It's a cute statement but it's also getting kinda tired as well. That same statement can be used for Linux in general (I use Linux BTW). Gentoo (and now Nix) have become installation burdens as well but I don't see anyone saying, "I use Gentoo BTW" or "I use Nix BTW". It's just a stigmata that has stuck to Arch and it's really becoming a tired statement.
@@marsdrums6298Couldn't agree more, well said! I usually refrain from saying which distro used on support forums and say e.g tested working on my used distro, for "fear" of being put into that "box", annoying as heck really.
I've tried many distros but have mostly settled on Mint because I just don't have the time or desire to hand craft a custom system. But I do enjoy watching other people go through the process.
This is bit of a red herring nowadays, akin to a Windows user still saying "you can't play games on Linux" in 2023. It was definitely true in the past, but the Arch ISO has shipped with an automatic install script for a few years now, and will get you to the same place base system with a DE, graphics, audio, localization, etc. that even a Linux newbie can understand. It might not come pre-packaged with your favorite theme already applied, but even that is accomplished by simply typing in the name of the additional theme packages you want during install selecting upon your first boot.
@@ForeverZer0 Even if what you say is true, Mint already does all that, has been around longer so fewer bugs, and also Ubuntu based systems are better supported by companies and a wider eco-system. Mint is simply the most functional system right after install.
@@hamobu You're right. However, I don't think the packages system of Ubuntu is preferred by everyone. The idea of hunting PPAs for your desired package[s] isn't ideal. Arch community unified the process and you can find all user repositories in one place. Moreover, most packages stay up-to-date all the time, unlike Ubuntu's.
@@nahiyanalamgir7056 yeah but if you buy a printer, Ubuntu will probably be supported. If you want something like DropBox, Ubuntu will be supported, etc.
The last statement is the truth "you run what you wanna run, I run what I wanna run". Should be the motto of more people in the Linux world. ALL our distros of choice have value, if only to us.
@@BobbyT-ov3rk Agreed. The subject has been debated to death. It's frankly amazing how many videos that revolve around this topic. There are so many Linux youtubers who sit and talk about the same trite fanboy bait. I want to see them actually _showing_ me some cool stuff instead.
Mint is a good distro for people who want to use desktop Linux without having to go under the hood on a regular basis (also for older family members to have a low maintenance machine). Arch is a good distro for those who want to deep dive and learn everything about Linux as well as develop their skillset. I use Fedora because it's the perfect middle ground for me where I can just use the defaults and occasionally learn about more advanced stuff with the safety of an easy workstation.
@@JamesJacob-lr5gtmany financial institutions and hedge funds use Linux servers for their software platforms. They also pay 6 figure salaries for engineers to maintain/upgrade their systems. If you want said job then learning to install arch using cli is a good place to start
@@JamesJacob-lr5gt i agree. my first was ubuntu but it was waaaay back in 2014. Recently ive tried linux and choose arch, i had no problems at all installing. It didnt require any skillset at all, all that comes to just ricing. Then i tried Debian with i3, and then switched to ubuntu. Only skillset i needed was writing an easy script for my mouse with acceleration off and putting it on autostart. So apart from ricing idk what people are talking about when they are stating that arch is more difficult than any other distro. I think the real difficult distro is maybe Gentoo
@@artikos8750 using arch as a desktop gets you good at ---using arch as a desktop. You may pick up a little here and there, but you will not become a software engineer, a sys admin or an OS designer. Just wish people would stop telling tall tales about linux. It's a great free server OS with a basic desktop experience with very limited proprietary app support. What most people want is Windows or a Macbook.
@@pikachusolu1606 the official spelling is even "Pop!_OS". Bad marketing tbh. Quite good OS tho, but no great reason to not just run LMDE or just plain Debian instead.
@pikachusolu1606 I know, right? I'd much rather install something worse that has a cooler name because the name of a distro is what we look at and use the most!
@@pikachusolu1606What kind of nerd basis an opinion on information so irrelevant. Go watch sportsball or something if you want to be that shallow dude... Then go install base arch, configure it and set it up with Open box and tint2 :) I like to know literally every package installed on my pc
Switched to Linux is a big Linux UA-camr that uses Mint, especially on his main work machines. EDIT: Awesome Open Source is another channel, I've noticed, where the host uses Mint.
I’ve found that no matter what you do in life, the more you learn and the deeper you go, there will always be someone more advanced than you who looks at you like a novice. Most people don’t even know what Linux is, let alone know the difference between the “advanced” distros and the “beginner” distros. Anyone actually looking down on you for running Mint and not whatever, probably just has an insecurity problem. No one can be an expert at everything. 😂
Like others I've settled on Mint because I don't have the time for too much playing around but still like to play around. I worked with the XFCE version and slowly customized AwesomeWM to something I'm pretty happy with. Like you said, Run what you want, it's all good.
I'm the same way. In order to get certain things set up for recording it's easier to install a stripped down system. Thanks DT for breaking this down. Linux is all about freedom and personal preference.
One thing I got an issue with, is when some recommend Arch or Arch-based distros to potential new GNU/Linux users whom straight up say they want to switch from Windows to GNU/Linux, that is like scaring them away. I'll always recommend Linux Mint to them, not only because it is a perfect replacement, but their community/forums is friendly and all around great for a new user.
I've never understood questions like that regarding Linux. Linux is VERY broad with unlimited configuration possibilities and singling out a certain distribution and asking why you don't use it is like asking someone why they don't use Calligra or OnlyOffice rather than LibreOffice... Because that's what I feel comfortable using. I've used Mint and it's a great distro. But when I switched to Arch, I wanted to try something different. My attitude was, if I can get Arch installed, I'll check things out with it. 3 years later, I am glued to Arch and AwesomeWM. I love it so much! I don't have any desire to go back to Linux Mint. As great of a distro that is, it's just not built right for ME anymore. It's a great beginning stepping stone though.
Good explanation, DT. Some people gravitate to Arch because they want the perception of being a "leet" power user, which primarily stems from Arch's CLI-based, bare-bones installation. But folks who don't care about that should keep in mind that you and the other YTers you mentioned are Linux content creators. And by virtue of this, you often need the latest and greatest versions of apps, window managers, CLI utilities, etc., and Arch makes it pretty easy to obtain these.
Very well put Dude. And you didn't need to cut down any body, group, or distro to say it. For as smart as you are, (and you truly are smart), you are definitely not full of yourself. I like the way you explain things about 98.8 percent of the time. You nailed it again.
I like how well explained this is and how it doesn't look down on other distros. Because it's true! It is just a different case of use. You very rarely have a "this is better than this". Ultimately it boils down to what you need. And how would you know what you need if you don't know what there is to explore in the first place? That's the beauty of it.
@@jimw7916 Not really, no - definitely can't see it. But I could imagine someone who has an emotional attachment to their chosen distro that puts them on defensive when someone likes to use something else - that's the kind of person who also look down on other distros. That's reflecting. I also prefer something else than Mint for myself, but have no dislike towards it - quite the opposite, same as DT I like Mint for what it is and often install it for others just for that reason. Can you give me any reason to assume that he is not being honest and is looking down on other distros?
After 6 years of using arch i got tired of it breaking and I've switched to mint cuz i had tried every other major distro available, and there was nothing that quite cut it. Happy with it for a month or two that I've used it. Riced i3, configured NVIM + TMUX, for my developer workflow, and haven't touched it since.
The reason why Arch CAN break is because of everything you couldn't even try on Mint. But using Arch doesn't mean you HAVE to do those things, it just means you can if you could handle it. If you stick to reasonable things, don't copy any command you don't fully understand in the terminal (in fact you don't much need the terminal altogether) and stay away from the AUR, just live your life with the main repos, flatpaks and appimages I bet you you'll be as fine as you are under Mint. With much more software at hand. I think the whole point of this video went over your head, especially if you're using Mint for ricing i3, which is literally going against the main feature of distros like Mint. The preconfigured DE. Like this video said, the kernel is eventually almost exactly the same for most distros, and apart from software availability most of them are the very same. You guys should stop saying "Arch breaks". You just didn't make the same mistakes on Mint because you either now know better or just did not try to do the same thing or even simply because the available repos wouldn't let you do it anyway. But it surely doesn't mean that Arch ever broke on itself, more often than not it's its users breaking it with outdated AUR packages, wrong understanding of system modules' roles and interactions and, overall, carefree black magic attempts ^^'
@@IdAefixBE 1. "Arch CAN break is because of everything you couldn't even try on Mint". Incorrect. There is nothing you can do on arch that you cannot do in mint. Unless you re talking about specific software not available on one of the two. 2. Incorrect as well. Im a professional software developer and open source enthusiast that minds his own privacy. I never run random commands/scripts even from the AUR. Some arch packages are broken even inside the official repositories. (cause ive experienced it as well). 3. "Main feature of distros like mint is preconfigured DE". Again I disagree. Although that is true, linux is all about freedom and customization. Just because arch comes barebones doesnt mean that mint that comes full serve, cannot be customized. Do you think all people that use arch, have done so with the original iso and not some calamares installer version that ususally comes with additional software from the distro maintainer? Bottomline is Mint has no purpose for me, its just another linux distro that enables me to customize it to my heart's content. 4."Like this video....magic attempts". I guess I was one of the unlucky ones whose arch broke by itself then. Like i mentioned earlier I never broke arch because of my human error. And I know that because I know what run, like i said earlier. I know very well how linux works, what you should and shouldn't do. Its just that arch makes it really easy to shoot yourself in the foot accidentally.AUR has tons of broken or outdated packages, that for most people if they dont read scripts/versions/etc they break their system without them even knowing. Thats unacceptable.Mint on the other hand ive added 4-5 ppas/repositories and there is no problem with any software, ever. And just to mention until i started using mint a couple months back, I always HATED debian/ubuntu based distros, mainly because of the slow release model. Now that I use them and Im a developer and I just want my shit to work I appreciate the extra stability these distros provide. Im not one of those 'Mint Fanboys'.
