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.
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. 😂
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.
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.
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Great explanation of why you use Arch. Mint guy here. I a firm believer that everyone should use what they want. That's what Linux is all about, choice!
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.
Yeah, unless maybe it's a Windows techie who's wanting to get really deep into tinkering with Linux. If it's just a regular user then Mint is the best option for transitioning from Windows, 100%
EndeavourOS also has a friendly community, and it'an Arch-based distro. Mint and other Debian-/Ubuntu-based distros are good for those new to Linux because it's the standard nowadays. Years ago in the late 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, if you wanted to install something, you had to do everything manually on the command line, so SuSE with the YaST installer worked great for me. In most Linux tutorials they're going to teach you 'sudo apt install {package_name}' after running 'sudo apt update'. Imagine someone new running an Arch-based distro or Fedora trying to follow that tutorial...
@@Bike_Lion Yep, depends on de person. That's the most important aspect. People frequently talk about "beginner" level, people being new to something. But that does not cover the whole point. What actually matters is how much of a technical person you are and how much time you want or are able to invest into learning these things (learning curve). In fact, for a technical person it can be an unnecessary slowdown to start with "beginner" oriented things first.
@@jongeduard - Yeah, I'd pretty much agree. Like I said, if someone is a beginner who's looking to become a serious Linux tinkerer, then something like Arch might well make more sense. For me personally (as someone who switched over from Windows more than a decade ago), and for the majority of other people switching over, Mint is perfect, since its user interface is similar to Windows, and we're not usually looking to do more than maybe tweak a few settings. We mostly just want the OS to stay out of the way and let us run our applications, without having to worry about the system becoming sluggish due to viruses, or anti-virus software that's constantly scanning in the background, or various applications wanting to update themselves in the background, etc.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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'.
I use Mint for my development machine because I need something that Just Works for work. My gaming machine uses Garuda because I get the benefits of Arch with less of the setup fuss.
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.
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.
After 10 years in Linux, I'm not bothering with much customizing and fiddling anymore and go for the low maintenance approach. Love Mint! (although I still changed the Cinnamon layout a fair bit, can't entirely help it :p)
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...
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 😍
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
Mandrake->Ubuntu->Debian Stable for over a decade. I still don't understand the appeal of Arch. '11 was the last time I used Arch, for about three months and it was a clusterfuck of an experience.
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.
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.
Because they're smart. Mint is dumbed down. Debian is in the middle. Arch is the best available. I say this as someone who's used Linux since 1992. I went from Slackware to Arch, and still use the command line for most actually OS tasks. With the hell that is Windows 11, I've even started using Arch for my GUI tasks. My remaining self-built Windows machine, running 10, is only for Adobe product like Photoshop, and a few modern games that only run on Windows without emulation/VMs.
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).
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.
I’m new to Linux and have been getting my feet wet with Mint (and really loving it). I’m also interested in what an experienced user uses ‘cause I’m a tinkerer at heart. Your explain makes total sense and gives me something to look forward to as I get further sucked into this black hole my wife will have yet another reason to divorce me over. Thanks for sharing. 👍
I moved from Windows (in frustration) some months ago to Mint. I love it. I'm years long in an IT career and just wanted a home computer that worked and didn't tick me off. Great overview, and in the future if want a Linux server, I'll do it. Again great balanced overview.
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.
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.
@@bhutchin1996 Yes, it does. But to be fair, you can uninstall YAST completely after you install openSUSE. I mean, it's a completely optional component of the system, even if it's one of its main features. You can ignore it completely and manage it as you'd manage any other distribution! I'm aware you didn't ask for that specifically, just adding my 2 cents.
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 !!!
I've been using Debian-based distros for most of my time using Linux. Debian is rock-solid and will run indefinitely no matter how many update commands you run, which is something I admire over rolling distros. I'll always opt for vanilla Debian over something like Mint or Ubuntu, though, since the vanilla Gnome installation is my preference.
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.
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!
I would imagine most people who run Linux Mint have never heard of you. No insult intended. Most people, like my wife and daughter, barely realize what they are running. And the majority who do use it are getting away from windows and their ways. The UA-camrs who run Linux and Ubutu systems are performing to an audiance interested in those systems. I use the terminal often to do various items, but use Cinnamin 95% of the time. If I run into a problem with a system package I scan the internet, find what I need to fix it, copy and paste into the terminal and am completely happy. I do not care what you run and am sure you run what is capable of doing what you want and need. Good for you, good for me.
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!
