Seen this countless times
Seen this countless times
Arch is not hard… at all. Everyone says it is hard but no one can cite why. There is always the option of using a traditional linux installer wizard and it installs just as easy as any other distro. Then the only difference is you have a different command for your package manager. It runs the same software. I’m tired of hearing that there are meaningful differences between these distros when the only major difference is “command install packagename” vs “different_command install packagename”. Woah there. I think this is going to be too complicated for new users.
The only other major difference is arch ships the configs that the developers recommend as a default while ubuntu tries to be as aggressive with some of the software as they can be. My experience is sometimes this breaks thing (at least did back in the day) depending on updates and your hardware. This leaves you trouble shooting the most low level stuff. I’ve had to do more high level tech support for myself every year I’ve run Ubuntu than I have in 6 years of running Arch.
Maybe Arch users shout Arch because we know it’s the easiest distro we’ve used and we want to save new users the headache that comes from accepting the BS marketing on Ubuntu as real. The more a distro tries to accomplish the more they are going to fail the more it is you who will hold the bag for fixing it. So the distro that does the least is actually the easiest one. If you pick manjaro or artix you get the install wizard and its as easy to install as Ubuntu but with less broken stuff once it is running.
Next time something breaks in your ubuntu just know that if you were running arch it would have never happened.