Probably 3 years ago i used to be that guy asking which distro was best and why people use arch over mint or mint over ubuntu over and over. It took me a long time to simply realize that its as simple as the answers i was given. Customizability. Thats it, there's no magic distribution out there. Period. I think its because we live in a world where companies compete against each other to try to create better products. Linux just doesn't work that way. Sure, Ubuntu and Mint work to create the easiest environments to use, but that's just to draw in users to start using linux. The problem is, simply because you use Ubuntu doesn't necessarily mean you understand what Linux is actually capable of and that revelation was how i realized WHY other distros exist.
My big beef today with Ubuntu is with snaps, which it started pushing hard some time after I abandoned Ubuntu for Arch. Glad I got the hell out of Dodge when I did! LOL
@@BobbyT-ov3rk yeah, control is a good one as well. Customization just came to mind because it can encompass control and everything else. But you make some very good points as well.
This question is like asking a person that drives a manual transmission why they don't drive an automatic. I use Mint because it's easy. Saying that I don't ask why others don't do what I do.
So I love Linux Mint, and the Cinnamon desktop in particular, when it comes to my personal laptops, but my main rig just must use Arch or an Arch-based distro since I seem to have this really bad habit of breaking Linux Mint whenever I try to do anything advanced (like my multi-drive encryption setup or if I want to use a different DE). Arch just lets me do what I need to do without much trouble. I'm actually switching to EndeavourOS since I'm still learning how to get encrypted drives to play nice with GRUB and this lets me get my main rig operational again. Arch actually is just easier for how I use my system, even if it's a lot harder out-of-the-box than something like an Ubuntu-based distro. So now I've got EndeavourOS for my main gaming rig, Linux Mint for my primary laptop, Fedora Workstation for my creative writing PC, and Fedora Server for my two servers.
That's why I enjoy OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. You have multiple options during install - full desktop (Gnome/KDE), minimal desktop (LXDE) or no desktop environment. With Last option you literally get Arch (rolling distro), but a lot more stable, because you can't do partial updates. OpenSUSE even has AUR-like user repositories supported in package manager.
I used to love Mint, but now run Arco with i3 (or Arch on some other computer). Even use this on my office laptop. I really really want a straight forward guide to set i3 (autorandr/xrandr/whatever) to be able to deal with stressful office work, which normally would be better suited for a full fledged DE - because of jumping in between different monitor setups all day. This might be a super easy tweak for many, but I don't always find the time to fiddle too much. Can this be a video request, or even some simple solution from someone smarter then me? I'll try describe the scenario in short: I run i3 and i3statusbar on my laptop at work as stated. My "base" at my desk includes using my laptop on my left hand, and a separate monitor on my right hand. This is fine until i unplug and replug, where things get messed up. In a workday I will unplug/replug to my base many times - I will also connect other monitors (meeting rooms) occasionally, if not every day at least several times a week. Every time I have to rearrange the desktop positions (which going to laptop monitor, which going to external monitor). Say when I'm docked, I want laptop to serve desktop 0, and the external monitor 1-9. So if I organise my applications for this template, it should also be spread back to the same positions when replugging the monitor. Now it's getting all messed up. It seems like when I maunally organize like this, and unplug - ofc autorandr (i beleive) will collect all the desktop and make laptop monitor the main display. But when reconnecting to external, it does not go (back) to where my external monitor is main. Or, it won't remember my last configuration for multiple monitors. I always just use the laptop alone, or with one external monitor - and for me it's not a big deal which is left or right location except from in my base config at my desktop. But I would love to see all windows and desktops going back to its previous positions after reconnecting to an external monitor. Bah sorry english is not my native language, and trying to explain this dragged out. I hope someone reads it and understands it - and maybe even see a video on making tiling window managers a viable thing for us running from meeting to meeting, and jumping between monitor configs all day every day.
I so understand what you mean, and I'm not even in a remotely similar situation - just simply the frustration and the extra hassle caused by unplugging and repligging my laptop to a docking station with extra monitors at home, and a vivid imagination, is enough to understand your situation. I hope one day someone points me towards a good solution for this that will make it easy to slap it on any window manager and simply have it work without issues :) Would love it
I have used both and am currently using Linux Mint. I am writing software and using mint is just nice for when you need a quick off the shelf linux solution so you can focus on your work. I love Arch as well, but that just isn't my focus right now (customization).
Hey DT! I like the customizable features of Arch. But I hate the rolling release model. Is there somewhere a nice Linux distro in which you can customize everything in a similar way but without the force of getting always the "newest version" of everything?
According to some Arch users comments here it's not as "nice" to customize, build, etc. - as far as the package management goes I'm assuming, I'd expect any customization outside of it to be fairly same - but to me that soinds like Debian's stable-branch. I was a Debian stable user for years, and I preferred to start from minimal install and build from there - I also used to prefer not installing any display manager and booting into linux console, launching X only when (& if) I needed it, but I digress. One thing I can promise you, if you go with Debian stable you'll *never ever* have to suffer the pain of too new software!! And yes, that's also meant as joke, but a factual one. And I don't mean it as mocking Debian - though people do that - as it's not a fault (but it may not be what one would prefer). You'll also want be likely to suffer any instability or glitches _resulting from_ anything installed from stable branch official repositories. It's very stable. Many people actually prefer using the unstable branch, and it's not as scary as it's name suggests - what "unstable" likely means for most is what you'd get with "testing" branch, that's where things are expected to break and should not be used unless you're a tester. But rather than going for unstable branch, I'd suggest using stable branch and then if/when you need a newer version of an app than available on stable that is on unstable, then install that specific app from there.
I'll make it simple. Arch is for those who like to touch knobs and fiddle all the time with them, Mint is for those who rather leave knobs alone and work. I tried all, I can install Arch from scratch but I don't like fiddling everytime there is an update just to get it started.
dont really agree with the arch is for those who like to touch knobs and fiddle, cause honestly I don't really do that and i use arch. i pretty much install arch and what I want and that is it and it stays that way. and only time i seem to have an update caused problem its been cause arch changed something and didn't post a "hey we changed this you need to do x to fix" which is usually fixed fairly quick.
Great video, I personally use Mint in my house's PC due is easy to navigate and stuff for me, my wife and children. At work I made a installation of Zorin OS in all PCs and people is actually now used to it. Linux is so amazing 😍
Hey DT, I love your videos and your pragmatism. I'm really glad you did this one - a lot of people needed this message. I've been using GNU/Linux for over 7 years. My daily driver is Ubuntu. I don't need to customize it all that much - just a few extensions and a theme. I'm a software developer so my focus needs to be on the software I'm developing, not my OS or constant system maintenance necessary to keep a rolling release distro stable. I have another machine I run Arch on and I tinker a lot on that one, but if I break it (or I don't do my due diligence and a package from the AUR breaks my install on an update), I don't lose productivity.
Well put! I too am a software dev , but I use Mint - since Ubuntu had some weird issues on my machine . I noticed often Mint gets criticized for being too "windows like" or for "beginners" - I hate these labels. Mint is very capable , I am doing everything from web development to machine learning on this laptop and it just works. My core focus is building software so fiddling with window managers and all that not really something I have time for but I did enjoy fiddling with Linux earlier on in my career and I still occationally do fiddle with various distro - it's cool. As a developer - I also don't need the latest version of everything , companies are always usually one or even several versions behind and we run most things in docker anyway - so you can pull in the latest images as needed. Mint, even Ubuntu - is very underrated, especially for web developers, we usually just need the browser, terminal, a decent file manager and some kind of code editor like Vscode. I also recommend Mint/Ubuntu to juniors over Arch. Arch is cool but needs too much maintenance and breaks easily.
Another developer here. I used to run MX Linux but I'm using Fedora now. I also have arch on separate part but I don't trust it enough to use for production
Here's my logic behind my choice of a distribution. I like rolling release, but I want my system to be stable because I use it for work. I like to build my system from scratch, installing only the things I need. That's why my choice is Debian Testing. I've installed it 4 years ago and for 4 years I've been updating it without reinstalling. It just works.
@@glidersuzuki5572 ah, ok. Debian Testing is between Unstable and Stable. If after around a week or so the new program has no bug in Unstable, then it moves to Testing. The rank is Experimental-Unstable-Testing-Stable. So even Unstable is not that unsafe, and Testing is relatively safe.
Well said. I have followed the typical route, started with Ubuntu then some other Debian based and eventually found myself on Arch and Window Managers (bounce between Hyprland and Wayfire, Arch allows me to easily set both up) or Arch based distros (Archcraft). I can't imagine going back to one of the more standard distributions. Next step in my journey....Nixos.
Me too. I started with Ubuntu, then mint and a couple of others ubuntu-based distribuitions. Now I'm using Arch with Hyprland. I think nixos' too much complicated for me lol
@@jozsefk9 Definitely not because I am unhappy with Arch. Partly from what @sus4793 said and partly just to keep learning - I like the concept of how they do the configuration.
I have the both distributions in my machine. I feel that Linux Mint is a good point to work in a office, save personal documents, read ebooks, etc. while Arch Linux is perfect to develop informatic software, etc. It's only a subjective impression but it works for myself.
