We Should Stop Labeling Linux Distros "Easy" And "Hard"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- One of the things that bothers me is how the people in the Linux community (including myself at times) love to label distros as "easy" or "hard." I think those terms are not very descriptive. I also think those terms can mislead users. Let's discuss.
WANT TO SUPPORT THE CHANNEL?
💰 Patreon: / distrotube
💳 Paypal: www.youtube.co...
🛍️ Amazon: amzn.to/2RotFFi
👕 Teespring: teespring.com/...
DONATE CRYPTO:
💰 Bitcoin: 1Mp6ebz5bNcjNFW7XWHVht36SkiLoxPKoX
🐶 Dogecoin: D5fpRD1JRoBFPDXSBocRTp8W9uKzfwLFAu
📕 LBC: bMfA2c3zmcLxPCpyPcrykLvMhZ7A5mQuhJ
DT ON THE WEB:
🕸️ Website: distrotube.com/
📁 GitLab: gitlab.com/dwt1
🗨️ Mastodon: fosstodon.org/...
👫 Reddit: / distrotube
📽️ LBRY/Odysee: odysee.com/@Di...
FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE THAT I USE:
🌐 Brave Browser - brave.com/dis872
📽️ Open Broadcaster Software: obsproject.com/
🎬 Kdenlive: kdenlive.org
🎨 GIMP: www.gimp.org/
🎵 Tenacity: github.com/ten...
💻 VirtualBox: www.virtualbox...
🗒️ Doom Emacs: github.com/hli...
Your support is very much appreciated. Thanks, guys!
A better distinction is "ready out-of-the-box" versus "do-it-yourself." The majority of people want a ready out-of-the-box experience because they want to focus on applications. A much smaller group of people want a do-it-yourself experience to heavily customise everything about the operating system and applications. The terms "easy" and "hard" or "beginner" and "power user" do not accurately describe the spectrum of users, and even nuances along the spectrum.
After I tried many various distros, I absolutely agree that no Linux distribution is hard per se. There's a documentation, when you follow it accordingly you can install anything. But the so called 'hard distro' something like Linux From Scratch while not that hard it is troublesome just to make a system have some function that we want in dealing with dependencies especially after we enter BLFS section, time consuming is one thing but it's more likely than not that it will lead to installation of many junk program that we don't really need just to satisfied dependencies while we don't know if skip any will break the program or make some function of some program lost. And that lead to unnecessary waste of time and also hard disk space. And it isn't easy to handle the system after installation either, I don't see how to uninstall a program that has been installed from source anywhere at least. So, what make distro hard or easy is depended on how troublesome it is to deal with the system not how hard to install. In that aspect it's just make the distro for beginner or advance user, like you've said.
Excellent video. Totally agree. It's not about how easy or hard are distros. It's not even about time-consuming. It's how involved you want to be. How deep you are willing to go. Anyone who can read and follow instructions, like a cooking recipe can easily follow the steps to install Arch or even Gentoo. But how immersive you want the experience or how deep to go depends on you totally. In Ubuntu or Mint you could go deep but it's really not much depth to them. And that's OK. Those distros don't get in your way for the most part. Fedora Silverblue? Almost a silver plate, spartan, minimalistic, for you to populate the userland in a different layer that can be easily scrapped.
I agree with DT, that fully installed Linux systems are all pretty much the same.
Therefore, I don't agree with calling distros 'beginner', 'advanced' etc.
However, I don't think calling something 'easy' (setup/configure/live with) is negative.
I will always choose to make things easier, when dealing with computers.
I've used linux for years now starting at Ubuntu 8.04 I believe. I used to think arch was hard but, then I spent 20 minutes reading the wiki and installing it. That pretty much gave me all the knowledge I needed to understand how to do basic troubleshooting. Since then I've switched back to "easy distros" cause they "distribute" a system I would have setup anyway. That being said i've moved back to arch for the time being cause it's not that difficult to install (i used archinstall and it was literally just a matter of setting a few options to what I needed out of the system. Honestly if they fine tune it a bit more to make it work 100% of the tme (failed the first 2 or 3 times. I had to git clone the archinstall script newer version). i would say it's actually easier than somehting like debian.
I went straight into arch coming from windows (I started to hate windows a lot because of how it kept me from uninstalling or doing some things, also the updates just take so long to install and the system takes so long to boot) as my first linux distribution and I can't thank myself enough for it. I feel like if I had started with, say, mint or ubuntu, I wouldn't have gathered the same knowledge about linux in the same amount of time. As such, to tell beginners that a distribution like Arch shouldn't be touched by them is to limit their potential as users.
I absolutely agree.
And, people can consider software to be arbitrarily easy or hard. Like me. What I find to be comfortable, is sometimes labeled "hard", and I feel awkward. At random, mind you!
The terms are for newbies, not for those of us that know what we're doing. Installing Ubuntu and Linux Mint are not the same as installing Gentoo or Void, Ubuntu/Mint are mind numbingly easy for a brand new user, Gentoo and Void, even Arch with "archinstall" are not. These terms are intentional as to avoid confusion for newbies, we don't want them seeing the Arch bandwagon and wanting to jump on it only to fall flat on their face right out the gates. Honestly in the end it just sounds like some users have a problem with their egos.
Imo, some distros are just harder than others. They don't just require more knowledge and experience, they require more concentration and take longer to set up. A base install of void where you're trying to set up bspwm, sxhkd and uurxvt will require the user to create at least 3 config files and write them up from scratch in a tty. That's effort and it will require research and experimentation. That said, i agree with the sentiment and its good to push back against elitism. I just don't think referring to 'advanced users' is helpful if someone doesn't have as much experience and still wants to have a go at something more difficult than a distro with a desktop environment pre-installed.
Even that 'titling' i believe is kind of... weird.
I tried in the past pretty much most common distributions.. Debian, Ubuntu, Arch and i wasn't statisfied with either, so basically i have no idea how linux works or smth a like.
Yet here i am, created a NixOS configuration (which i believe is also not 'Beginner' or even 'Intermediate' friendly) and i am running it fine.