Mint is the only distro that I have ever installed on friends' and family's computers that didn't result in them immediately asking me to install windows instead.
5 місяців тому
Excellent comment, thank you for your contributions in each of your videos, I have learned a lot from each of them. Greetings from Costa Rica....peace
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.
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.❄️🤷
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.
Minute twelve into the video. I'm relatively new to Linux and use Linux Mint. I'm going to hazard a guess that most UA-camrs use an Arch Based system because they actually know what they're doing and like the increased utility Arch probably gives them over the pretty standard and tame experience Mint gives them. Can't wait to see if I guessed even remotely close.
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?
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 😂
I want to ditch Windows for a Distro that will make that transition easier for me. I am not a power user...so I really don't have a need for the terminal commands. Having said that, There will come a time when I will have to use the terminal to install or uninstall software that I will not use anymore? To me right now...the terminal command is a rabbit hole I am not educated enough or feel comfortable using. I will stay on Windows 10 until end of life. In the meantime I will install Mint to begin my new journey with Linux. Take care all.
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.
Very well said. So basically you choose Arch because you like to design how you want your system to look. Kind of like an Artist paints a scene on their canvas, or an Architect designs their buildings. Very interesting.
I’m VERY new to Linux and don’t care to tinker too much. I installed Mint on a bunch of old macs gathering dust, and it gave them all new life for lite home computing. Mint is fantastic because things just seem to work and I LIKE the GUI. Then I bought a tiny SBC (Orange Pi Zero 2w 4Gb + expansion board) for my own amusement. Mint doesn’t support ARM processors, so it has been a Linux distro learning experience for me. So far the custom Debian Bookworm distro from OrangePi has required the least hair pulling and best performance. I’ve also tried the custom Ubuntu distro from OrangePi, Armbian and DietPi. I have not tried the OrangePi custom Arch Linux distro because there were known, major bugs (terminal crashes on launch), but maybe I’ll give their most recent build a try. Still trying to figure out how to connect the SBC to a home network.
I started my Linux journey in 1997 with red hat, ditched windows entirely in 2001, I have used numerous Distro's since then, today me and my wife use Endeavour OS "Arch based easier install" I only have software installed that I want no excess stuff. I have used Mint in the past, it is the distro that i used to introduce my wife to using Linux, but even she has moved on. Thankyou for this video.
😍the t-shirt. I've been using Debian stable since King Charles I died and always wanted to try Arch but just never got around to do it somehow. People say there's too many Linux distributions and I tell them "it depends on how you count them". 😆 My top list is: Debian, Arch, Mint, cause I love stability and I'm often a bit lazy, but I also love to fiddle with the OS sometimes. Debian is like something in between Arch and Mint. I'd absolutely recommend Mint, especially to newbies to Linux, and I'd recommend Debian for musicians, Arch for musicians who are also Linux power users. Love RE-20 for podcasting. Great choice! Classic radio sound.👍
I recently moved from Windows 10 to Debian 12. I installed the cinnamon desktop first, because I really disliked the look of Gnome 3, but I eventually decided to take a chance on Gnome 3 and I'm really enjoying it. The mistake some make is to think of a distro as if it is its own OS, rather than being what it is, a spin or flavour of an OS. As far as my needs go, Debian 12 is a good option, but I may dabble with a few distros in a virtual machine to keep up-to date with what other distros are doing. The hobbyist in me may even install and look at Arch in a VM to build up my Linux knowledge.
I move around the Linux desktop user world. My first Linux Distro was Mandrake. Mandrake was awesome! After getting bored with that I tried Redhat 9 when it was still free prior to the introduction of fedora. I tried fedora 1 and it was very buggy, so after getting fed up with fedora I jumped to Ubuntu on advice from a friend. I used Ubuntu for a long time up until the Unity desktop came out. Hating the Unity desktop I jumped to Zorin, then Linux Mint, and then to OpenSUSE. OpenSUSE was probably the best distro that I have ever used...it was very stable. Now I have Linux on 3 different laptops: fedora 40, Mageia 9, and Linux Mint. I just use the desktops provided with the distributions because of time. I love Linux but I do not have the time to tinker with the OS because of other life obligations. But, when I retire in about 5 years maybe I'll try Arch or Gentoo and see what all of the hoopla is about. I admit that I use the "easier" distros, but I use what I like and I do not use Windoze! Linux has everything that I could want or need.
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.