To me this video missed the real question, which is "What do you prefer about an Arch installation compared to a barebones vanilla Debian installation?". Unless I am missing something, you can build everything you want from the ground up in vanilla Debian, so I feel like the comparison between Arch and Debian is more apt than between Arch and Mint. I myself mostly use Mint Cinnamon, but recently installed qtile and am starting to experiment a bit with it on the side, and have found some of your videos on qtile to be quite helpful as I go (I'm a long way from getting something I'm satisfied with yet). Also I really like your t-shirt; perhaps you could plug where you got it from.
Package management is the only real difference between distributions. This is what makes the tons of -based superfluous IMHO, but to each their own. The very few "grandfather" distros like Arch, Debian, etc. are the only thing that matters. After that, it is all just a matter of which configuration of someone else's settings and pre-selected software is preferred, but all that can be achieved without an entirely new distro
Debian is nice, but not rolling so outdated, and Debian Sid has freeze break which is annoying. Then Debian enables services by default on install, splits packages (needlessly - arch only when makes sense, as in big wasted space), doesn't have as nice package building system as arch, AUR, and like minded smaller changes, so both nice, but much prefer arch still myself.
@@ForeverZer0It may be the most obvious and common difference, but I'd argue that some distros have more than that difference between them. You can argue that it's all "just" how it's configured and set up and that you _could_ set up any distro the same way - ok, I'm willing to give you that, only there's nothing _"just"_ about that. Damn Small Linux (and possibly Puppy Linux as well) implemented a curious system with filesystem overlays and application packages that can be installed and removed on runtime filesystem. The media and partition DSL is installed on remains the same, you may have a removable media that gets overlaid on top of it and changes are written to it and you can keep applications simply as install packages - and take use of them when you want. The latter is especially useful when loading the filesystem on ramdisk so you can keep the default RAM consumption low and leave out applications you don't want by default. That's not "just how it's configured by default", there's nothing "just" about it. As owner of Nokia N900 phone with Maemo 5 as OS, I'd argue it's got some interesting differences as well. And I'm ready to try out two different distros next: Arch and Gentoo. I've been reading the Gentoo Wiki beforehand and I've found it to be extraordinary and different from every distro I've tried. But sure, in the end even there every difference between it and others revolves around package management and how you build and manage the system. I don't know what to say there; it's Linux, were not comparing whole different OS's here. It doesn't mean the differences are always little though. BUT: I re-read your comment and realize that you mention "thousands of -based" distros... Well, yeah, I guess most of them will fall perfectly in some kind of "distro-theme" category if you will, so I feel foolish now writing all that. Still I feel that Ubuntu (Debian-based) and Mint (Debian/Ubuntu -based, if you will) are worthwile to mention as something that IMHO is different enough from their "base distro" that they should be simply lumped together with Debian (unlike many Arch-based distros are thought to belong in one "distro-group"). I feel writing this comment was futile though as I feel like I misunderstood you on first reading :x
I’m a somewhat new Linux user, but no stranger to CLI and Unix. Built my first Unraid server late last year which required the occasional CLI work. Then expanded my home lab to include Proxmox on an older Mac mini, on which I have a few Debian VMs spun up for various utilities etc. Just installed Mint Cinnamon on an old Chromebook after a little contemplation on what distribution to go with. I’m enjoying it. But I totally get your point now… Mint is like buying a prebuilt PC whereas Arch is more like building your own PC from scratch. The former comes with a bunch of stuff you may end up upgrading later on ( or may not, depending on your needs/use case) and the latter is more for folks that have a good idea of what they want already. Makes so much more sense to me after watching this. Thank you!
This is a very good explanation of why I use Arch. But I agree; Mint is an excellent distro, and when they have a new release, I'll usually install it on an old laptop just to check it out. Of the 20 or so distros I've used, Mint is the only one that I never had any issues with; everything just works correctly. Nevertheless, I can't daily drive a pre-configured OS that has hundreds or thousands of packages installed that I don't need or want. I like to build my system from a minimal install and put what I want on it.
If i could do the same that you wrote in the last line "I like to build my system from a minimal install and put what I want on it." But on a stable build, not a rolling one, then life could have been different...
I think you nailed it perfectly when you gave the example of your mom. I use Linux Mint Cinnamon. ***For my 11 year old laptop - it has intel i5 processor - on my desk & have 2 older TV's connected as monitor. This is for everyone's use at home. ***For my 10 year old laptop - it has intel i7 processor - Only i use this one. I am learning to code on it an I also use virtualbox on it as I am also studying for A+ certification. ***In short, it depends on your needs &/or what you want to do. I will one day venture into using Arch Linux and Kali Linux in the future. Great video !!!
You are so right, my current main system in Linux MX KDE Plasma which is great. I also run arch with an xfce desktop but it boots to tty and I have to manually start WiFi and Desktop. Once the desktop is running both very similar.
I like to install debian stable no desktop as a blank canvas and go from there. The Arch package manager confuses the hell out of me and I don't really need everything upgrading all the time.
I try to go on the principle of keep it simple and keep it upstream, and so Fedora and Arch are the 2 that I use now. Mint is great for getting other people into Linux, as it has a ton of inbuilt support like automatically detecting whether additional drivers are needed for hardware. If you recommend Linux to other people, you don't want to become IT support for them. Fedora is so easy to setup and is basically as up to date as Arch in terms of packages and kernel. Setting up everything on Arch can get tedious, even if it's a great learning experience. You take everything for granted on a preconfigured OS/distro, for example I just wanted to share some files over the network on my Arch computer, woops realised I had to setup the samba protocol, create a conf file, attach a system service, setup groups and user permissions.....sometimes you just want it to work with one click.
I think people just want to know your opinion on almost every linux-related thing based off your long experience with linux distros. And it's always interesting to know what's wrong with any distro from the perspective of experienced linux users and if these problems related to us.
Most Linux youtubers use Debian or Debian derivatives. Mental Outlaw uses Mint, Joe Collins uses Mint, Switched to Linux uses Mint, Kris Occhipinti uses Debian, Veronica Explains uses Pop!OS, Learn Linux TV uses Pop!OS (I think) etc etc
@@microsoftpain Yes he uses Gentoo on his meme tinkering set-up but Mint on his actual use computer. Well how he seems is irrelevant because he has said himself several times on video that uses Mint and has shown screen recordings of him using it many times.
@@microsoftpain I think there's a certain community of Linux users who underestimate how many other Linux users use distros like Ubuntu and Mint and how many of the very experienced and tech savvy people use those types of distros. Similar for top programmers. For example competitive programmer Erichto uses Ubuntu and so did Terry A Davis.
I study for the Linux+ right now, what would I learn by using Arch (I'm on Debian)? Wouldn't I just lose study time because I'd be running an unstable system??
Put it this way: I'm not offended by legitimate criticisms or dislike of Mint; I like and use Mint but I'm not "married" to it. What aggravates me is the snobbery involved by some in Linux world (not you, DT, nor any of the UA-camrs you mentioned) who look down on people because they use a "beginner" distro instead of building their own OS from the ground up. I think some segments of the Linux community is one of the biggest barriers to "normies" adopting and using Linux.
Yeah it is a issue for sure. I just concluded most are super nerds who's whole identity is Linux itself. Most people do not have the time to tinker with a OS for hours or days on end. Anyone who steps outside the windows world to try something new or different, which can be scary, deserves respect.
I love Arch for its customizability and the repositories are enormous. However, I feel that people get too caught up on distros. Criticizing distro selection is almost like criticizing dog-breed selection. They are many good choices and all represent the freedom to choose.
Fun story. I’ve been using Linux since ~2004/2005. After a lot of distro hopping, I ended up on Arch and hopped between i3 and bspwm and did that for years. When my kid was born a couple years ago and I had no spare time I switched to Linux Mint because I wanted to do as little maintenance as possible, and I wanted a preconfigured desktop for my wife to be able to use. I brought in all my configs and continued to just use tiling window managers. My wife still has yet to actually use my computer, so right now I’m running Mint with awesome WM . Cinnamon never gets logged into by anyone. When this install of Mint looses support I’m probably going right back to Arch 😂
Yes, I wondered why you went with Arch, and I understand now better. This video was a very good explanation, because I understand better. I just thought you were more experienced and didn't like simple distros (such as Mint).
Debian 12 seems to very good contender for mainline linux, now. It's really got the all the elements of a stable Distro. I was pleasantly surprised by the ease of installing nvdia drivers in Debian unlike in Arch. I would use Arch as an experimental distro to run stuff like Hyprland but I think for a daily use Debian12 may be a good choice ?
@@Insightfill I do hope you'll run "sudo apt upgrade" (or dist-upgrade) after that as well when there are packages to upgrade. Otherwise you're just updating the catalogue of packets available again and again, without actually upgrading anything ;p
@@robsku1 LOL, yes, thanks. Years on Ubuntu and Debian Testing got me into that habit! Got it as a single line with && in the middle, but don't really need it much lately.
I was using Zorin 17 because I couldn't get Mint to do what I needed. Then after some research with some trial and error I finally got Mint to do everything I needed and I'm loving it! I only log into Windows when I have to. You make very good reasons for why you use Arch. I needed a good desktop distro and it works!
Hi DT, I am on Mint personally yet trying various WMs when I feel like it. With linux for way over 20 years - been on Mandrake, Red Hat, Lunar Linux, Ubuntu, Arch (when it started and biggest selling point was i686 packages ;) ), Debian (testing) etc. Well, as I grew older I need to have distro that just works and I is kind of bullet proof. Also Fluxbox as WM for years. Keep up with a good work.