Titling distros is wrong in general, imo.
It just depends on how much effort you want to put into the distro and not anything.
I would rather label distros via learning curves / user friendliness.
If you want an “easy” arch lol. Use archlabs. You pick your DE/WM and no bloat. You don’t get anything you don’t want. Basically base arch but all the fine tuning is done for you.
Once they are installed, most if not all Linux distros are easy.
I just a few days ago switched from ArcoLinux/Arch to Linux Mint because I have covid for the first time and have no energy to fix the issues with my choice of distro. I just need something that works, doesnt give me issues with updates as often as Arch. But I might go to Arch again in the future, or not. I just miss the massive repos for Arch. I have to go to github for some more niche software and try to build them, or just let them be.
Gentoo to me at least is HARD. I consider myself a power user, maybe not the best user since I do tinker too much (I love tinkering !). But hard doesnt mean bad, it's just a challenge more or less depending on context. I can barely think now cause I have this stupid Covid-shit.
Gentoo is not hard, it just demands time, compiling from source is something boring and also not everyone knows how to do it at first
I remember being super scared switching from Ubuntu to Arch... following the installation guide, and then getting it to boot, feeling accomplished... and then coming to the conclusion that there wasn't really much learning curve aside from typing the word pacman instead of apt...
Yeah .you let me know how you got the GUI AUR going and explain exactly how.
I can never get that to work and that's one reason why I go right back to Mint Cinnamon. It just works
Labeling no Linux Distro "hard" is like labeling no women "complicated" xD
Don't call it easy or hard. Say one is a little more simpler to install or one is a little more difficult.... Or much easier or much more difficult.
Ah yes, the "I'm better than you because I use Arch and you use Ubuntu". Not that anyone says that directly but it can sometimes come across that way.
Recommend LFS to your dear old grandma, DT says it's not a hard distro!
No, Derek. YOU interpreted "easy" as being "for lazy people".
Hey DT very true good video, and also is it just me or are you looking pale take care sir
None operating system are ez to use for beginner, you if come form windows, windows is easy for you cuz you have years using windows, the same with macOS
Indeed..
People get so easily butthurt and stress themselves Assuming Linux should work like windows when the fact remains and was there to begin with that they forget...
" At one time...I didn't know how to use windows either...wtf should I have less patience with learning Linux? "
Lmao!🤣, oh wait, you're serious😳, go home DT, you're drunk.
I had this very same thought. What is next Genderless OS as a distro?
I have to disagree with the assessment that they're all the same. Your average computer user doesn't want to "fight" with their OS, they need it as an interface between their hardware and whatever software they want or need to run. Yes, at the bottom of it, all linux distros are the same, but your average user never needs to dig that deep. And this is why there hasn't been a year of the linux desktop, because of people like you that think people should actually know how their OS works. Most people don't care how Windows works, they just need to know how to get to their email, office and games. As an example, windows replaced CMD with PowerShell. PowerShell is actually a great, but most windows users never make use of it. And I do mean never. By the time PowerShell launched, most users had moved to GUI only control. If they ever had a problem they called tech support or the DT of their family. This doesn't mean powershell isn't great, or incredibly powerful, but it is something useless to your average desktop user. That's the same for linux at the lever you're talking about. When you go so deep into the weeds that all linux distros start to look the same you've already gone way too far for your average user. The kind of people that might need to install Arch, or Gentoo or go through the linux from scratch journey are not the kind of people you need to recommend a linux distro to. They'll either find them on their own or will have them recommended by a professor. The kind of people that you do need to recommend linux to though? those are the kind of people for whom this whole easy linux distro thing matters.
Well here is the thing Linux will always be "hard to use" because that's Linux and it's pretty stupid for the creator of a distro to make it "easy to use" because Linux distros are just projects that people made and if other people don't like it because it's "too complicated" then they can move on because the creator doesn't have to do anything that you say because it's just a project so nobody needs to make easy distros they need to leave it alone and if the normies don't like it then that's on them.
I think you're confusing the fact that most people are cattle with the idea that most people should be cattle. Because they shouldn't be.
In the beginning they're not the same. But once you have it up and running with whatever DE or WM you want to run, then the terms easy/hard come into play. For instance, I would give a new user Cinnamon or Budgie as opposed to i3 or xmonad. Those are difficult to use at first. But Cinnamon is very Windows like and therefore EASIER for a new user to get going with it. So, if you throw Cinnamon on after installing Arch, that system has become that much simpler for a new user to use. Forget about how it got to Cinnamon. If it's running Cinnamon, most Windows users will be able to pick up on that quite easily (I'm throwing around easier, hard, difficult because I think those terms are necessary for new users to hear).
I recently put Linux Mint on my wife's computer. Windows was giving her a bunch of headaches so I put Linux Mint Cinnamon on her machine. She never lost her stride. She tutors online and she's never had any questions. It's just like it would be if she were still running Windows. Mind you, she's not that good with computers. If she can find her way around then it's a piece of cake for her. She found her way around like she'd been using Cinnamon forever. If I'd have put i3 on her machine, I'd never hear the non ending questions starting with "How do I..."
So a typical conversation for me with a non Linux user would have a couple of variations. Person who's tired of Windows: "Is Linux hard to learn"? Me (Part 1): "Well, it all depends on how you want to use it. I could set it up for you and make it look similar to Windows and you won't have to learn much of anything new to use it". Or Me (part 2): "I could make it impossible for you to use a functioning Linux distro but you could learn how to use it. It may take you a while but eventually, you'll learn how to use it". Or Me (part 3): "I could make your life a living hell with Linux"... Installs the command line only. "Figure that one out"! So Really it all depends on the individual and their comprehension level as far as computers go.
You would still need to install a Linux distribution on their computer, something an average computer user does not know how to do, even with Windows. They would typically get it repaired or upgraded at some computer shop.
Some might not even know what an OS even is.
True. But most of them couldn't install Windows either I would guess.I had to hold my fathers hand a few times with Windows installations before he got it down to a science.