Thanks for explaining this, it makes sense. I just switched from windows, landed on mint after pulling my hair out trying to learn stuff on a few other distros. I felt like I needed a degree in computer science and spent weeks trying to make things work. With windows it would take me a day or two to get everything up and running and then I could just get back to working on music. Mint so far has been almost as easy as windows, though I must admit I have been relying on ChatGPT as my pocket nerd helper. Maybe one day I will want to make a purpose built system for music production, especially with how blown away I am by pipewire, but thats not today! Thanks again!
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.
Makes good sense. I'm using Mint because I'm new to Linux and need something similar to windows. But a power user like you who has the knowledge to make the own system should make their own. Thanks.
I actually get this. It's why, as much as I love Zorin for having been my first full-time single-boot Linux distro, I've moved on to Fedora 40 Workstation. Once I figured out how GNOME's Extension Manager will let me set up GNOME the way I want to set it up, Zorin's 'Layouts' feature -- while initially very convenient -- started to feel more like a constraint than a benefit.
I started with Ubuntu and hated it back in 2008, and never went back to Linux until I tried Mint, then Manjaro. From there, I moved to Arch, and not looked back. I like a desktop, because I liked going from DOS 3.3 to Windows 3.1. That said, I do a lot in PowerShell on the servers I maintain for work; and Terminal in Arch when I want to really control something or do what a GUI cannot accomplish. But no bloat Arch is the way I prefer to roll.
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.
It’s nice to hear someone endorse something they do not use while talking about why they use something else. Mint is a wonderful desktop if you want a great desktop immediately. Arch is great if you want to spend the time and customize to exactly what you want and not what someone else assembled assuming what you want. Mint works great for me, but after watching this video I think I’ll spend a free weekend and try arch again. Great video, thank you.
Loved the video! I would say I'm a power user and I'm tired of Microsoft's BS, but I'm also a gamer. So I'm slowly looking for a distro that would go well with a gaming computer. I'm searching for the one that is going to give me the least amount of headache. 😂 So far I thought about Pop! OS or EndeavourOS, but I still need to do a lot of research... Out of curiosity, when you say you like to customize your desktop, besides only having installed the apps that you'll use, what else do you do to make it worth using Arch?
I never really thought about how many times people ask that. I have no idea how many distros I have installed currently. I mostly use Mint on my Windows replacement machines lately. We used a very early Ubuntu for my son when he was starting out, and since he was not old enough to read well yet, it was a good fit (plus he liked Warthogs). All that weight is not helpful other places. You have to pick what fits your use case best. I think it was a great explanation for folks that were wondering.
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.
A tool for every task and every task has its tools. I think coming from Mac/Apple the concept of different OS for different tasks might seem novel for end consumers. However that’s the beauty of Linux. It can be your home entertainment, your personal PC, your server… That’s what I love about it. 💚
The user friendly nature of Linux Mint is what helped me take the final step to deleting windows from my PC permanently. Eventually, I moved on to more advanced distros, but Linux Mint will always hold a special place in my Linux journey.
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 :)
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.
You make so much sense. I use LMDE6, the debian version of Mint. it runs as expected, but there are times I want to change the version of software that is installed by default, and it starts to get a bit out of control. But I can get what I want using flatpak and distrobox. But I can see why someone like you would use Arch. And that is actually why Linux is so great, cos not one size fits all!
I use Fedora 37 with LTS kernel. I don't like Arch. I use GNOME so I don't need some over the top configuration. What I need though is for when something work and an update brakes to be able to restore and stick with it for as long as possible. In Arch it's an absolute nightmare to run with with some outdated components, especially if they're part of the system / DE, and others up to date. Plus I really don't like the package manager pacman's syntax. For the record my Fedora 37 is quite customized, down to the system level. Stable and semi-stable releases rock! I will never use arch.
Arch Linux overdoes it. It's kinda for hobbyists, you'll never end up using anything but grub, there's no point to doing the locale manually considering 99% of the users will always do the same thing, same goes for about 90% of the Arch installation. Most people "customize" 90% of their Arch instance the same way as everyone else. The argument that it's easier to customize is just a bad argument. It's easier to replace 10% of the stuff you don't like than it is to build from a clean slate. Some people just enjoy the process and I think that's fair. This is a hobby. The AUR is a nice argument and I agree. Personally, I don't care about what distro I use, at the beginning of the installation I just download the 5 main programs I spend 99% of the time in, I replace existing programs that do the same thing and I'm good to go. Sometimes I am reminded of the AUR and how easy it is to find cool stuff in there, but at the end of the day that stuff is most likely available on each distro. That stuff is also most likely not experience changing neither. At the same time I'm also quickly reminded of how much of my time I'll have to give up just to gain an additional search engine, masked as a package manager.