Why are they not using Mint? Because Arch has the latest experimental packages and they need content that people don't already know about Mint/Ubuntu is great for users Arch is great for tinkerers, linux close to metal developers and content creators Everything in-between is great for everyone in-between these two categories listed.
I'm considering switching over to Arch because I ran into customization issues with Ubuntu. This video confirms that I would be making the correct choice. Now, my only question is whether or not I seed the ISO file before actually installing Arch to my rig, but my intuition says to wait until after I do an Arch install.
I never used Arch, but until the distros I use don't limit me I'm happy. That's the case in a lot of other topics too. And I totally get it that for some users it would be a hassle to remove things you don't need if it's easier to add the things you need yourself.
There is a part of me that would like to build my own arch box, but I know myself well enough to leave it alone. I don't trust myself to handle something like that so I run Fedora because it just works and that's the space I need to be in. But I love watching content from power users and thinking someday I will build Linux from scratch...but it is not THIS day...
Run Arch in a VM. And build that VM to where you think you'd want to use it every day. Once you get there, you may change your mind about that "Arch Box".
I jumped to arch from fedora to try it out. I loved it but customizing and not managing to screw up the system was a set of skills I don't possess, so I came back to fedora and I am much happier here.
I mean, in my distro hops I did try Endeavor OS, which was fine but at the time Wayland wasn't playing nice with my Invidia card and I didn't know how to swap it out with X. Now on Fedora I'm running gnome in Wayland just fine.❄️🤷
I love fiddling around but I also need stuff to just work when I'm not exploring learning linux or when work must be done asap, thats why I settled for Fedora, to my surprise it worked for me so well I was able to even run my steam games and even FF14 on top of my work/dev toolset, so I ditched both Windows and MacOS from my life entirely.
I've gotten this question very often myself. I'm using Garuda Linux (Arch based) and Mint Users seem to be the most confused ones about this. Although their question is genuine tbh. I use Garuda b/c it works fine with my needs, I have no issue to do a PKBUILT if needed and so on, I love the AUR and the toolset Garuda (Gamer Dragonized) comes with.
Thanks for the insight. I’m now perfectly content with Linux Mint. I just want to adjust the colors and leave everything else stock. As long as it does the thing I’m good. I don’t have the time or desire to configure everything from the ground up.
I use LFS for the same reason, although Arch and Gentoo doesn't offer full control without it hitting the fan in multiple ways, and they include packages I just don't want to have. It's the barest of the bones. However, the next step is to become Terry A. Davis and make my own packages!!
Interesting, it sounds like Arch is what I would like the most. I just got my first Linux computer, a System76 Meerkat running Pop!_OS. After using WSL for a few months, jumping into a dedicated Linux computer feels great. Thanks for all the great Linux content, I have been learning a lot from your channel.
Using endevouros as my main computer's os. Its beautiful works good most of the time. I recently did a arch base install on a 10 year old laptop and installed x11 and openbox for a gui. The computer isnnew again i code, ssh, etc on it and it can occasionally run a browser🎉
You can find a lot of things on AUR that you can't find on deb based distros repos at all. so why not make/build it for the deb based distro? GOOD LUCK. that's where you will realize just how slow and tedious deb based distros really are. and no matter what customized speedy kernel you're using it will not have any significant affect on the slow performance of apt, full system updates, and building source from scratch. (I am an Arch user using wlroots/hyprland)
One reason why I don't like using rolling releases like Arch or even Fedora is the plethora of updates these distros throw at you. I usually update my system once a week and I don't want to download and install 1 GB every time :D
Actually now that I thought of it: When you say your on Arch....are you talking bare metal? Or your using it in a VM? If in a VM..what you using for your host? Example: Yeah lots of pen testers are in Kali (Kali is just debian with a ton of GitHub tools pre-installed)....but... most of them are using Kali as a VM either in Mac running in UTM or in Windows through VB or VMWare. So I get why your on Arch but is it a VM or what's your host that your running it in? We also use Bkackarch if not Kali, but I don't know if I would run Blackarch bare metal.
On my desktop I use Mint and on POS machines I use Lubuntu. Both no fuss easy installs and better than Win 11. I cant wait for 12 to come out so more people move to Mint lol.
Oh, you know how to spot a Linux Arch user, right? It's super easy! They'll make sure you know they're a Linux Arch user before you even finish saying "Hello." I mean, who needs small talk when you can dive straight into a discussion about your obscure Linux distro preferences, right?
Of course, and it also heats up the online be-cool economy as it presents an opportunity for even more invested nerds to one up them with their even more obscure elite distros, creating thus a trickle down cascade of internet clout. Makes the world go round, so to speak 🌏
@@fsmoura Possibly, but I don't consider any single distro to be "elite" in the same way you'll never hear me tell the world that Gentoo is the best distro - it isn't, it has just been my distro of choice for 20 years, it works for me. The "poor man's Gentoo" comment is merely a throwaway "tongue in cheek" one to poke the nest of Arch users with a verbal stick. Use whatever works for you.
I have used Debian for 23+ years you can check any desktop environment you want on a net install or none at all and install any of the many window managers instead. It can be a simple install for a newbie or a terminal install for the advanced user. This is what makes Linux so great.
I agree 100% with you about using Arch, Gentoo, etc., for those of us that want to design our own system. If you are new, Ubuntu, Mint, MX-Linux, etc. are the best ones to start with.
Love this vid, I always took it as its for those who want to build it all from the ground up when it comes to Arch, Me im generally good with Mint (Which I use on my laptops) or Nobara which I use on my desktop because I like the time save of it being mostly done and I just install what I want and maybe drop a few pre included apps if im installing one thats my preference. That said I like checking out what others are using and even testing it out, maybe even in a VM for a bit but always best to take it as each to their own, choice is the strength of linux afterall!
There are so many good options now with GNU/Linux. Regarding Mint - Mint XFCE is great for old hardware. It's quick and easy to load so you can get on with your life.
debian + kde plasma here. reason? had a kernel failure with arch a few ago and lifes to crazy to build out something wild so good old debian got my back till better days. as for de's I admit iam a kde plasma lover lol. penguin cult for life...dont really matter what distro or branch ya use as long as you enjoy it and it works for you.
As a Debian user since Debian 2.0 I don't personally care for any of these other distros, but it's good the options exist. I sometimes think it would be better if some of the efforts came together more... but you can't force anyone of course.
It's the flip side of what may well be the greatest thing about the whole F/OSS thing - sometimes I hear people saying that it's a weakness of FOSS to have too many variants of same thing, that Linux would fare better without it, not realizing it couldn't exist any other way (because it couldn't be done without losing the F and being proprietary - and I don't think Linux would have become anything more than a niche if it had been proprietary). Peace :)
You are using Arch so that you can walk to a complete stranger and whisper to that person's ear "I use Arch by the way!" 😜
It's a cute statement but it's also getting kinda tired as well. That same statement can be used for Linux in general (I use Linux BTW). Gentoo (and now Nix) have become installation burdens as well but I don't see anyone saying, "I use Gentoo BTW" or "I use Nix BTW". It's just a stigmata that has stuck to Arch and it's really becoming a tired statement.
@@marsdrums6298Couldn't agree more, well said! I usually refrain from saying which distro used on support forums and say e.g tested working on my used distro, for "fear" of being put into that "box", annoying as heck really.
@@marsdrums6298 well, if you asked me, i don't know anyone who would nowadays say 'i use Arch btw' seriously, this statement has grown into a meme
False. They'll say "by the way" as "be tee double u".
"I use an abacus btw"
I've tried many distros but have mostly settled on Mint because I just don't have the time or desire to hand craft a custom system. But I do enjoy watching other people go through the process.
This is bit of a red herring nowadays, akin to a Windows user still saying "you can't play games on Linux" in 2023. It was definitely true in the past, but the Arch ISO has shipped with an automatic install script for a few years now, and will get you to the same place base system with a DE, graphics, audio, localization, etc. that even a Linux newbie can understand. It might not come pre-packaged with your favorite theme already applied, but even that is accomplished by simply typing in the name of the additional theme packages you want during install selecting upon your first boot.
@@ForeverZer0 Even if what you say is true, Mint already does all that, has been around longer so fewer bugs, and also Ubuntu based systems are better supported by companies and a wider eco-system.
Mint is simply the most functional system right after install.
@@hamobu You're right. However, I don't think the packages system of Ubuntu is preferred by everyone. The idea of hunting PPAs for your desired package[s] isn't ideal. Arch community unified the process and you can find all user repositories in one place. Moreover, most packages stay up-to-date all the time, unlike Ubuntu's.
@@nahiyanalamgir7056 yeah but if you buy a printer, Ubuntu will probably be supported. If you want something like DropBox, Ubuntu will be supported, etc.
Ironically i just have an easier time with the aur
The last statement is the truth "you run what you wanna run, I run what I wanna run". Should be the motto of more people in the Linux world. ALL our distros of choice have value, if only to us.
I use Arch + nvim and still single, btw.
RUN baby Run!!!!! 🤣(that the truth, btw)
That's the new Meme... I Run What I Wanna Run BTW. :)
GIGACHAD
@@BobbyT-ov3rk Agreed. The subject has been debated to death. It's frankly amazing how many videos that revolve around this topic. There are so many Linux youtubers who sit and talk about the same trite fanboy bait. I want to see them actually _showing_ me some cool stuff instead.
If you lack experience, have no basis to decide on and so you just ask. There's no harm in that.