Some people (even programmers I guess) just want to use an free and open source os, but wanna spend time on other topics (perhaps programming, perhaps sth strange and real challenging like a family etc.). As it is ok for some people to take the challenge of Gentoo or Arch, it is absolutely ok, to use an easy OS. At the end of the day , we are all using (more or less) free OS. Congrats!
I'm a software engineer, been one for over a decade. I use command line Linux at work on AWS and at home I use Mint. I get enough challenge with making software I don't want to configure and fix other people's software.
I don't like beginner - advanced either. Calling something beginner implies that a user will at some point out grow the thing. I'd describe it as low to high maintenance, personally. Gentoo is definitely a high maintenance distro whereas Mint is low maintenance.
Maybe "recommend linux experience level" would be a better term.
Indeed
For what it’s worth as a new-er Linux adoptee- I think it’s all to do with familiarity (looks like windows, looks like Mac) and, most importantly how GUI-centric the distro is = Easy/ Beginner. The quicker I can get stuff, set it up and I can click stuff with a mouse - the happier I am.
I'm pretty sure that "obstacles preventing our distribution from running" is what I'm experiencing with my current Gentoo. In the official repo there is a bug in the ebuild and now I have to "overcome the obstacle" and try to find a workaround.
Yesterday I had another issue where some build tree wasn't completely properly written and I had to unmask a certain package with ~amd64 even though portage didn't explicitely warn me about it.
I never really had that many issues with my Linux Mint installation. If Easy/Hard are wrong terms, I would at the very least use: Easy/Hard to maintain/update.
It's these inevitable issues that will develop you. There were many times I was so close on just ditching Gentoo, but forcing to fix the issues and finding workarounds truly paid off.
well that's the price u have to pay. but gentoo is immensely powerful
Fair point DT.
it mostly boils down to, "how much time are you willing to spend to tinker and shape your OS"
LFS still got a place in my heart for teaching me the possibility's ^^
tbh there are tons of differences between distros especially while installing which makes differences in difficulty. its not possible to compare the difficulty of mint to the one of lfs
Even after the first install, if you run Arch you're expected to read the Wiki to have a working environment, and to understand the wiki you need at least some understanding otherwise you'd just be told to rtfm if asking on forums without doing so, a friendly distro takes your hand. That's what "difficulty" means.
Well yeah, but there are actually only two differences. Directories and a package manager. I use Linux Mint 21, and it has no DE but my BSPWM and there is about 1.5k packages installed. Does it make my system easy to use for everyone? Definitely not, but I like the package base
@@igorfoxly2555 Only 2 differences ? Far from it. With an ootb distro you have everything in place, it's opinionated, if you don't agree with those opinions you're better off switching distros, in a minimal distro you have to make decisions, and depending on those decisions you may end up with a really different system with a different init system etc.
Well if you want to say that it's still Linux after all then yeah, but one would argue everything is machine code too and that Linux and windows are the same.
I've been thinking a lot about this lately, too. I'm visiting my parents out of state for the holidays this year, and about a year ago (about when Windows 11 came out), I bought an Asus laptop on Newegg, installed Manjaro, added a stick of RAM, and sent it to my parents (who are in their 60's). They've been using it without issue, aside from the occasional update related quirk like the desktop menu bar disappearing (problems which I have fixed for them remotely with AnyDesk or walked them through over text message), and have even started updating the system every couple days through the terminal (with an 'update' alias I have created which updates the system and reboots). You don't have to be an advanced user to USE any form of Linux, really, you just need some know how to install something like Arch or Gentoo. Once it's installed and setup, all you have to do is keep it updated (or not...) and use it like you would use any other computer. Lastly, I think rolling release distros are actually best for the beginner (and for people who don't know computers much at all, like my boomer parents). When my parents were on Windows 7, and Windows 8 came out, it was a whole ordeal; buy a new computer, get the new Windows setup, learn how to use it, get used to all the changes, etc. With a rolling Linux release, any changes in how the system looks and feels are so gradual, they might not even notice, and the OS will continue to work on the same machine, basically forever, which saves them the pain of upgrading to the latest Windows release.
I don't mind using a so-called easy distro. Most usually they are debian or ubuntu which is great for the new user and power user that needs a stable environment. I personally run Void on my main machine, however run Debian and Ubuntu based on my other computers. I quit listening to elite talk.
I would not install gentoo for my grandma's pc. But linux mint, sure why not.
Definitely there are easy distros and hard distros.
But nothing wrong with using easy distro.
Ps
Watched to the end, got your point. maybe we can call them time-consuming or barebone distro
well grandma will not use use anything other than browser or many be office, so you can actually install it and do some regular update she ain't gonna install some extra software or stupid software like more ram lmao, it did it to my friends pc he just uses firefox, libreoffice and vlc and nothing else
In 2009 I put Debian on a Sony vaio. It was a learning curve. I went and found the debian amd non free contrib with xfce on current computer. Everybody learns differently too. Being self taught has it's own curve too. Gonna buy another hard drive and do some distro hoping. I will give installing arch another try. I did get arch working on the pi once.
good point DT. i started with Tails Os (debian based) just for fun and testing commands and i decided to install Debian 9.~ in my laptop i cant precise the version. and yep really as you mention is not the best option for a beginner when i was just starting. that was 4 years ago an now i'm typing this from my thinkpad Gentoo with minimal packages installed as possible. Greetings from Peru. Vamos Argentina
We have to use those terms, I have seen a video explaining why Linux sucks and that guy directly jumped to Arch and nothing works for him properly and he says Linux sux lol
Linux is always step by step. Each step is easy. I'd say something like a Gentoo installation is "tedious" but not really difficult -- but still step by step with each step being easy.
Gentoo in itself is quite easy, until things happen that go outside the expected. For simple example during installing if you had too many threads for the compiling and ran out of memory with some of the packages. You'll have to scroll a ton of the output to find clues.
There are tons of potential issue that can, and eventually something will happen. But with the correct attitude you'll find the issues and usually there's some simple fixes. Overtime this adds up and learn the system.
