Linux

Arch user here.

My recommendation to noobies is always Linux Mint even though I don't use it.

I use Arch, btw.

Isn't archwiki one of the most comprehended wikis for Linux distros out there? If anything, the arch-wiki (to me) has often too many answers for the same problem than the other way around.

A lot of new users are coming to Linux not because they like tinkering with their setup but because they are tired of Microsoft tinkering with their setup. For these people Arch will probably never be the answer. That's ok, we should encourage all Linux adoption and the best way to do that is to start with the simple and familiar.

Weird shot at the Arch wiki, which is truly great. I turn to it regularly despite not using Arch.

Wiki do not have answer

?? The arch wiki is one of the greatest Linux resources out there. Sure there may be situations where it doesn't have the answer for something, but for a new user? It has all bases covered.

Ex arch btw user here. I noped out and wiped after thinking I had it all nailed down, then I tried to connect my Bluetooth headphones and I came to a grand awakening. I am too old for this shit.

Installed Tumbleweed and been happy ever since.

For a total newbie, Linux Mint or PopOS are probably the best options. But EndeavourOS is getting there. There shouldn't be any issues during the installation if one sticks to the defaults. Only thing is, it doesn't come with a graphical package manager out of the box. But once that is installed (I think anyone will be happy to write a single terminal command, at least), I don't see why it's any harder to use than any other distro.

I will always recommend Debian or Debian based distros to anyone new to Linux. They'll find their way to arch eventually

Arch btw

I will not stand slander of the arch wiki.

Also start with Linux Mint XFCE (unless they've fixed the stability problems with cinnamon)

I had a friend who wanted to try linux but insisted on arch because it's what I used at the time even though I said they shouldn't and gave many suggestions for better distros. They gave up after about a day and went back to windows. I don't know what they expected, multiple people warned them not to use arch.

I use Ubuntu. It generally tends to be boring stable, which is kinda what I want out of my OS these days. I can still customize it, and even break it if I really get bored, but it's nice to have things just work for the most part.

Arch wiki is the reason I started using Arch. After fixing an install from something I found there for like the 10th time I thought "Why not give it a try"

I don't have any issue with Arch, everything works. But when I try other distros, they are mostly messed up.

If the arch wiki doesn't have the answer, I just give up

My first ever distro was Arch, over a decade ago.

I just consider it my trial by fire, everything has been smooth sailing since because anything else is easier!

"Wiki do not have answer" that's why the wiki is also used by non-arch users ?

Bruh, if you're going to insist on someone installing arch, at least sit by their side and walk them through it.

Having installed arch multiple times before, I can get a base system with networking and desktop environment up in half a day to a day depending on which DE.

Ok look I'm not a huge Arch fan either (it's great for learning the ins and outs of Linux but I've gotten to the point that stability is more important than anything to me) but the wiki is the most thorough Linux documentation you can get anywhere. It always, always has the answer, even if you don't use Arch, lol.

Start with Debian stable (rock solid, well integrated packaging).

When you feel comfortable and have achieved some experience, switch to Debian sid (rolling release, updates very often, be a bit cautious).

I always say Ubuntu, to make the haters snap

I don't get the hate arch gets - it's the perfect distro if you want to choose what programs you want to use, it's not meant to be an out of the box experience. Been using it for 3 years, and sure it might take me a couple of hours to set up initially, but after that I don't really have to do anything.

Arch is easy to install; it's a headache to manage.

If you want a stable Arch, you need to check the updates and take very granular control over packages and versioning.

While some nerds may like tinkering with their system in all those ways, for regular user Arch is simply too much effort to maintain.

More Endeavour recommendations

Moved from Fedora > Arch > Manjaro > Fedora > Debian. I consider Arch for learning purposes. For troubleshooting / recoveries , that knowledge will be a great help.

Arch wasn't my first distro but it was my first daily driver. Found it easier than both mint and Ubuntu personally.

Arch is great, but I'm too lazy to learn how to set it up. Once it's running I think Arch is amazing. I just use Garuda Linux and love it. The Arch wiki is an amazing ressource.

Nvidia?

More like:

Nie-wieder!