Mint is a good distro for people who want to use desktop Linux without having to go under the hood on a regular basis (also for older family members to have a low maintenance machine). Arch is a good distro for those who want to deep dive and learn everything about Linux as well as develop their skillset. I use Fedora because it's the perfect middle ground for me where I can just use the defaults and occasionally learn about more advanced stuff with the safety of an easy workstation.
What skillset lol. Ricing Linux?
@@JamesJacob-lr5gtmany financial institutions and hedge funds use Linux servers for their software platforms. They also pay 6 figure salaries for engineers to maintain/upgrade their systems. If you want said job then learning to install arch using cli is a good place to start
@@JamesJacob-lr5gt i agree. my first was ubuntu but it was waaaay back in 2014. Recently ive tried linux and choose arch, i had no problems at all installing. It didnt require any skillset at all, all that comes to just ricing. Then i tried Debian with i3, and then switched to ubuntu. Only skillset i needed was writing an easy script for my mouse with acceleration off and putting it on autostart. So apart from ricing idk what people are talking about when they are stating that arch is more difficult than any other distro. I think the real difficult distro is maybe Gentoo
@@artikos8750 using arch as a desktop gets you good at ---using arch as a desktop.
You may pick up a little here and there, but you will not become a software engineer, a sys admin or an OS designer.
Just wish people would stop telling tall tales about linux. It's a great free server OS with a basic desktop experience with very limited proprietary app support.
What most people want is Windows or a Macbook.
Same
DT isn't anti-Mint, he's anti-mouse.
LoL
Pop OS here. I'm always excited when someone switches to it, but I would never pressure anyone to do so.
pop os? lmfao yeah im not installing a distro with a silly name like that..
@@pikachusolu1606 the official spelling is even "Pop!_OS". Bad marketing tbh. Quite good OS tho, but no great reason to not just run LMDE or just plain Debian instead.
@pikachusolu1606 I know, right? I'd much rather install something worse that has a cooler name because the name of a distro is what we look at and use the most!
@@pikachusolu1606What kind of nerd basis an opinion on information so irrelevant. Go watch sportsball or something if you want to be that shallow dude... Then go install base arch, configure it and set it up with Open box and tint2 :) I like to know literally every package installed on my pc
Got PopOS with my System76 laptops... used it for about 6 months. It wasn't terrible...
... but they all run some combination of Deb, Arch or BSD now.
Switched to Linux is a big Linux UA-camr that uses Mint, especially on his main work machines.
EDIT: Awesome Open Source is another channel, I've noticed, where the host uses Mint.
Só does Chris Were, and I think Joe Collins too
No he's not; even though he's been a YT for almost 10 years.
I’ve found that no matter what you do in life, the more you learn and the deeper you go, there will always be someone more advanced than you who looks at you like a novice. Most people don’t even know what Linux is, let alone know the difference between the “advanced” distros and the “beginner” distros. Anyone actually looking down on you for running Mint and not whatever, probably just has an insecurity problem. No one can be an expert at everything. 😂
Like others I've settled on Mint because I don't have the time for too much playing around but still like to play around. I worked with the XFCE version and slowly customized AwesomeWM to something I'm pretty happy with.
Like you said, Run what you want, it's all good.
I'm the same way. In order to get certain things set up for recording it's easier to install a stripped down system. Thanks DT for breaking this down. Linux is all about freedom and personal preference.
One thing I got an issue with, is when some recommend Arch or Arch-based distros to potential new GNU/Linux users whom straight up say they want to switch from Windows to GNU/Linux, that is like scaring them away. I'll always recommend Linux Mint to them, not only because it is a perfect replacement, but their community/forums is friendly and all around great for a new user.
I've never understood questions like that regarding Linux. Linux is VERY broad with unlimited configuration possibilities and singling out a certain distribution and asking why you don't use it is like asking someone why they don't use Calligra or OnlyOffice rather than LibreOffice... Because that's what I feel comfortable using. I've used Mint and it's a great distro. But when I switched to Arch, I wanted to try something different. My attitude was, if I can get Arch installed, I'll check things out with it. 3 years later, I am glued to Arch and AwesomeWM. I love it so much! I don't have any desire to go back to Linux Mint. As great of a distro that is, it's just not built right for ME anymore. It's a great beginning stepping stone though.
Well said! You learned, and moved on to where you are happy. Says I, Good on you!
What do you love about Arch and AwsomeWM?
Good explanation, DT. Some people gravitate to Arch because they want the perception of being a "leet" power user, which primarily stems from Arch's CLI-based, bare-bones installation. But folks who don't care about that should keep in mind that you and the other YTers you mentioned are Linux content creators. And by virtue of this, you often need the latest and greatest versions of apps, window managers, CLI utilities, etc., and Arch makes it pretty easy to obtain these.
Very well put Dude. And you didn't need to cut down any body, group, or distro to say it. For as smart as you are, (and you truly are smart), you are definitely not full of yourself. I like the way you explain things about 98.8 percent of the time. You nailed it again.
I like how well explained this is and how it doesn't look down on other distros. Because it's true! It is just a different case of use. You very rarely have a "this is better than this". Ultimately it boils down to what you need. And how would you know what you need if you don't know what there is to explore in the first place? That's the beauty of it.
cant you see......... he is "looking down on other distros"....... hes simply playing it safe and NOT straight out saying that.
@@jimw7916 Not really, no - definitely can't see it. But I could imagine someone who has an emotional attachment to their chosen distro that puts them on defensive when someone likes to use something else - that's the kind of person who also look down on other distros. That's reflecting.
I also prefer something else than Mint for myself, but have no dislike towards it - quite the opposite, same as DT I like Mint for what it is and often install it for others just for that reason.
Can you give me any reason to assume that he is not being honest and is looking down on other distros?
I use Debian, by the way.
After 6 years of using arch i got tired of it breaking and I've switched to mint cuz i had tried every other major distro available, and there was nothing that quite cut it. Happy with it for a month or two that I've used it. Riced i3, configured NVIM + TMUX, for my developer workflow, and haven't touched it since.
The reason why Arch CAN break is because of everything you couldn't even try on Mint. But using Arch doesn't mean you HAVE to do those things, it just means you can if you could handle it.
If you stick to reasonable things, don't copy any command you don't fully understand in the terminal (in fact you don't much need the terminal altogether) and stay away from the AUR, just live your life with the main repos, flatpaks and appimages I bet you you'll be as fine as you are under Mint. With much more software at hand.
I think the whole point of this video went over your head, especially if you're using Mint for ricing i3, which is literally going against the main feature of distros like Mint. The preconfigured DE.
Like this video said, the kernel is eventually almost exactly the same for most distros, and apart from software availability most of them are the very same. You guys should stop saying "Arch breaks". You just didn't make the same mistakes on Mint because you either now know better or just did not try to do the same thing or even simply because the available repos wouldn't let you do it anyway. But it surely doesn't mean that Arch ever broke on itself, more often than not it's its users breaking it with outdated AUR packages, wrong understanding of system modules' roles and interactions and, overall, carefree black magic attempts ^^'
@@IdAefixBE What are the things that you couldn't try on Mint?
@@IdAefixBE 1. "Arch CAN break is because of everything you couldn't even try on Mint". Incorrect. There is nothing you can do on arch that you cannot do in mint. Unless you re talking about specific software not available on one of the two.
2. Incorrect as well. Im a professional software developer and open source enthusiast that minds his own privacy. I never run random commands/scripts even from the AUR. Some arch packages are broken even inside the official repositories. (cause ive experienced it as well).
3. "Main feature of distros like mint is preconfigured DE". Again I disagree. Although that is true, linux is all about freedom and customization. Just because arch comes barebones doesnt mean that mint that comes full serve, cannot be customized. Do you think all people that use arch, have done so with the original iso and not some calamares installer version that ususally comes with additional software from the distro maintainer? Bottomline is Mint has no purpose for me, its just another linux distro that enables me to customize it to my heart's content.
4."Like this video....magic attempts". I guess I was one of the unlucky ones whose arch broke by itself then. Like i mentioned earlier I never broke arch because of my human error. And I know that because I know what run, like i said earlier. I know very well how linux works, what you should and shouldn't do. Its just that arch makes it really easy to shoot yourself in the foot accidentally.AUR has tons of broken or outdated packages, that for most people if they dont read scripts/versions/etc they break their system without them even knowing. Thats unacceptable.Mint on the other hand ive added 4-5 ppas/repositories and there is no problem with any software, ever.
And just to mention until i started using mint a couple months back, I always HATED debian/ubuntu based distros, mainly because of the slow release model. Now that I use them and Im a developer and I just want my shit to work I appreciate the extra stability these distros provide. Im not one of those 'Mint Fanboys'.
@@folksurvival Say "BTW I run Arch"
@@testtest8399lol
Probably 3 years ago i used to be that guy asking which distro was best and why people use arch over mint or mint over ubuntu over and over. It took me a long time to simply realize that its as simple as the answers i was given. Customizability. Thats it, there's no magic distribution out there. Period. I think its because we live in a world where companies compete against each other to try to create better products. Linux just doesn't work that way. Sure, Ubuntu and Mint work to create the easiest environments to use, but that's just to draw in users to start using linux. The problem is, simply because you use Ubuntu doesn't necessarily mean you understand what Linux is actually capable of and that revelation was how i realized WHY other distros exist.
There's also rolling release vs stable.
I want rolling, so I use an arch distro, otherwise I'd be on debian. (Or based slackware)
My big beef today with Ubuntu is with snaps, which it started pushing hard some time after I abandoned Ubuntu for Arch. Glad I got the hell out of Dodge when I did! LOL
@@BobbyT-ov3rk yeah, control is a good one as well. Customization just came to mind because it can encompass control and everything else. But you make some very good points as well.