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'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.
So, I have been using Debian for 20 years at least. Always loved its stability and flexibility. Tried many distros and always relied on Debian for important stuff. Even so, I finally got a very decent laptop to run Arch as full time distro🎉
Linux Mint and similar distros are for those who want an alternative to Windows but don't want to spend time building a custom OS. Arch Linux is for those who want to build a custom OS, and learn a lot about Linux in the process.
TL;DW: Arch lets you build from the ground-up and customize everything you put into it on a use-case basis, where "user-friendly" distros need to be torn down and redone since they're pre-configured.
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 can definitely understand starting from a blank slate when you intend to change everything anyway. For me, as a windows "power user" who doesn't mind going into cmd or powershell to do more advanced tinkering when needed, linux mint seems a great alternative. Since having switched my daily use computer to mint, I am gradually learning the commands and syntax of the terminal. Also, in my opinion, the gui is very functional; even in it's stock, out-of-the-box, form.
Hi! Thanks for an interesting video! What you said is true. Every one of us is free to use what we like and need, and the beauty about linux is exactly that: The liberty and variety of choice according to what we like and need. In the Linux ecosystem there is no wrong choosing. Simply there is a solution according to what you have/need. That's all. Now, talking about my own experience, I used Manjaro Linux twice in my life and those two times I had to experience the breakage of the package manager. Those two times were very frustrating experiences, so far that one day I said "that is enough" switched to debian based systems (whatever: MX Linux, Mint, Debian, etc.) and never had to fight against package manager issues. Long live and prosper 🖖
I spent years playing with Linux, trying different distros, building my experience from scratch. I'm at a point where I'm just too busy...so I just do a plug and play now.....
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
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. 😂
I preach something very similar all the time.
People get too caught up in their egos.
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
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"
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.
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.
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.
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?
I use Debian, by the way.
I do that, but also use LMDE6.
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.
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.
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
Great explanation of why you use Arch. Mint guy here. I a firm believer that everyone should use what they want. That's what Linux is all about, choice!
DT isn't anti-Mint, he's anti-mouse.
LoL
Most accurate + anti-GUI
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.
Yeah, unless maybe it's a Windows techie who's wanting to get really deep into tinkering with Linux. If it's just a regular user then Mint is the best option for transitioning from Windows, 100%
EndeavourOS also has a friendly community, and it'an Arch-based distro. Mint and other Debian-/Ubuntu-based distros are good for those new to Linux because it's the standard nowadays. Years ago in the late 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, if you wanted to install something, you had to do everything manually on the command line, so SuSE with the YaST installer worked great for me. In most Linux tutorials they're going to teach you 'sudo apt install {package_name}' after running 'sudo apt update'. Imagine someone new running an Arch-based distro or Fedora trying to follow that tutorial...
@@Bike_Lion Yep, depends on de person. That's the most important aspect. People frequently talk about "beginner" level, people being new to something. But that does not cover the whole point.
What actually matters is how much of a technical person you are and how much time you want or are able to invest into learning these things (learning curve).
In fact, for a technical person it can be an unnecessary slowdown to start with "beginner" oriented things first.
@@jongeduard - Yeah, I'd pretty much agree. Like I said, if someone is a beginner who's looking to become a serious Linux tinkerer, then something like Arch might well make more sense. For me personally (as someone who switched over from Windows more than a decade ago), and for the majority of other people switching over, Mint is perfect, since its user interface is similar to Windows, and we're not usually looking to do more than maybe tweak a few settings. We mostly just want the OS to stay out of the way and let us run our applications, without having to worry about the system becoming sluggish due to viruses, or anti-virus software that's constantly scanning in the background, or various applications wanting to update themselves in the background, etc.
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?
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.
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.
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.
what i found is cant pirate games on linux becuase no linux pirate sites :(
@@NightmareRex6 just pirate the windows version and run it under wine/proton
@@NightmareRex6justo use lutris and wine and run the exe installer...
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
I use Mint for my development machine because I need something that Just Works for work. My gaming machine uses Garuda because I get the benefits of Arch with less of the setup fuss.
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.
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.
After 10 years in Linux, I'm not bothering with much customizing and fiddling anymore and go for the low maintenance approach. Love Mint! (although I still changed the Cinnamon layout a fair bit, can't entirely help it :p)
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...