But Gentoo is certainly worth it in my opinion. In two years it has changed me from Linux user, to mastering my own system and having total confidence.
@@juzujuzu4555 x2 I agree with what you say about Gentoo, I've used it for exactly one year and it's certainly worth it. =)
Gentoo isn't hard, it's perfect. And rewarding!
I need to disagree here. First off, people feeling »offended« by having called their Linux distro »easy« likely have a lot more issues apart from their choice of OS. Likewise, the assumption of people choosing »easy« Linux distributions as »lazy« or »ignorant« is pretty ill-formed.
For example, I'm still in the process of learning how to install and use Gentoo. I made it through Arch, so Gentoo is the logical next step for an »enthusiast«. Would I therefore recommend Gentoo as a distribution for a regular user or even someone new to Linux? Absolutely not. Even way more tech-savvy people than me would most likely not do that.
I would rather recommend Arch, in case people could get help setting it up. I wouldn't even recommend OpenSUSE to a new user, simply because of mandatory Btrfs and the crude syntax of zypper.
Let's not mention expert stuff like systemd vs. OpenRC... This is not something regular people should ever be worried about. I do advocate for people to increase their tech knowledge, but everything should have reasonable limits at some point.
Therefore, I don't see any benefits in trying to disguise the truth. Some Linux distributions simply are harder to learn, setup, use and maintain than others. Please, let's not misguide people.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the 'time & effort' observation. This somewhat correlates to how distros could be labeled as 'beginner' and 'advanced user' distros. Beginners usually don't know yet what they specifically want out of Linux, they want to try stuff out and do it quickly. Advanced users know exactly what they want and do not shy away from investing time & effort to get there. To them the 'beginner' distros might even be HARDER to use than the supposedly 'hard' ones since they need to undo a lot of customization and effort that has gone into making a distro 'farther down the line in the baking process'. Which again makes the terms 'hard' and 'easy' all the more meaningless.
yeah after using Tiling WM for half year i wasn't able to/ efficiently navigate through Gnome de on beginners friend pc and embarrassed my self, also the time when i was forced to use windows and my collagemates made fun of me that i am super slow and can't use windows that even nursery kid is faster than me, filled with rage i told them oh then try to log in into my laptop, (none of them was able to do a shit (i never installed loggin manager, it was just tty and i use "startx" most of the time and it looks cool anyways ), i then logged in and said navigate through it they said it's just a picture or some video that shows time and computer status and its not even an operating system then i flexed my speed) sadly they said i am mental, psycho, psychopath so i use mental psycho os. AHH.... CURSE THEM!!!
U may use a GUI-distro, like Mint or a distro with much less GUI. Yrs ago I used such a distro, do not remember the name. But with diligent practice, it is a better work-flow. Big distros have big forums, so nearly every problem is discussed there, better for beginners, thus easier. Ask a "dumb" question in an Archforum-good luck!
The point is, you can give it a shot. And there is loads of advice on the net, starting with RTFM. So go for it. Have a play! Find out! Have a bit of fun .If it donsn't ring your bell,.try another one.
(Me I use a chromebook with thr raw Debian for most of my work. Neovim native or to remotes)
Arch's "difficulty" is mostly the cognitive punch of not having a GUI when you boot up the live usb.
If you're used to terminals and can read the manual it isn't that much different from something like Ubuntu's installer.
What you're describing is the inherent problem with labels in general. Particularly when using terms as subjective as "hard" and "easy". For instance a person who is learning to cook, might fly through a "hard" recipe that is written in detail, but might struggle for days with the "easy" recipe that is poorly written because, well, it was meant to be easy so additional details weren't given.
There is also a stigma when using terms like "beginner or advanced". As a veteran linux user might use a beginner distro for whatever reason.
The fact of the matter is that in spite of "issues" with labels, they do serve a purpose. They are the "at a glance" categorisations that we all use and depend on. I would rather people tell me that Gentoo is hard than have to spend hours wading through the Gentoo documentation to figure out that it is probably not for me and won't do what I want, out of the box.
Yeah I think it's better to say things like "this takes more effort/time to maintain" or "this requires experience to use." For instance, using Arch doesn't require better problem solving skills than other distros; it requires you to be familiar with Linux terminology and have knowledge of where to get information about Arch. A beginner can be capable of using Arch, but not have the baseline info on how to effectively maintain it, so "hard" and "easy" aren't the right terms.
I think Lubuntu is for the beginners, but Ubuntu is more for the moderates because of the Gnome Desktop factor. The customization is not straight forward in Gnome like the simple DEs are.
i can't agree with this one.
however i also don't agree that ubuntu is an easy distro, i used arch, void, gentoo, slackware, suse when it was just suse etc for a long time,
and ubuntu is the hardest distro i tried, it almost drove me mad.
ubuntu is an easy distro if you use it how designers intented for you to use, however if you try to use it like arch, terminal oriented, tinking with what's under the hood etc, it so much harder than arch, because achieving shit is harder and it's harder to find a solution because ubuntu based forums and communities don't offer solutions they just post "do this, enter this command etc" they don't tell you what the actual problem is, you don't learn how to deal with it. or maybe i'm not the one who is compatible with ubuntu, i don't know. but i hate it.
btw, of course easy distros can be broken, windows is easy, too, and it can be broken very easily as you all know. easy doesn't mean it's harder to brake, it means it's easier to use. ios is one of the easiest operating systems out there to the point it's labeled idiot proof by society, and it can still be broken easily. also, i don't think there is much difference in between labeling them as easy/hard or beginner/advanced, it basically means the same, it's just leaning on semantics. it's like saying disabled instead of cripple, using different names doesn't change what it is.
Gentoo and LFS are hard distros (to pick up) compared to most - once you do though ...
On the flip side Gentoo is the easiest to (for example) strip IPV6 support out of every single package you have
And Gentoo has a really good wiki. Even better in structure and completeness than Arch. So if you're willing to take the time to study the wiki, you'll almost certainly find an answer or workaround.