This question is like asking a person that drives a manual transmission why they don't drive an automatic. I use Mint because it's easy. Saying that I don't ask why others don't do what I do.
A very good explanation, DT. My hat off to you.
So I love Linux Mint, and the Cinnamon desktop in particular, when it comes to my personal laptops, but my main rig just must use Arch or an Arch-based distro since I seem to have this really bad habit of breaking Linux Mint whenever I try to do anything advanced (like my multi-drive encryption setup or if I want to use a different DE). Arch just lets me do what I need to do without much trouble.
I'm actually switching to EndeavourOS since I'm still learning how to get encrypted drives to play nice with GRUB and this lets me get my main rig operational again. Arch actually is just easier for how I use my system, even if it's a lot harder out-of-the-box than something like an Ubuntu-based distro. So now I've got EndeavourOS for my main gaming rig, Linux Mint for my primary laptop, Fedora Workstation for my creative writing PC, and Fedora Server for my two servers.
Hey DT, Do you use mints for fresh breaths?
That's why I enjoy OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. You have multiple options during install - full desktop (Gnome/KDE), minimal desktop (LXDE) or no desktop environment.
With Last option you literally get Arch (rolling distro), but a lot more stable, because you can't do partial updates. OpenSUSE even has AUR-like user repositories supported in package manager.
You matter to me for the good advice! I hope you live long and prosper.
I used to love Mint, but now run Arco with i3 (or Arch on some other computer). Even use this on my office laptop. I really really want a straight forward guide to set i3 (autorandr/xrandr/whatever) to be able to deal with stressful office work, which normally would be better suited for a full fledged DE - because of jumping in between different monitor setups all day.
This might be a super easy tweak for many, but I don't always find the time to fiddle too much. Can this be a video request, or even some simple solution from someone smarter then me?
I'll try describe the scenario in short:
I run i3 and i3statusbar on my laptop at work as stated. My "base" at my desk includes using my laptop on my left hand, and a separate monitor on my right hand. This is fine until i unplug and replug, where things get messed up. In a workday I will unplug/replug to my base many times - I will also connect other monitors (meeting rooms) occasionally, if not every day at least several times a week. Every time I have to rearrange the desktop positions (which going to laptop monitor, which going to external monitor).
Say when I'm docked, I want laptop to serve desktop 0, and the external monitor 1-9. So if I organise my applications for this template, it should also be spread back to the same positions when replugging the monitor. Now it's getting all messed up. It seems like when I maunally organize like this, and unplug - ofc autorandr (i beleive) will collect all the desktop and make laptop monitor the main display. But when reconnecting to external, it does not go (back) to where my external monitor is main. Or, it won't remember my last configuration for multiple monitors.
I always just use the laptop alone, or with one external monitor - and for me it's not a big deal which is left or right location except from in my base config at my desktop. But I would love to see all windows and desktops going back to its previous positions after reconnecting to an external monitor.
Bah sorry english is not my native language, and trying to explain this dragged out. I hope someone reads it and understands it - and maybe even see a video on making tiling window managers a viable thing for us running from meeting to meeting, and jumping between monitor configs all day every day.
I so understand what you mean, and I'm not even in a remotely similar situation - just simply the frustration and the extra hassle caused by unplugging and repligging my laptop to a docking station with extra monitors at home, and a vivid imagination, is enough to understand your situation.
I hope one day someone points me towards a good solution for this that will make it easy to slap it on any window manager and simply have it work without issues :) Would love it
What do you think about adding llms like llama 2 in Linux like windows integrated copilot
I have used both and am currently using Linux Mint. I am writing software and using mint is just nice for when you need a quick off the shelf linux solution so you can focus on your work. I love Arch as well, but that just isn't my focus right now (customization).
You made such a great video showing just how powerful and customized you can make Mint. That goes to show what you can do with a more simple OS.
Hey DT! I like the customizable features of Arch. But I hate the rolling release model. Is there somewhere a nice Linux distro in which you can customize everything in a similar way but without the force of getting always the "newest version" of everything?
According to some Arch users comments here it's not as "nice" to customize, build, etc. - as far as the package management goes I'm assuming, I'd expect any customization outside of it to be fairly same - but to me that soinds like Debian's stable-branch.
I was a Debian stable user for years, and I preferred to start from minimal install and build from there - I also used to prefer not installing any display manager and booting into linux console, launching X only when (& if) I needed it, but I digress.
One thing I can promise you, if you go with Debian stable you'll *never ever* have to suffer the pain of too new software!!
And yes, that's also meant as joke, but a factual one. And I don't mean it as mocking Debian - though people do that - as it's not a fault (but it may not be what one would prefer).
You'll also want be likely to suffer any instability or glitches _resulting from_ anything installed from stable branch official repositories. It's very stable.
Many people actually prefer using the unstable branch, and it's not as scary as it's name suggests - what "unstable" likely means for most is what you'd get with "testing" branch, that's where things are expected to break and should not be used unless you're a tester.
But rather than going for unstable branch, I'd suggest using stable branch and then if/when you need a newer version of an app than available on stable that is on unstable, then install that specific app from there.
I'll make it simple. Arch is for those who like to touch knobs and fiddle all the time with them, Mint is for those who rather leave knobs alone and work. I tried all, I can install Arch from scratch but I don't like fiddling everytime there is an update just to get it started.
dont really agree with the arch is for those who like to touch knobs and fiddle, cause honestly I don't really do that and i use arch. i pretty much install arch and what I want and that is it and it stays that way. and only time i seem to have an update caused problem its been cause arch changed something and didn't post a "hey we changed this you need to do x to fix" which is usually fixed fairly quick.
What are your thoughts on sparky min gui or sparky cli for a good compromise between arch and Ubuntu
Great video, I personally use Mint in my house's PC due is easy to navigate and stuff for me, my wife and children. At work I made a installation of Zorin OS in all PCs and people is actually now used to it. Linux is so amazing 😍
Hey DT, I love your videos and your pragmatism. I'm really glad you did this one - a lot of people needed this message.
I've been using GNU/Linux for over 7 years. My daily driver is Ubuntu. I don't need to customize it all that much - just a few extensions and a theme. I'm a software developer so my focus needs to be on the software I'm developing, not my OS or constant system maintenance necessary to keep a rolling release distro stable. I have another machine I run Arch on and I tinker a lot on that one, but if I break it (or I don't do my due diligence and a package from the AUR breaks my install on an update), I don't lose productivity.
Well put! I too am a software dev , but I use Mint - since Ubuntu had some weird issues on my machine . I noticed often Mint gets criticized for being too "windows like" or for "beginners" - I hate these labels. Mint is very capable , I am doing everything from web development to machine learning on this laptop and it just works. My core focus is building software so fiddling with window managers and all that not really something I have time for but I did enjoy fiddling with Linux earlier on in my career and I still occationally do fiddle with various distro - it's cool.
As a developer - I also don't need the latest version of everything , companies are always usually one or even several versions behind and we run most things in docker anyway - so you can pull in the latest images as needed.
Mint, even Ubuntu - is very underrated, especially for web developers, we usually just need the browser, terminal, a decent file manager and some kind of code editor like Vscode. I also recommend Mint/Ubuntu to juniors over Arch. Arch is cool but needs too much maintenance and breaks easily.
Another developer here. I used to run MX Linux but I'm using Fedora now. I also have arch on separate part but I don't trust it enough to use for production
Here's my logic behind my choice of a distribution.
I like rolling release, but I want my system to be stable because I use it for work.
I like to build my system from scratch, installing only the things I need.
That's why my choice is Debian Testing. I've installed it 4 years ago and for 4 years I've been updating it without reinstalling. It just works.
I've been managing Debian servers for a long time but didn't know sid was _this_ stable. Wow!
@@flow5718 Debian Testing is not SID.
@@flow5718 not sid. sid breaks pretty easily. testing branch gets updates from sid after a couple of weeks of testing
I always get confused on whether Debian unstable or Debian testing is relatively safer to use
@@glidersuzuki5572 ah, ok. Debian Testing is between Unstable and Stable. If after around a week or so the new program has no bug in Unstable, then it moves to Testing. The rank is Experimental-Unstable-Testing-Stable. So even Unstable is not that unsafe, and Testing is relatively safe.
Joe Collins is a Mint guy. One of the first Linux youtubers
Well said. I have followed the typical route, started with Ubuntu then some other Debian based and eventually found myself on Arch and Window Managers (bounce between Hyprland and Wayfire, Arch allows me to easily set both up) or Arch based distros (Archcraft). I can't imagine going back to one of the more standard distributions. Next step in my journey....Nixos.
Me too. I started with Ubuntu, then mint and a couple of others ubuntu-based distribuitions. Now I'm using Arch with Hyprland.
I think nixos' too much complicated for me lol
You don't really need NixOS in my opinion. What would be the reason for using it instead of Arch?
@@jozsefk9 Reproducible configuration. It's also easier to bloat and debloat the system by changing a few lines of code.
@@sus4793 all the same with Arch. Change a line of code.
@@jozsefk9 Definitely not because I am unhappy with Arch. Partly from what @sus4793 said and partly just to keep learning - I like the concept of how they do the configuration.
I have the both distributions in my machine. I feel that Linux Mint is a good point to work in a office, save personal documents, read ebooks, etc. while Arch Linux is perfect to develop informatic software, etc. It's only a subjective impression but it works for myself.
