
After many many years with arch this is the biggest reason to stick with arch. I'd love to give other distros a try, e.g. because they are more secure or because they are based on musl instead of glibc, but then I always think: What if I want a piece of software they don't provide?

ReDress · 2025-01-28 17:34:20

Everything looks pretty straight-forward to me ... except maybe the part about installation is hard to get around, at first and compared to most other distros

Head_on_a_Stick · 2025-01-28 19:56:21

I find it to be squishy and malleable. Kinda like clay?

cryptearth · 2025-01-29 12:28:41

I wouldn't call Arch being a hard distrobution
to it's more that many are overwhelmed with its freedom
look at the install guide:
- no editor because the team doesn't want to favor one - rather: user bring your own
- same for network stuff, partition layout and bootloader
there're plenty of "unable to boot after update" - not because Arch is difficult to setup correctly but because the user has to setup correctly
there's none fixed automated process as on ubuntu or suse - and most issues can be traced back to "the user messed something up in the past" - a working boot setup properly following the wiki doesn't break by itself but implies the user already took some different approach

it happened to me recently with glibc and the locale.gen file: somehow in the past it was reverted back to its raw version with all commented out so no locale was generated
the fix was simple: uncomment en_US and de_DE again - re-run locale-gen and rebooted - all because I got some issue when loggig in via ssh

but as I play around with VMs and are familiar with the install guide for me it was quite easy - others only done one or two installes maybe already had struggle to identify the issue and its cause

if you look at ubuntu or opensuse: it's all tight packed with not so much freedom - but it limits the potential pitfalls - on suse you never deal with grub's config directly - let alone installing it
using systemd-boot or refind on Arch requires you to install it and its config into the correct spot and configure it yourself

Awebb · 2025-01-29 12:33:03

Arch Linux Tux wrote:

I think it's best to start out with an easy distribution like MINT or Kubuntu.
But yeah for someone wanting to learn linux Arch Linux is the easiest way (on a hard journey)!

This doesn't make any sense. Is it hard or not? What is actually preferable and why?

ReDress · 2025-01-29 13:56:55

cryptearth wrote:

if you look at ubuntu or opensuse: it's all tight packed with not so much freedom - but it limits the potential pitfalls - on suse you never deal with grub's config directly - let alone installing it
using systemd-boot or refind on Arch requires you to install it and its config into the correct spot and configure it yourself

Documentation seems to be one of the many reasons a lot of people prefer Arch.... but, it seems to me like OpenSuse/Suse documentation might be equally as comprehensive. If not more comprehensive :-)

cryptearth · 2025-01-29 14:53:48

ReDress wrote:

cryptearth wrote:
if you look at ubuntu or opensuse: it's all tight packed with not so much freedom - but it limits the potential pitfalls - on suse you never deal with grub's config directly - let alone installing it
using systemd-boot or refind on Arch requires you to install it and its config into the correct spot and configure it yourself
Documentation seems to be one of the many reasons a lot of people prefer Arch.... but, it seems to me like OpenSuse/Suse documentation might be equally as comprehensive. If not more comprehensive :-)

ok - bad example - point is: suse not jzst takes you by the hand but it never will let you go while on Arch even if you reach out for a helping hand chances are to miss it

also - likely debateable - to me many parts of the arch wiki are written more like an extended man page: its a reference that implies you already know it (very like bouncycastle java api doc) - it just throws raw information at you implying you aleady know what you're looking for

ReDress · 2025-01-29 14:55:24

cryptearth wrote:

ok - bad example - point is: suse not jzst takes you by the hand but it never will let you go while on Arch even if you reach out for a helping hand chances are to miss it
also - likely debateable - to me many parts of the arch wiki are written more like an extended man page: its a reference that implies you already know it (very like bouncycastle java api doc) - it just throws raw information at you implying you aleady know what you're looking for

If you prefer an info dump, which is mostly what Arch Wiki is, then that's okay too.

Wiki/Documentation is usually meant for PEOPLE to read and with all due respect, Arch Wiki terribly fails at that.

Edit: As much as I use Arch Linux, I understand that it's not some ultimate gemstone that everyone is dying to have :]

Last edited by ReDress (2025-01-29 15:01:29)

duaner · 2025-01-30 02:29:54

There are two basic aspects of any linux distribution -- installation and configuration. You can also divide installation into the initial install and updates. Rolling releases (like arch) make updating easier, in general.