@@kpcraftster6580 Yeah the Gentoo Wiki information is vast and I have used that information to solve issues on other distributions.
Major disagree. There are distros that spoon feed the user and others that kick them in the face at the slightest user error or cluelessness. 🙏
No, disagree... Linux distros are indeed divided into easy installation and use Linux distributions and difficult ones. And in my opinion, why do you have to choose the difficult one if there is an easy one. you only live once in this world, why make it difficult.
Interesting video. One thing that people that say that beginners will want to move away from Ubuntu, Mint etc over to Arch or other more "advanced" distros once they gain experience, can Arch do anything that Mint or Ubuntu can't do?
If a distro is not 'easy' then it is a lesser product in my view. There is no pride to be taken in making something hard to install. I have trouble deciding whether I am a 'New', 'Intermediate' or 'Advanced' user. It is more a matter of whether you want to spend time tinkering or you just want something that works. Setting up more obscure features or fixing problems is about the same whichever distro you use.
No, Derek. YOU interpreted "easy" as being "for lazy people". And YOU interpreted "hard" as being "you are too stupid for it". Nobody is actively trying to prevent anybody from doing anything.
Actually Derek implies Linux is Linux. You learn Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD by reading, using them and experimenting on spare older machines. Many people get frustrated. What happens over time you know what causes the problem when you see it. It not arrogance but experience that makes it easy to run any of these systems. Here is a tip on any of these operating systems when you learn how to solve a problem or many problems that might occur take notes on the solutions and save them for later installs. Most of my installs on my eight machines are done via ssh (secure shell) from a host machine where I can look at my vim notes and cut and paste them into a terminal to be execute on the network install machines. LFS, Gentoo installs can be accomplished this way! Cuts the install time in half. This a hobby for me and I enjoy it..
Arch linux definetly isn't a hard distro after you install it it's basically ubuntu with newer packages.
After some distro hopping, I came back to Mint and I'm happy for it. Now I hopped from cinnamon to xfce, and I think i can live with it.
Bro facts I learned on kali and downloaded mint and use kali when I need to and mint as a daily driver. I honestly can't tell a difference from a terminal standpoint.
I can feel you but have the inclination to say the select distro I am using is best but only best for my use cases at the time and my preference. I like arch but had fedora and am about to load debian testing on my diy desktop.
They're all difficult when something serious and significant breaks. I had to reinstall Pop!_OS once when something broke apt and try as I might I couldn't fix it unfortunately. Searching through the forums for a solution became more time consuming than doing a fresh install. A lot of Arch BTW users don't realize than many casual Linux users want a simple streamlined daily user experience that isn't Microsoft and gives us more control (the terminal) when needed. I went to Pop because I wanted a stable experience based off Ubuntu/.deb with Flatpak enabled. The system is the system IMHO, the way we interact with the software installed and workflow are most important. Pop is my sweet spot after getting used to Ubuntu LTS 21.
Agreed, except I went the way of Solus Budgie, I just want something simple that works, is stable, gets fairly regular updates, and lets me get my work done, but I know I can run the terminal when I want too, or really have too.
I'd say it all boils down to "presumptions" made by the distribution and the resulting effort you have left.
A beginner friendly distribution is typically aware that a beginner is not aware of all the granular aspects and therefore prevents this person from making decisions without knowing the consequences. So as an extreme example, some people out there favor an iPhone for being easy and consumer-friendly BECAUSE it locks you into this eco system, which can be positive from a view point where you do not make complicated decisions. The decisions have already been made by the vendor and you just arrange. You can't break it or hustle with the configuration, it's just there. And this is in much lighter and less brutal sense what beginner-friendly distros do. They are "easy" on you by presuming certain things and settings it up for you without ever asking.
Other people of course hate the example of an iPhone, because it locks you into this system. They prefer making their own decisions, and some vendor-decision might even have been for their own sake, such as collecting data, telemetry and much worse. So distros like Arch, Slackware and many other will not "bloat" your system automatically with proprietary firmware and drivers, keep things very narrow and clean, and let you make all decisions yourself. By that, you become aware of these parts of the OS, and make choices consciously. This is full freedom, that nothing happens silently in the background you might not have wanted. But with great freedom comes great effort - this is always the case. If you want to participate in decisions made, you need to know what the decision is about, all the consequences, and what option has what pros and cons. And therefore it rather comes to differenciating distros by more or less "guided" or "open to advanced usage". If you ever tried to heavily customize Ubuntu, you might notice that this would actually have been easier with Arch for example.
So in system integrator's terms, more advanced distros are rather a custom self-built PC, where a more entry-friendly distro is the pre-configured PC you order, unpack and just plug in.
You can still fiddle around with a pre-configured PC, but some decisions cannot be reverted that easily, where with a custom build you have all freedom, but also need the knowledge what you are doing and why.
Now I don't know either what terms would be more helpful to differenciate distros. "Guided" versus "Custom"? "more pre-configured" versus "customization required"? "Easy entry" versus "requires you to make more own decisions"? Very hard to put into terms when unable to speak the same language with a beginner. You cannot easily compare the differences with a beginner that does not know what this is all about. So therefore I like my comparison with the PC building process. I'm getting lost here, sorry. :)
Very detailed and well said. Speaking of iPhones I use Archlinux to grab my photos and other data for long term storage on to my server. Below is a how to for iPads and iPhones. Works well with the older iPhones. No issues either. I use the terminal with the mc or vifm file managers...
Mount iPhone in Arch Linux
Step 1: Unplug your iPhone, if it is already plugged in.
Step 2: Now, open a terminal and use the following command to install some necessary packages. Don’t worry if they are already installed.
sudo pacman -Sy ifuse usbmuxd libplist libimobiledevice
Step 3: Once these programs and libraries are installed, reboot your system.
sudo reboot
Step 4: Make a directory where you want the iPhone to be mounted. I would suggest making a directory named iPhone in your home directory.
mkdir ~/iPhone
Step 5: Unlock your phone and plug it in. If asked to trust the computer, allow it.
