I’m not a computer expert or planning to be. I’m just a computer user, a coder, a gamer, and I think I will get the opportunity to afford cheaper PCs if I use the Arch distro from Linux which is very lightweight and fast. I’ve heard Microsoft forces you to bloat your PC with win11.
Yes, you’ll be fine
I’m not a computer expert or planning to be.
Then don’t use Arch. Seriously, where are you guys even finding out about Arch, much less wanting to try it? Whoever told you Arch would be a good fit, don’t listen to them on anything Linux-related again. Arch is not for beginners, and it’s not for people who don’t want to learn the ins and outs of their computer because they’re having to dig into the guts to fix it whenever an update breaks something. Arch is a fine distro for people who WANT those things, need bleeding edge hardware support, and don’t mind having to fix it whenever it breaks. It doesn’t sound like that’s at all what you’re looking for though.
I’m not a car expert or planning to be.
Anyways I’m going to build my first car by hand.
For a programmer, learning the Unix CLI is quite recommended, because it gives you tools that you otherwise would have to find for each particular use-case. Once you get the hang of it, you see that Unix lets you combine a bunch of utils to do many unforseen tasks, while in Windows you’re expected to get a specific app to do any particular task.
PowerShell allows you to do some of that, but it’s woefully behind the times compared to Unix tools that were around for ages, and is simultaneously too complicated for its own good. Plus afaik it’s tied to the OS version, which sucks.
I advise reading through any oldstyle book on ‘learning the Linux CLI’. Even if you don’t remember most of it afterwards, you get the grasp on what utils are available to you, and can find them when the need arises.
Also, @CarlLandry357@lemmy.world, another factor in learning the CLI is that it gives you power in automating your desktop workflow. Using Bash with a bunch of Unix tools is the most basic automation script you can have, and Linux is very nimble about it (invoking processes is considerably more costly in Windows, so apps tend to do everything in a single process with threads).
For example, a file manager like Double Commander can have custom actions for files defined in the options, and you specify those as a terminal command to invoke.
A more advanced example is a launcher like Alfred (for MacOS) that can run scripts on custom keywords. I’ve had it doing stuff like connecting/disconnecting bluetooth headphones without mucking about with the mouse and tray menus, or handing the headphones over to the phone. Haven’t found anything like that for Linux yet.
Generally, a programmer that knows multiple languages and paradigms is better than one that sticks to a single one, because they’ve encountered different ways of doing things. Particularly, for desktop automation, learning Lua is a boon, because it’s small and fast as hell and finishes scripts before Python can start up. I’m in perpetual mourning for absence of anything like Hammerspoon for Linux, which allows scripting in Lua and has lots of APIs to interface with the OS.
Of course, one milestone in a programmer’s career is learning Lisp instead of the usual stuff.
I’m probably repeating what others are saying, but you, friend, are the people who will bring Linux to the world, not us nerds. Your post reflects that you haven’t learned a few things you’re definitely gonna learn, but you are on the right track, like a bloodhound (ie. a thinking person) with a strong scent (something is rotten in silicon valley).
First off, you don’t have to deal with the command line at all, 99% of the time, even on Arch. But Arch is not your only nor your best choice, if that is a specific thing that worries you. Being on the bleeding edge is not what you think - you will get up-to-date GPU drivers on any decent distro, but Arch’s approach means you will have more instances of your graphical desktop breaking in various and weird ways, necessitating a trip to the console on the regular.
Me in particular giving you advice: you should install Debian, because it aims for stability as its primary virtue, sacrificing speed of package updates to get that - they make sure that everything that is being updated continues to work flawlessly together, before it arrives in the regular release cycle. I run it because it never breaks, and if you use the KDE Plasma Desktop you get a full-featured OS that will work the same way other KDE desktops on other distros work. You can even look into Debian Sid, which is their “rolling release” version that tracks pretty closely with Arch’s package updates.