Installing arch or gentoo is no more difficult than installing any other distribution, provided you can read and follow instructions. Unfortunately, a lot of people lack the patience for that. The difference is that with ubuntu, you'll get a lot of useful software immediately. With arch or gentoo, you get a working system, then you have to read up on what you might need to add in the way of other software, but both guide you to documentation that spells out the common choices. (Oh noes! I have to read more?!)

As far as configuration goes, it doesn't really matter which distribution you use. It's all basically the same software on any of them, and you'll have to deal with the same complications, no matter how many training wheels they install. I find the arch documentation much more straight-forward and comprehensive than any other distribution's. When I need to adjust something, it's usually explicitly spelled out in archwiki.

Nobody should try to impress people with the flavor of linux they use, or even that they use linux. It's not that difficult. When I tried out windoze 11, I got lost in minutes and never managed to get much done. Not that I was very motivated. I don't think their documentation is all that helpful.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2025-01-30 21:03:28

Debian is more difficult than Arch, at least until you learn all the abstractions. Then it becomes easier.

ReDress · 2025-01-31 09:54:29

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Debian is more difficult than Arch, at least until you learn all the abstractions. Then it becomes easier.

That don't apply to other distros? Because it feels like Linux without abstraction is like bashing your head against a piece of metal.

Awebb · 2025-01-31 11:29:28

ReDress wrote:

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
Debian is more difficult than Arch, at least until you learn all the abstractions. Then it becomes easier.
That don't apply to other distros? Because it feels like Linux without abstraction is like bashing your head against a piece of metal.

Linux is just a kernel. It doesn't do anything without additional software. HoaS is talking about Debian specific tools like the "reconfigure" feature of dpgk (or just plain dpkg itself), which is or used to be extremely counter intuitive. They seem to have done away with a lot of the apt-* jungle and there seems to be a more or less consolidated apt now, but that whole "mess" was why I migrated to Arch at some point. The number of Arch specific tools is rather small (mostly pacman, makepkg and mkinitcpio) with only a few exotic configurators (java has an Arch specific default version selector) and the rest is chose your own adventure (bootloaders) or "industry standard" like systemd. If Arch sucks at something, then it probably already sucked upstream (see the historic KDEmod repository and the Chakra distro fork or Nextcloud every major PHP version bump before the Arch devs came up with a solution).

My biggest annoyance is that I can't just have vanilla Arch on non-x86, so every time I just think about buying some ARM device or anything similar, I know I'll have to re-learn Debian.

ReDress · 2025-01-31 11:43:53

Awebb wrote:

ReDress wrote:
Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
Debian is more difficult than Arch, at least until you learn all the abstractions. Then it becomes easier.
That don't apply to other distros? Because it feels like Linux without abstraction is like bashing your head against a piece of metal.
Linux is just a kernel.

No, Linux means, at the very least and as used by me in this context, the ENTIRE Linux ecosystem.

EDIT:

Some people care more about the kernel, others care more about system administration, others are desktop users. There's abstractions all over.

You will note that I do say 'Linux kernel' when I mean the Linux kernel but otherwise I am implying something else

Last edited by ReDress (2025-01-31 12:00:51)

Awebb · 2025-01-31 12:35:26

Debian puts abstraction over abstraction. It's not the bare existence of abstraction that makes Debian users move to the edge of their seat and me to the exit, it's the multi layered abstraction that is supposed to make things easier but somehow makes it more complicated for some of us.

ReDress wrote:

You will note that I do say 'Linux kernel' when I mean the Linux kernel but otherwise I am implying something else

You mean like me taking a note of your preferences regarding the meaning of a word? I was a bit put off at first, but that's actually a brilliant idea for finally something interesting to put into the pronoun field in profiles.

ReDress · 2025-01-31 12:54:20

Awebb wrote:

ReDress wrote:
You will note that I do say 'Linux kernel' when I mean the Linux kernel but otherwise I am implying something else
You mean like me taking a note of your preferences regarding the meaning of a word? I was a bit put off at first, but that's actually a brilliant idea for finally something interesting to put into the pronoun field in profiles.

That would be fine, though.

Mostly it's about your *disregard* for my preferences. But, fair enough, you might not have noticed this yet. I'm quite new here/everywhere

Awebb · 2025-01-31 14:23:07

ReDress wrote:

I'm quite new here/everywhere

Then I have a serious recommendation: React less to the social fluff and more to the actual topic at hand. I'm not going to "take note" on verbal preferences of every one of the 134352 users here, especially on a lukewarm former hot topic in the community. This will be a common answer you'll receive ("just a kernel" vs "the whole package"), so you better come up with a less ambiguous phrasing or get used to this kind of exchange.

