I blame Arch Anywhere for making me love Arch Linux, again. Usually, installing Arch is a bit time consuming and if you are a newbie, it seems like an overwhelming task. While I have installed Arch from scratch myself enough times to almost commit the whole process to memory, it was the time consuming part that I had a problem with. Perhaps with my age, I no longer wish to sit there forever at a dos prompt (command prompt / terminal) and just wish to skip straight to getting to work with my PC. Arch Anywhere makes that happen.
I looked at this, its great but if your not a seasoned Linux user you will be baffled by what is on offer in the installer menu.
I think as long as you have a little common sense, you could still figure it out. The only point where I think a complete newbie would be lost is when asked to partition the drives, although you do have the option to use the whole drive, I can see how a windows user who wants to dual-boot, could easily be lost. The other step I suspect that could get a total newbie lost is when you make an account, you have the option to add that account to a power user group or not. I would hope most folks would know it is a good idea to make your own power user, for yourself, but I can see how the term could scare some away. Beyond those two points, I do not see this being overcomplicated, and you're just really just picking from the pre-made choices really.
My point is that the list of options means nothing to anyone unfamiliar with Linux, you are offered a multitude of software options but there is no description. This method is great if you already have an idea of what you want you installation to look like, for many it will be baffling. This has nothing to do with your abilities with a PC, its your familiarity with Linux and this distro in particular. This installation method is a really good idea but it wont open Arch up to the masses. Regarding the my hardware issues we discussed with Arch/Manjaro, I don't think it was a driver issue, some posts I have read would suggest that it was a flaw in the Kernel that has now been addressed.
A newbie would be completely OK to either install nothing extra or if they wanted, install everything (since there aren't too many choices to pick from). Doing either would install Arch Linux just fine, even for someone who did not know anything about Linux. However, you do make your point since there is that 1 title screen where you have to select your shell of choice (Gnome, Xfce, etc... etc..) and if a complete newbie were not to select any, they would be stuck with only a terminal. -- I think that is one area they can improve upon (add a notice explaining the importance of selecting a shell or not). Beyond that 1 point, I do not see any harm which could be caused by selecting nothing or everything in the small list of choices provided. As for your personal issue. -- You do have several kernels to select from. Have you tried them all? I would suggest either the mainline kernel or the Xen kernel. The mainline will have the latest updates and the Xen kernel will add extra hardware support, especially for problematic hardware found on consumer stuff. Spoiler: staff Thanks for the title change. Whoever did so.
Hate is strong word, he think that any distro need to be as his favor Linux , doesnt open to new things or opinion . his lost
I agree. I think if a person really wants to install Arch it won't be difficult but it's not for everyone... just like LTSB. I actually wiped my Arch drives and install manjaro.. and I'm so bored with it. Anyways, if you read the Arch wiki and maybe one of the online guides from Swapnil Bhartiya, installation will be easy.
I think the main advantage in using Arch is that you are forced and motivated to read the wiki and understand everything you are doing instead of just giving next next ... If a person just wants to use the system and does not want to study and learn about it best to use a distro like Manjaro that is based on Arch but with GUI for most things and easy to use. My problem with Manjaro is that the download through repositories of them are very slow with my connection I do not know why. What is your experience with newer Gnome and KDE? In VMware I found the last Gnome (3.26) to be much less responsive than KDE but as I only tested it on a VM I do not know if this is bad optimization of VMware with newer versions of Gnome. I am in doubt between using Arch (KDE or Gnome) or Ubuntu 16.04.3 (Unity).
VMware is only a virtual pc and if you do not have a really powerful video card and a good amount of fast and available (free) ram, plus a speedy hard drive, the power of running two or more OS's (operating systems) within one another (running at the same time on the same PC) can be a bit of a nag in regarding performance. It can sometimes give you an idea, but it can just as easily give you a false impression when using a virtual pc. On actual hardware, on my physical computer (not a virtual pc), I use Gnome, Xfce, and Bridge on Arch Linux and they're all very responsive (even as I type this). Manjaro is no longer considered part of Arch Linux in that it now even uses their own Manjaro repos and using Arch Linux repos is no longer garanteed for compatibility. Manjaro is based on Arch Linux though, the same way Ubuntu is based on Debian Linux. Assuming you are a newbie if using the Anarchy Linux (formerly Arch Anywhere) script to install Arch Linux, I think you will be fine. You can even install a package manager which would make using Arch Linux just as easy to install new apps as it would any other distro, today. Of course, if you're not looking to install anything and just want a complete box setup out of the box, you'll likely want to go with Ubuntu. The drawback is some of your apps for Ubuntu may be a version or two behind, but not by much. Arch Linux is nearly always guaranteed to have the current version if that matters to you. As for stability, that will vary and depend on what you plan on installing. A lot of folks, in the end, add 3rd party repos on Ubuntu for new software and in the end, you basically end with the same stability as Arch Linux. Newer software has that possible risk, but that does not mean that risk is guaranteed. If you're like me, who once she has her system configured to her liking and not always trying different software every other day, you'll be completely fine doing regular updates and have nothing to worry about. But if you're one of those people who install and uninstall software, swapping between 3 different office programs (for example), just to try every new toy you come accorss, you may want to put some thought into using Ubuntu.