Arch is easy, but you need to know some things it you want to get a desktop environment.
I can't tell if DT is serious or trolling us after he said "offending us".
im 14 and i used endeavourOS first now im gonna install gentoo
All minimal no ui and cli or tui installers are seen as hard. Or for intermediate advanced users.
The easy distro is the one who work out of the box ( sound codecs drivers)
For me arch is easy
Install red hat 3 on a Pentium 3 with 512 from source. That is "hard". I would say time consuming and a bit challenging without an internet conection.
Yeah ubuntu is as mint for beginner. Is not easy (try ubuntu server). Arch and gentoo is for intermediate advanced users who know what they want.
Every new user to Linux should try LFS, it's the easiest. It even has a book with full instructions. You can't fail.
hey... wait a minute....that sounds kinda stupid! (lol)
Nah, we should point them to TempleOs
@@bobbybologna3029 Yes, you do - as always.
It's a good learning experience. I haven't installed LFS in about 20 years but I should have another go at it just to see what it's like now.
Back then, I found it a pain to keep updated which is why I ended up on Gentoo in 2003 and stayed there ever since.
OK, but Gentoo IS HARD!
MacOS is "easy", but if it breaks, it's hard. ;)
It's also more bloated.
Yes I realize that you can only ..." Stretch" using the same hardware for so many years.
But..
Having Mac os Catalina on a haswell 1.4ghz CPU ( wtf was crapple thinking selling an iMac in 2014 with such a low end cou) versus Linux Mint Cinnamon with the Effects disabled..is FAR worlds apart different although both are sluggish machines..
At least on the Mint option you can eventual accomplish something instead of literally having to wait an entire minute or more from clicking on something to when it actually does something.
I saw you on KeepitTechie, been subscribed but man i know your accent was familiar, but now I see you are a fallow Louisiana native. That was a great interview.
On the point you made about "breaking an easy distro", I have broken many EASY distros. The difference between Linux and others (windows mac etc) is that the one who broke it was ME. That means I can eventually figure out how not to break it. Linux distros rarely break themselves (although it happens). I would recommend to people to use Ubuntu or Manjaro as a starting point. Then dive into qemu/kvm and learn to boot up virtual machines of the different distros so you can break them, delete them, rinse and repeat. You just might end up using slackware 🤣 when all is said and done. Also, I agree with your "moderate" label for arch. Thanks for great content as always.
Me too, when I first installed Ubuntu I broke it with thousands of ppas and duplicate dependencies. Now I use arch (btw) and I also broke it 3 times with the same mistake, duplicate dependencies that wouldn't allow to boot. Now that I've learned my mistake I avoid installing anything that I don't need.
Make a video about NixOS
I think a lot stems from the forums. I've participated in Ubuntu and Raspberry Pi forums for years, and of late Linux MX forum, all have been helpful and friendly. Now Arch forum, first post, no welcome to the forum, just flamed immediately as I dared to mention I was following an installation video. Told to contact the video producer and not them. The video producer was you Derek, and it was merely stepping through the arch installation wiki, following that step by step. This was explained in the post but no help, was directed to you.
Did actually resolve problem myself, my arch works, still use it on occasions but sadly, the forum has put me off progressing with that distro. In any case, I am far more familiar with Debian systems.
Use Debian GNU/Linux and buy hardware that is supported by the kernel etc. I have USB devices (mixing desk, Zoom recorders) that I knew would work with Debian. They're just plug and play. Same with my cheapo webcam. If a webcam is sold as plug and play for Windows and Apple, then it'll work on Debian. When I bought my laser printer, I checked that it would be supported by free software in Debian. It's not **that** difficult, though I understand that people may be coming to GNU/Linux with legacy devices ... though I'm not sure what many of them will be these days.
PS. The fact is, if you have an old device, it's far more likely to work on GNU/Linux than on the latest Windows.
I agreed , basically those people like to label the different system: easy hard ... often use the "hard" one to show the superiority to those used "easy" one.
It's not just existed in the system using , still in lang comparsion and discriminate the easy one user , like: C > C# > Python.
It's a common sense of people's psycho of superiority (by showing off).
I think you care too much what other people think. I have used Gentoo. I have used Arch. I used debian in the early 2000's when it was more complicated to install. But for the past 5 years I have CHOSEN to use Manjaro. Not because I am lazy. Because it is easier which for me is more convenient. Just like I use KDE. Not because I can't run a tiling window manager and config it to my exact specifications. I've done that and it was a fun experience. But I find Manjaro KDE to just be more simple and convenient. If that makes people think I am LAZY or Not Elite....I DON'T CARE what anyone else thinks. I use what works for me and makes me happy.
Example: Try to install pulseeffects on slackware 15 stable without crossing a f11king nightmare. In despite garuda, debian or mint just do pacman or apt install pulseeffects. Lets no say eaisy or hard. Lest say linux SLOW distros and FAST LINUX distros. Not in a RAM/CPU way but in a comfortable performance to the user
Mint is easy ? --- Well, I don't know how, but from inside LMDE5, recently, some kind of updates managed to mess up my 3 SSDs boot sectors or something. They all had different OSs on them. Impossible to go back in any of these drives without completely formatting them. GRUB could no longer see any bootable drives. I forfeited to solve this after a week of research. Back in a new install of LMDE5. -- Easy can still break easily!
A diatribe of words -- "Easy" And "Hard". Funny how a "Hard" boiled egg is "EASY" to eat. Because it's soft. Or that's a "Hard" pill to swallow. I frown on terms like "Beginner" and "Expert". Is there really a difference? Or the proverbial which came first? The "chicken" or the "egg"? George Carlin said it best. "Words always give you away."
DT watch your pronouns and verbs. In the beginning Linux was never a point and click operating system. So hard or easy for Linux users can be a relative point all depended on the amount of grey matter between ones ears and well document required reading.
And by the way this is an old topic. Those who can - "do". Those who can't -"teach". And those who can't do either become - "management". The last one I seen first hand, I'm a retired pilot. All things happen for a "reason", this applies in a society were "reason" does NOT exist and critical thinking is gone.