To me this video missed the real question, which is "What do you prefer about an Arch installation compared to a barebones vanilla Debian installation?". Unless I am missing something, you can build everything you want from the ground up in vanilla Debian, so I feel like the comparison between Arch and Debian is more apt than between Arch and Mint.
I myself mostly use Mint Cinnamon, but recently installed qtile and am starting to experiment a bit with it on the side, and have found some of your videos on qtile to be quite helpful as I go (I'm a long way from getting something I'm satisfied with yet). Also I really like your t-shirt; perhaps you could plug where you got it from.
Package management is the only real difference between distributions. This is what makes the tons of -based superfluous IMHO, but to each their own. The very few "grandfather" distros like Arch, Debian, etc. are the only thing that matters. After that, it is all just a matter of which configuration of someone else's settings and pre-selected software is preferred, but all that can be achieved without an entirely new distro
Debian is nice, but not rolling so outdated, and Debian Sid has freeze break which is annoying. Then Debian enables services by default on install, splits packages (needlessly - arch only when makes sense, as in big wasted space), doesn't have as nice package building system as arch, AUR, and like minded smaller changes, so both nice, but much prefer arch still myself.
watch again: 6:50 there you go and 9:40
@@ForeverZer0It may be the most obvious and common difference, but I'd argue that some distros have more than that difference between them. You can argue that it's all "just" how it's configured and set up and that you _could_ set up any distro the same way - ok, I'm willing to give you that, only there's nothing _"just"_ about that.
Damn Small Linux (and possibly Puppy Linux as well) implemented a curious system with filesystem overlays and application packages that can be installed and removed on runtime filesystem. The media and partition DSL is installed on remains the same, you may have a removable media that gets overlaid on top of it and changes are written to it and you can keep applications simply as install packages - and take use of them when you want. The latter is especially useful when loading the filesystem on ramdisk so you can keep the default RAM consumption low and leave out applications you don't want by default.
That's not "just how it's configured by default", there's nothing "just" about it.
As owner of Nokia N900 phone with Maemo 5 as OS, I'd argue it's got some interesting differences as well.
And I'm ready to try out two different distros next: Arch and Gentoo. I've been reading the Gentoo Wiki beforehand and I've found it to be extraordinary and different from every distro I've tried.
But sure, in the end even there every difference between it and others revolves around package management and how you build and manage the system. I don't know what to say there; it's Linux, were not comparing whole different OS's here.
It doesn't mean the differences are always little though.
BUT: I re-read your comment and realize that you mention "thousands of -based" distros... Well, yeah, I guess most of them will fall perfectly in some kind of "distro-theme" category if you will, so I feel foolish now writing all that.
Still I feel that Ubuntu (Debian-based) and Mint (Debian/Ubuntu -based, if you will) are worthwile to mention as something that IMHO is different enough from their "base distro" that they should be simply lumped together with Debian (unlike many Arch-based distros are thought to belong in one "distro-group").
I feel writing this comment was futile though as I feel like I misunderstood you on first reading :x
I’m a somewhat new Linux user, but no stranger to CLI and Unix. Built my first Unraid server late last year which required the occasional CLI work. Then expanded my home lab to include Proxmox on an older Mac mini, on which I have a few Debian VMs spun up for various utilities etc.
Just installed Mint Cinnamon on an old Chromebook after a little contemplation on what distribution to go with. I’m enjoying it. But I totally get your point now…
Mint is like buying a prebuilt PC whereas Arch is more like building your own PC from scratch. The former comes with a bunch of stuff you may end up upgrading later on ( or may not, depending on your needs/use case) and the latter is more for folks that have a good idea of what they want already. Makes so much more sense to me after watching this. Thank you!
At least linux users have this choice...bet windows users don't have this discussion lol.🤣
Yeah they just use their computer instead of talking about it, troubleshooting it, and nonstop tinkering with it.
Sucks for them.
@@JamesJacob-lr5gtwindows users do those things all the time as well they just don't change OSes unless downgrading to 10 or even 7
This is a very good explanation of why I use Arch. But I agree; Mint is an excellent distro, and when they have a new release, I'll usually install it on an old laptop just to check it out. Of the 20 or so distros I've used, Mint is the only one that I never had any issues with; everything just works correctly. Nevertheless, I can't daily drive a pre-configured OS that has hundreds or thousands of packages installed that I don't need or want. I like to build my system from a minimal install and put what I want on it.
If i could do the same that you wrote in the last line "I like to build my system from a minimal install and put what I want on it."
But on a stable build, not a rolling one, then life could have been different...
I think you nailed it perfectly when you gave the example of your mom.
I use Linux Mint Cinnamon.
***For my 11 year old laptop - it has intel i5 processor - on my desk & have 2 older TV's connected as monitor. This is for everyone's use at home.
***For my 10 year old laptop - it has intel i7 processor - Only i use this one. I am learning to code on it an I also use virtualbox on it as I am also studying for A+ certification.
***In short, it depends on your needs &/or what you want to do.
I will one day venture into using Arch Linux and Kali Linux in the future.
Great video !!!
You are so right, my current main system in Linux MX KDE Plasma which is great. I also run arch with an xfce desktop but it boots to tty and I have to manually start WiFi and Desktop.
Once the desktop is running both very similar.
thanks for opening our minds
brilliantly described DT
I'm using CachyOS for the under the hood performance tweaks... and other Arch advantages
I like to install debian stable no desktop as a blank canvas and go from there. The Arch package manager confuses the hell out of me and I don't really need everything upgrading all the time.
newbie question, which to use, arch or arco? i'm using xubuntu 22.04 now... pretend to sys-network admin... thx.
I try to go on the principle of keep it simple and keep it upstream, and so Fedora and Arch are the 2 that I use now. Mint is great for getting other people into Linux, as it has a ton of inbuilt support like automatically detecting whether additional drivers are needed for hardware. If you recommend Linux to other people, you don't want to become IT support for them. Fedora is so easy to setup and is basically as up to date as Arch in terms of packages and kernel. Setting up everything on Arch can get tedious, even if it's a great learning experience. You take everything for granted on a preconfigured OS/distro, for example I just wanted to share some files over the network on my Arch computer, woops realised I had to setup the samba protocol, create a conf file, attach a system service, setup groups and user permissions.....sometimes you just want it to work with one click.
I believe Christopher Barnatt of Explaining Computers uses Mint Linux. I did for awhile, and enjoyed it, but I've since settled on Endeavour Budgie.
I think people just want to know your opinion on almost every linux-related thing based off your long experience with linux distros. And it's always interesting to know what's wrong with any distro from the perspective of experienced linux users and if these problems related to us.
Most Linux youtubers use Debian or Debian derivatives. Mental Outlaw uses Mint, Joe Collins uses Mint, Switched to Linux uses Mint, Kris Occhipinti uses Debian, Veronica Explains uses Pop!OS, Learn Linux TV uses Pop!OS (I think) etc etc
I'm pretty sure Mental Outlaw uses Gentoo on his main rig lol. He doesn't seem like the type of guy to use Mint.
@@microsoftpain Yes he uses Gentoo on his meme tinkering set-up but Mint on his actual use computer. Well how he seems is irrelevant because he has said himself several times on video that uses Mint and has shown screen recordings of him using it many times.
@@folksurvival interesting
@@microsoftpain I think there's a certain community of Linux users who underestimate how many other Linux users use distros like Ubuntu and Mint and how many of the very experienced and tech savvy people use those types of distros. Similar for top programmers. For example competitive programmer Erichto uses Ubuntu and so did Terry A Davis.
And Matt from the Linux Cast don't use Arch at the moment, he's on openSUSE now.
I study for the Linux+ right now, what would I learn by using Arch (I'm on Debian)? Wouldn't I just lose study time because I'd be running an unstable system??
so, what did you choose?
@@LiegeMaximo still running Debian :)
@@RobertVan-iz5lx oh thats great!
I've seen that shirt before, but I still LOL at it every time.
Love that T-Shirt!!
Once everything is installed and set up, Linux is Linux is Linux.
Put it this way: I'm not offended by legitimate criticisms or dislike of Mint; I like and use Mint but I'm not "married" to it. What aggravates me is the snobbery involved by some in Linux world (not you, DT, nor any of the UA-camrs you mentioned) who look down on people because they use a "beginner" distro instead of building their own OS from the ground up. I think some segments of the Linux community is one of the biggest barriers to "normies" adopting and using Linux.
Yeah it is a issue for sure. I just concluded most are super nerds who's whole identity is Linux itself. Most people do not have the time to tinker with a OS for hours or days on end. Anyone who steps outside the windows world to try something new or different, which can be scary, deserves respect.
I love Arch for its customizability and the repositories are enormous. However, I feel that people get too caught up on distros. Criticizing distro selection is almost like criticizing dog-breed selection. They are many good choices and all represent the freedom to choose.
Fun story. I’ve been using Linux since ~2004/2005. After a lot of distro hopping, I ended up on Arch and hopped between i3 and bspwm and did that for years. When my kid was born a couple years ago and I had no spare time I switched to Linux Mint because I wanted to do as little maintenance as possible, and I wanted a preconfigured desktop for my wife to be able to use. I brought in all my configs and continued to just use tiling window managers. My wife still has yet to actually use my computer, so right now I’m running Mint with awesome WM . Cinnamon never gets logged into by anyone. When this install of Mint looses support I’m probably going right back to Arch 😂
Yes, I wondered why you went with Arch, and I understand now better. This video was a very good explanation, because I understand better. I just thought you were more experienced and didn't like simple distros (such as Mint).
I don't use Linux Mint because I prefer to use newer software versions, so EndeavourOS KDE it is.
Love the shirt!