Only caveat with Debian: by default, it will install the Gnome desktop, and you need to select KDE Plasma when you get to a screen where you select your Desktop Environment (DE) during the install process. You can uncheck “Debian Desktop Environment” and “Gnome” which are both selected by default, but you can select which DE you want to use at the login screen, so it won’t hurt you to leave Gnome installed as well - it is more Mac-like and has strong opinions about things like what colour you should be able to use as your desktop background, so I’m not a fan, but I do like their general approach. But KDE Plasma is the one that feels very much like Windows. Others do as well, there are some distros that are actually tooled to look exactly like various Windoze versions.
Others will recommend Linux Mint, and while I used to have reservations based on their lack of work on Wayland support, they seem to be catching up there, and as much as the devs will tell you Wayland is coming no matter what (and unlike the AI slopmerchants, they are correct), but it’s not ready today for quite a lot of things, so it’s not something you need to worry about. Even if you didn’t understand this paragraph, don’t let it get you bunghed up in your head.
Even if you are certain you’re gonna want the up-to-date version of some software, you can still do that on Debian, one way or another - Steam, for instance, I don’t remember what I did when installing it, but it was effortless and I have the same Steam as anyone, far as I know. I certainly have no problem playing my games.
You will be doing stuff in the console no matter what, but vanilla Arch is basically S&M for people who love that kind of pain, and could well put you off of the GNU/Linux OS entirely if being dragged through that slog is not your thing. There are also distros that use Arch as the underlying base, much as Ubuntu and many, many other distros use Debian as the base of theirs.
Arch is not a distro for beginners. One day you’ll wreck it.
If you just want it to work, I would advise you try these and stick with the one you like the most:
- Mint (Cinnamon)
- Zorin (Gnome)
- Fedora Workstation
- Fedora KDE Plasma
- Ubuntu Desktop (Gnome)
- Kubuntu (KDE)
- Aurora (Gnome)
- Bluefin (KDE)
- Bazzite (KDE & Gnome)
All my family’s PCs run linux. We use Bazzite for gaming and Aurora for work. Easier and more reliable than Windows.
With Fedora & Ubuntu you can also switch between desktop environments without re-installing
My son had a netbook with win10 and office. This ate 27 of the 32 GB the thing had. An “important update” of 8 GB did not work, putting the device in a download and fail cycle.
I installed Linux on this machine - Kubuntu, with LibreOffice and a load of extra software. Took only about 4 GB of space.
Are you saying Kubuntu is not as bloated as it looks? And I think Fedora will be smaller than that?
Don’t know about Fedora. And you would have to do odd things to bloat any Linux distribution anywhere near a Winslop system.
I have an old netbook that ran win10 poorly. I have since put Debian on it and it’s been great.
I don’t think Arch is the distro I would go for if I just wanted speed. I suppose it depends on speed of what—generally systemd Linux will boot noticeably faster than Windows, and non-systemd Linux boots noticeably faster than systemd Linux—but once you’re booted up, I don’t think there’s a significant performance difference. Arch is a Linux distro that uses systemd so it’d be the middle option if you’re wanting fast boots. There are other minimalist distros too, some of which end up in arguably faster systems, but Arch is probably the easiest of the minimalist distros due to being well-documented and supported. But the reason for going for a minimalist distro is usually customisability, not performance. On modern hardware the performance difference is negligible. On very old hardware, you should be looking for another distro made specifically for old hardware (I don’t think Arch even supports 32-bit).
If you are doing some gaming maybe try Bazzite, it will come setup for the hardware option you choose. Good place to start before jumping right into arch
Thanks for the info. All this time Arch was my only option for gaming because othrer distros look as bloated as Windows. Thanks!
Bloat is relative, I guess.
Since you are a coder, I suppose you using CLI should be fine. However, there are many other alternatives, which is fast and even based on Arch Linux.
Is that CachyOS?
Cachy, Endeavour, Garuda, etc should be fine.
That’s one of them, another is EndeavourOS which is my distro of choice.
I mean try it if you are curious nobody is holding you back but personally recommend something easier to start with?
Just install Debian
Yeah why not? No one was born knowing how to navigate the terminal. The only “hard” part of Arch is the installation, and these days there is even a script to automatically set it up.
If you have a spare computers, an old laptop maybe, you should first practice there before doing it on your main computer.