TL;DR: Use whatever floats your boat, that's the beauty of it.
I've been running a Linux desktop as my primary personal rig since Bill Clinton was the US President. I've tried every distro that was mentioned in this video, including LFS more than once. Some of them I have run as my "must be functional, get things done" OS, some of them I have run as a "this seems interesting, I'll try it out" OS. I keep a minimum of two drives in my rig so I can have one reliable and one toy on separate hardware.
I am probably not a beginner, nor does "hard" scare me, and yet... I really like having at least one OS in my grub menu that I know is going to boot and rarely slow me down doing important (to me) non-OS stuff. Like software development work. And volunteer technical work for the non-profits I enjoy helping. And editing my daughter's video & audio projects. And filing my taxes and paying my bills. And watching RUclips videos. So right now that's Mint (although I do have at least 8 different desktop environment or window manager setups to pick from). In the past it has been Manjaro, Ubuntu, Mandrake, Redhat, probably some others I am forgetting.
The other drive gets reformatted and a new distro installed (or compiled) about once a month, so I can play with something different. Some of them are slow to install or update, some have cumbersome ways of doing things, some of them require you to learn more before you can do the same stuff that you already do elsewhere. The only thing that makes any of them "hard" is bad documentation, or fragile updates, or obscure ways of rolling back breaking changes. Most of them let me learn a thing or two, but once it's all sorted out and understood... it's just Linux. Every few years or so I find one that I like well enough to replace my "main".
I meme; BTW I use Arch. It really is not that hard. Every Friday evening I do this, "sudo pacman -Syu && yay -Syu". If there are problems I paste the error into Google and find the solution. Installation was easy as well, if you can read a cookbook you can install Arch Linux.
I totally agree with Derek. Arch linux is the bistro that works the best on my hardware, Then again my hardware is very dated.
Easy, Intermediate, advanced is probably a better way of describing Linux distro's as it really depends on your overall competency with computers. Sure if you're a grandma and only check emails and browse the web then something like Linux Mint is probably your distro. But if you're a windows power user then it's probably going to leave you lack lustred with it's less than optimal settings (not to mention lack of repo's).
While I've trialled many distro's over the years, I settled on Manjaro's Arch when I switched from Windows (it's not the case now but that's another topic). The main reason was Ubuntu type OS didn't have the software in the repo's I needed and I liked a more up to date system than what LM offered (as I normally run Linux on newer hardware).
One other thing that reviewers get wrong is the desktop environment. Doesn't really matter too much about the distro, but if you don't like the DE, you'll never like a distro.
Even though I class myself as an intermediate Linux user, I still find OpenSUSE hard to install on hardware. Fedora is relatively easy for me (other than the weird partitioning). Once installed it's relatively easy to maintain compared to other distro's I've had.
Bottomline... Even for windows the individuals claim any OS is easy or hard how many users have they managed?? How many networks have they managed?? With any of these OS's... Any OS we had to learn it... Simple and plain... Most Linux distros are free windows mac's are not... How does one complain about free shit?!? Don't use it... If you don't like it it's that simple... When I first encountered windows and Mac I had to try to learn it for what it was I didn't whine cry complain about it... Either I was going to come to learn it or leave it...
There is a great difference between Gnu/Linux and MS Windows... Win is an "entertainment OS" and Gnu/Linux is a "working OS"... so the "easy" for Linux users is the "hard" for MS users...
Any Win user that is not "intermediate/advanced" at Windows... will fail even on "easy" Linux distros...
It's very difficult to label a distro. Even if you use the easy and hard labels, when you have something break, which is easier to fix? One where all the initial work was done for you and you probably don't know what was done and where, or one where you built and customized everything from the ground up? It's all a matter of perspective since having the larger community to ask for help vs just knowing how and where something broke on a system you built yourself may change your definition of "easy" a lot.
When I describe Linux distros to somebody I have dropped the "easy" and "hard" labels. Instead I tell folks, this one has a default interface like MacOS and that one has a default interface like Windows, and the one over there starts you on a command line. I also tell them distro A may be better for driver updates for NVidia cards at stock settings based on my personal experience while distro B is better for having more updated kernels for the latest driver for AMD cards. It's something I tailor to their needs after asking them what they have and what they want to do with their computer.
"Beginner" "Intermediate" "Advanced" "Nerdvana" etc. are OK terms, but also not accurate either. If you have a software developer working on new software to run on Linux, most would consider them to be "Advanced" or even "Nerdvana" level just for being a developer, but then you look at their screen and see them running PopOS which is most often labeled "Beginner" it flies in the face of what those terms are. Maybe we shouldn't be labeling disros at all anymore...
I don't like the handle 'beginner distro' as it hints you should move on as you advance. I'm perfectly happy with KDE Neon (basically Ubuntu to all intents and purposes) as an experienced user of 10 years. 'Beginner friendly' is however a reasonable term.
I've used Linux to some degree for over a decade, I used to run Jolicloud on a Dell Mini 9 netbook. At no time have I ever cared to install an "advanced" distribution. I've still never compiled anything, at least not knowingly. I've mostly used Kubuntu, Mint and now PopOS for my daily needs. Give me a GUI and all the proprietary software I need to run my equipment and I'm happy.
I'd argue that any GNOME based distro that installs with just a few simple steps is easy. So that means Fedora, Ubuntu for sure. Then there are some others like OpenSUSE, but include many distro added configuration tools. Which is confusing. Fedora is the most clean install you can get. No bloat and comes with most what you need.
A distro is just the OS with software preinstalled. That's why Ubuntu is so easy. Your average user could use something like Archlinux if if it was set up for them
"Beginner" is just as bad, e.g plenty advanced people using Ubuntu etc. I don't know what's best, probably imho advanced and user-friendly. It is advanced when abstractions removed, and user-friendly with such added, not only in installation, but e.g in arch you need enable a service yourself, or add configs etc etc, just as small examples. Anyway, on second thought, hard and easy is fine, as is harder or easier per definition I.e abstractions again.