So, any opinion on anything I said about the actual topic?

ReDress · 2025-01-31 15:34:46

Awebb wrote:

So, any opinion on anything I said about the actual topic?

Yes.

I am going to air it with the kind of atmosphere you're creating or created, probably not :-(

Awebb · 2025-01-31 16:00:19

Well, at least you found one idiot who was willing to go along and make this all about you.

ReDress · 2025-01-31 16:14:06

Awebb wrote:

Well, at least you found one idiot who was willing to go along and make this all about you.

Maybe that is why you sound like a debian user but are here making excuses about why you left debian

Head_on_a_Stick · 2025-01-31 16:14:37

ReDress wrote:

That don't apply to other distros?

Certainly, but my point was that Arch has a notable lack of abstractions and "helper" tools, which makes it easier to learn but it also means more work whenever you want to do anything.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2025-01-31 17:51:32)

ewaller · 2025-01-31 18:04:34

We can make it harder. In truth, I find it to be one of easiest to install. I can go from booting the install media to booting into an installed system with a DE in about 20 minutes. I can do the same for Ubuntu or Debian, but then one needs to go spend a chunk of time setting it up how I want.

quiqueck · 2025-02-02 09:29:03

Arch Linux Tux wrote:

So my opinion is... :
I think it's best to start out with an easy distribution like MINT or Kubuntu.
But yeah for someone wanting to learn linux Arch Linux is the easiest way (on a hard journey)!

I agree partly. I am using Computers since the old MS-DOS times, updating the OS (including the then needed new Hardware ) every few years. After getting more and more angry with M$ i started to look for other OS's and installed IBM OS/2 beside windows. Next try was Debian, but the installation process was really hard, for me at this time and i gave up. Then the hype round about Ubuntu started and this time the installation process was more smooth. So this was the first real contact with a linux OS.

Today i think a linux beginner should start with KUbuntu because it is easy to install and optically close to windows. The first thing he should do is to set Kubuntu as the first boot option in GRUB.

The rest of the learning curve is steep regardless of which distribution one uses, imho. But Ubuntu gives a beginner a little help here and there (e.g. installing packages or updating the system) because a beginner is used to open windows and do some clicks. Once he get in contact with a terminal and get familiar with it, archlinux is not a hard journey.

256 · 2025-02-03 10:28:58

You don't have to be smart to use Arch, you just have to be patient, since there's lots of reading. (As some of you may be able to tell from my avatar, I became well-accustomed to attentively reading large amounts of text at an early age.)

Arch is useful if you want to learn about GNU/Linux and/or customise your system very deeply, but tedious and pointless otherwise. I definitely wouldn't get all elitist and suggest it's superior or inferior to something like Ubuntu.

ewaller wrote:

I can go from booting the install media to booting into an installed system with a DE in about 20 minutes. I can do the same for Ubuntu or Debian, but then one needs to go spend a chunk of time setting it up how I want.

You don't have to do that on Arch? I don't think Arch takes much less time to customise.

Arch Linux

#1 2025-01-28 11:09:43

Is Arch Linux hard?

#2 2025-01-28 12:17:24

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#3 2025-01-28 15:36:15

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#4 2025-01-28 17:34:20

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#5 2025-01-28 19:56:21

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#6 2025-01-29 12:28:41

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#7 2025-01-29 12:33:03

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#8 2025-01-29 13:56:55

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#9 2025-01-29 14:53:48

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#10 2025-01-29 14:55:24

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#11 2025-01-30 02:29:54

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#12 2025-01-30 21:03:28

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#13 2025-01-31 09:54:29

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#14 2025-01-31 11:29:28

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#15 2025-01-31 11:43:53

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#16 2025-01-31 12:35:26

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#17 2025-01-31 12:54:20

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#18 2025-01-31 14:23:07

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#19 2025-01-31 15:34:46

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#20 2025-01-31 16:00:19

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#21 2025-01-31 16:14:06

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#22 2025-01-31 16:14:37

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#23 2025-01-31 18:04:34

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#24 2025-02-02 09:29:03

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

#25 2025-02-03 10:28:58

Re: Is Arch Linux hard?

Board footer