Debian 12 seems to very good contender for mainline linux, now. It's really got the all the elements of a stable Distro.
I was pleasantly surprised by the ease of installing nvdia drivers in Debian unlike in Arch. I would use Arch as an experimental distro to run stuff like Hyprland but I think for a daily use Debian12 may be a good choice ?
I've been using Debian stable for my desktop for a couple years. "It just works."
sudo apt update is REALLY quiet.
@@Insightfill I do hope you'll run "sudo apt upgrade" (or dist-upgrade) after that as well when there are packages to upgrade. Otherwise you're just updating the catalogue of packets available again and again, without actually upgrading anything ;p
@@robsku1 LOL, yes, thanks. Years on Ubuntu and Debian Testing got me into that habit! Got it as a single line with && in the middle, but don't really need it much lately.
I would be interested in seeing that Ubuntu server setup with xfce.
I was using Zorin 17 because I couldn't get Mint to do what I needed. Then after some research with some trial and error I finally got Mint to do everything I needed and I'm loving it! I only log into Windows when I have to. You make very good reasons for why you use Arch. I needed a good desktop distro and it works!
Right on. Use what suites you and that's it.
Hey DT! Why do you use Arch and not AmongOS??
Hi DT, I am on Mint personally yet trying various WMs when I feel like it. With linux for way over 20 years - been on Mandrake, Red Hat, Lunar Linux, Ubuntu, Arch (when it started and biggest selling point was i686 packages ;) ), Debian (testing) etc. Well, as I grew older I need to have distro that just works and I is kind of bullet proof. Also Fluxbox as WM for years. Keep up with a good work.
Why are they not using Mint?
Because Arch has the latest experimental packages and they need content that people don't already know about
Mint/Ubuntu is great for users
Arch is great for tinkerers, linux close to metal developers and content creators
Everything in-between is great for everyone in-between these two categories listed.
there's something for everyone with linux
I'm considering switching over to Arch because I ran into customization issues with Ubuntu. This video confirms that I would be making the correct choice.
Now, my only question is whether or not I seed the ISO file before actually installing Arch to my rig, but my intuition says to wait until after I do an Arch install.
if you had that you shouldnt install arch
whataheck is this ENIAC build-in RGB-y behind u?
I never used Arch, but until the distros I use don't limit me I'm happy. That's the case in a lot of other topics too. And I totally get it that for some users it would be a hassle to remove things you don't need if it's easier to add the things you need yourself.
I loath Arch Linux. I'd rather run Windows 10. lol
Well said DT
There is a part of me that would like to build my own arch box, but I know myself well enough to leave it alone. I don't trust myself to handle something like that so I run Fedora because it just works and that's the space I need to be in. But I love watching content from power users and thinking someday I will build Linux from scratch...but it is not THIS day...
Run Arch in a VM. And build that VM to where you think you'd want to use it every day. Once you get there, you may change your mind about that "Arch Box".
When I first tried Fedora, it had an issue with grub and my system doesn't boot. Didn't have any other issue after that got fixed.
I jumped to arch from fedora to try it out. I loved it but customizing and not managing to screw up the system was a set of skills I don't possess, so I came back to fedora and I am much happier here.
I mean, in my distro hops I did try Endeavor OS, which was fine but at the time Wayland wasn't playing nice with my Invidia card and I didn't know how to swap it out with X. Now on Fedora I'm running gnome in Wayland just fine.❄️🤷
I love fiddling around but I also need stuff to just work when I'm not exploring learning linux or when work must be done asap, thats why I settled for Fedora, to my surprise it worked for me so well I was able to even run my steam games and even FF14 on top of my work/dev toolset, so I ditched both Windows and MacOS from my life entirely.
DT I get a device not found error on cheese and it does not work on linux mint. Do you think cheese sucks. I think it might be due to kernel changes.
I've gotten this question very often myself. I'm using Garuda Linux (Arch based) and Mint Users seem to be the most confused ones about this. Although their question is genuine tbh.
I use Garuda b/c it works fine with my needs, I have no issue to do a PKBUILT if needed and so on, I love the AUR and the toolset Garuda (Gamer Dragonized) comes with.
Because of you I run Ubuntu with xmonad and I love it
Thanks for the insight. I’m now perfectly content with Linux Mint. I just want to adjust the colors and leave everything else stock. As long as it does the thing I’m good. I don’t have the time or desire to configure everything from the ground up.
I use LFS for the same reason, although Arch and Gentoo doesn't offer full control without it hitting the fan in multiple ways, and they include packages I just don't want to have. It's the barest of the bones. However, the next step is to become Terry A. Davis and make my own packages!!
Interesting, it sounds like Arch is what I would like the most. I just got my first Linux computer, a System76 Meerkat running Pop!_OS. After using WSL for a few months, jumping into a dedicated Linux computer feels great. Thanks for all the great Linux content, I have been learning a lot from your channel.
This "Arch Linux Virtual Puzzle" videogame sounds really interesting
Using endevouros as my main computer's os. Its beautiful works good most of the time. I recently did a arch base install on a 10 year old laptop and installed x11 and openbox for a gui. The computer isnnew again i code, ssh, etc on it and it can occasionally run a browser🎉
You can find a lot of things on AUR that you can't find on deb based distros repos at all. so why not make/build it for the deb based distro? GOOD LUCK. that's where you will realize just how slow and tedious deb based distros really are. and no matter what customized speedy kernel you're using it will not have any significant affect on the slow performance of apt, full system updates, and building source from scratch. (I am an Arch user using wlroots/hyprland)
So... What's are the recommendations for Linux Distro's that are blank canvases like Arch, but without the bleeding edge rolling release?
One reason why I don't like using rolling releases like Arch or even Fedora is the plethora of updates these distros throw at you. I usually update my system once a week and I don't want to download and install 1 GB every time :D
Actually now that I thought of it: When you say your on Arch....are you talking bare metal? Or your using it in a VM? If in a VM..what you using for your host? Example: Yeah lots of pen testers are in Kali (Kali is just debian with a ton of GitHub tools pre-installed)....but... most of them are using Kali as a VM either in Mac running in UTM or in Windows through VB or VMWare. So I get why your on Arch but is it a VM or what's your host that your running it in? We also use Bkackarch if not Kali, but I don't know if I would run Blackarch bare metal.
As a PopOS! user. I have no dog in this fight. I just enjoy high quality Linux content no matter what distro UA-camrs use.
On my desktop I use Mint and on POS machines I use Lubuntu. Both no fuss easy installs and better than Win 11. I cant wait for 12 to come out so more people move to Mint lol.
Oh, you know how to spot a Linux Arch user, right? It's super easy! They'll make sure you know they're a Linux Arch user before you even finish saying "Hello." I mean, who needs small talk when you can dive straight into a discussion about your obscure Linux distro preferences, right?
They're more annoying than vegans. At least vegans have the courtesy to tell you they're vegans at the dinner table.
@@barrycuda1722 yes 😆
My Lubuntu 23.04 is still working. Thinking about Archcraft with LXQt soon.
Duh, for the social prestige, of course. ( o.o)
So there's prestige in running "poor man's Gentoo" then?
Of course, and it also heats up the online be-cool economy as it presents an opportunity for even more invested nerds to one up them with their even more obscure elite distros, creating thus a trickle down cascade of internet clout. Makes the world go round, so to speak 🌏
@@fsmoura Possibly, but I don't consider any single distro to be "elite" in the same way you'll never hear me tell the world that Gentoo is the best distro - it isn't, it has just been my distro of choice for 20 years, it works for me.
The "poor man's Gentoo" comment is merely a throwaway "tongue in cheek" one to poke the nest of Arch users with a verbal stick.
Use whatever works for you.
@@fsmoura Nerds will nerd mate!
Thanks for this video! Peace, man
I have used Debian for 23+ years you can check any desktop environment you want on a net install or none at all and install any of the many window managers instead. It can be a simple install for a newbie or a terminal install for the advanced user. This is what makes Linux so great.
What's up with the background foreground?
Has he been working out? he looks great these days. ChadTube
I agree 100% with you about using Arch, Gentoo, etc., for those of us that want to design our own system. If you are new, Ubuntu, Mint, MX-Linux, etc. are the best ones to start with.
Love this vid, I always took it as its for those who want to build it all from the ground up when it comes to Arch, Me im generally good with Mint (Which I use on my laptops) or Nobara which I use on my desktop because I like the time save of it being mostly done and I just install what I want and maybe drop a few pre included apps if im installing one thats my preference. That said I like checking out what others are using and even testing it out, maybe even in a VM for a bit but always best to take it as each to their own, choice is the strength of linux afterall!
There are so many good options now with GNU/Linux. Regarding Mint - Mint XFCE is great for old hardware. It's quick and easy to load so you can get on with your life.
debian + kde plasma here. reason? had a kernel failure with arch a few ago and lifes to crazy to build out something wild so good old debian got my back till better days. as for de's I admit iam a kde plasma lover lol. penguin cult for life...dont really matter what distro or branch ya use as long as you enjoy it and it works for you.
As a Debian user since Debian 2.0 I don't personally care for any of these other distros, but it's good the options exist.
I sometimes think it would be better if some of the efforts came together more... but you can't force anyone of course.
It's the flip side of what may well be the greatest thing about the whole F/OSS thing - sometimes I hear people saying that it's a weakness of FOSS to have too many variants of same thing, that Linux would fare better without it, not realizing it couldn't exist any other way (because it couldn't be done without losing the F and being proprietary - and I don't think Linux would have become anything more than a niche if it had been proprietary).
Peace :)