I can certainly confirm that I can consider myself a mediocre linux user and I do have a easier time on having the AUR on hand than having to search a ton and end up compiling a lot of packages myself out of git on debian. In my eyes it is definitely a lot faster to make a top notch Manjaro, than to make debian work the same way. In the it does not matter that much you get there anyway but going debian is time consuming process in my eyes.
I'll buy your definition, but I have my own yardstick. Is that given distribution "usable" by us with our hardware? Very self involved I know, but I want what I want. Which is a split install with the OS on an SSD and /home on a much larger hard drive. That wish has more to do with the installer than the distribution.
I recently switched and looking for a movie player like MPC-HC it's a big loss for me not to have it on linux. I don't like vlc and I'm used to mpc so do you have any suggestion? I've tried celluloid it's good but I can't find a source for all option that I can put in conf file. Also tried Haruna it was working properly but suddenly it's not working anymore. any suggestions?
As a Linux user I use both Arch and Linux Mint on different pc's or laptops. I use Linux since Knoppix and Ubuntu 10 and I don't care anymore which distro I use, but the time of distrohopping is something from the past.
I hopped thru most of the "easy" distributions before going to Garuda, which is Arch. I found Garuda easier than anything I had used before just because it put everything I needed to make my computer compatible with games and windows apps right out of the box. So those labels are becoming even less relevant.
hey dt, please don't apologize for rambling, while i totally agree with u, i understand if someone does not agree with us! i would go a step further & say opensuse & manjaro are different rather than easy or hard, but its not like u hv 2 go back to dos 3.3 days & use copycon or edlin to edit a text file, install windows 3.0 or 3.1 on 6 floppy disks or install an office suite with 32 floppy disks. Now thats hard, but not watt i would call a distro!
This is completely semantic. Does "beginner" have less derogatory connotations over "easy"? I don't think so. Quite the opposite in fact. "Easy" describes exactly what it means to maintain said distribution. Easy to maintain/install. Hard to maintain/install (easy to break). So no I'm not getting your point at all. You don't need to be an advanced user to install gentoo at all. You just need time and the handbook. Gentoo is hard in the sense it can become time--consuming to maintain when you break dependencies. Personally I started with gentoo as a beginner and I'm now using Linux Mint as an intermediate/advanced user. The only reason I'm not using Gentoo is because I don't want to spend that amount of time maintaining an installation. Call me lazy ... but I certainly didn't become less knowledgeable. Easy, hard are fine labels for distros. Beginner/advanced labels reek of elitism. There is no shame in using an easy distro as an advanced user. There are better things to spend time on over installation maintenance. Seems to me this video is trying to push some elitist narrative as if all gentoo/Arch users are all advanced users and all Ubuntu/Mint users are beginners. That's utter nonsense. If your aim is not to offend you completely lost me why "beginner" and "'advanced"' categories are less offensive.
If you're offended just because someone is telling you should use an easy distro as a beginner, then find the nearest safespace at the local campus and hug pink teddybears and fat feminist. And hey if you are weak to accept you limitations then jump into the hardest stuff and believe me that will discourage you from doing anything like this again. You will avoid from just seeing a bash again. Who knows, you might have ptsd too of hearing about package managers.
Apart from these if you want to change your language, its up to you but DO not ask others to do the same, just because you think it is the "current thing". :)
Cheers
As a fedora user I feel flattered you said our distro is intermediate. In terms of hardware compatibility it's pretty solid & reliable, but definitely one of the more strict adherents of the free software idea.
You can get proprietary drivers like nvidia but you definitely have to add some repos and do other stuff you don't necessarily need to do for other more beginner oriented distros.
And if you wanna run a window manager like Sway, I've found myself compiling from source more than I would need to if I was on arch because a lot of window manager packages like wofi or mako for example are pre-built in the AUR. Where often in the name of stability Fedora either doesn't have it in the repos or has an outdated version (Sway for example)
On that same note: one of the less desirable parts of the Linux community is the elitism over what distro you use - "Oh, you can't be a *real* Linux person until you've used [insert more advanced distribution here]". You have to use the tools that are right for you, and if you're someone for whom a beginner distro is fine for what you need, use that. Who cares what other people think? It's not their computer; it's yours. Make it work for you and ignore the elitists.
I understand the objection, but I don't share it. "Easy" and "hard" are easy to understand, informal everyday words that people use in normal conversation. I also find it interesting the implication that use of certain words might offend certain people. I think there's a cultural aspect to this. Where I come from this would be considered "something American's worry about" and absolutely not a concern in other parts of the world.
Yea arch isn't hard if you use, timeshift, btrfs and set in pacman.conf ignore-pkgs= 'linux linux-headers nvidia grub'
I would even say "easy" and "hard" are misleading. On Ubuntu it wasn't that easy to install software that is not in the repo and needs kernel modules. On Gentoo I had all the build tools for compiling and I knew already from installing where the kernel sources are and was able to answer the questions for getting it to work. So this investment into learning a so-called hard distribution made it easier to understand while Ubuntu users are up and running in 15 minutes but have to invest more into learning later when they face problems and so I only bricked my "hard" linux system once in the past 15 years while trying to move the mounted root partition as root user and it locked up and the file system was garbage. Maybe I could've recovered it but was too much pain to try to recover and having the main system not working so I just reinstalled everything, anything else I was able to fix with a chroot from any linux that boots and sees my disks and keyboard...
As a teenager i made plastic models of race cars. The Tamia had Level 1-2-3 for skill. Its down to what you want to do and maybe intellect level what level you use. There is a young lady on here who runs UBUNTU and loves it. I use Mint as it works for what i want to do and allows me to do stuff. Some other distros wont find printer, Or run app store. And it is much stress on my part.
The GNU/Linux System is as if. Maybe some person who start with this system surely will think it's hard but with the time this person will learn about it and then him/her will consider it's not as hard what him/her tink.The difference is the knowledge, the illusion and the patience. I think so.