EndeavourOS is very minimalistic out of the box, that's one thing I like about it, not to mention being able to install from the AUR.
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 😍
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
Mandrake->Ubuntu->Debian Stable for over a decade.
I still don't understand the appeal of Arch. '11 was the last time I used Arch, for about three months and it was a clusterfuck of an experience.
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.
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.
Because they're smart.
Mint is dumbed down.
Debian is in the middle.
Arch is the best available.
I say this as someone who's used Linux since 1992.
I went from Slackware to Arch, and still use the command line for most actually OS tasks.
With the hell that is Windows 11, I've even started using Arch for my GUI tasks.
My remaining self-built Windows machine, running 10, is only for Adobe product like Photoshop, and a few modern games that only run on Windows without emulation/VMs.
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).
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.
I’m new to Linux and have been getting my feet wet with Mint (and really loving it). I’m also interested in what an experienced user uses ‘cause I’m a tinkerer at heart. Your explain makes total sense and gives me something to look forward to as I get further sucked into this black hole my wife will have yet another reason to divorce me over. Thanks for sharing. 👍
Is tinkering your excuse for not getting any work done? Mine is that I am lazy by nature. I am an honest kind of guy. ;-)
You stretched that out to 12 minutes. You're a genius.
I moved from Windows (in frustration) some months ago to Mint. I love it. I'm years long in an IT career and just wanted a home computer that worked and didn't tick me off. Great overview, and in the future if want a Linux server, I'll do it. Again great balanced overview.
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.
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 SuSE back in the day, 20 years ago. Does OpenSUSE still use YAST as an installer?
@@bhutchin1996 Yes, it does. But to be fair, you can uninstall YAST completely after you install openSUSE. I mean, it's a completely optional component of the system, even if it's one of its main features. You can ignore it completely and manage it as you'd manage any other distribution! I'm aware you didn't ask for that specifically, just adding my 2 cents.
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 !!!
I've been using Debian-based distros for most of my time using Linux. Debian is rock-solid and will run indefinitely no matter how many update commands you run, which is something I admire over rolling distros.
I'll always opt for vanilla Debian over something like Mint or Ubuntu, though, since the vanilla Gnome installation is my preference.
Hey DT, Do you use mints for fresh breaths?
You matter to me for the good advice! I hope you live long and prosper.
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.
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!
I would imagine most people who run Linux Mint have never heard of you. No insult intended. Most people, like my wife and daughter, barely realize what they are running. And the majority who do use it are getting away from windows and their ways. The UA-camrs who run Linux and Ubutu systems are performing to an audiance interested in those systems. I use the terminal often to do various items, but use Cinnamin 95% of the time. If I run into a problem with a system package I scan the internet, find what I need to fix it, copy and paste into the terminal and am completely happy. I do not care what you run and am sure you run what is capable of doing what you want and need. Good for you, good for me.
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!
Mint is the only distro that I have ever installed on friends' and family's computers that didn't result in them immediately asking me to install windows instead.
Excellent comment, thank you for your contributions in each of your videos, I have learned a lot from each of them.
Greetings from Costa Rica....peace
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.
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.❄️🤷
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.
Minute twelve into the video. I'm relatively new to Linux and use Linux Mint. I'm going to hazard a guess that most UA-camrs use an Arch Based system because they actually know what they're doing and like the increased utility Arch probably gives them over the pretty standard and tame experience Mint gives them. Can't wait to see if I guessed even remotely close.
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 😆
A very good explanation, DT. My hat off to you.
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 😂
I want to ditch Windows for a Distro that will make that transition easier for me. I am not a power user...so I really don't have a need for the terminal commands. Having said that, There will come a time when I will have to use the terminal to install or uninstall software that I will not use anymore? To me right now...the terminal command is a rabbit hole I am not educated enough or feel comfortable using. I will stay on Windows 10 until end of life. In the meantime I will install Mint to begin my new journey with Linux. Take care all.
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.
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.
Very well said. So basically you choose Arch because you like to design how you want your system to look. Kind of like an Artist paints a scene on their canvas, or an Architect designs their buildings. Very interesting.
I’m VERY new to Linux and don’t care to tinker too much. I installed Mint on a bunch of old macs gathering dust, and it gave them all new life for lite home computing. Mint is fantastic because things just seem to work and I LIKE the GUI. Then I bought a tiny SBC (Orange Pi Zero 2w 4Gb + expansion board) for my own amusement. Mint doesn’t support ARM processors, so it has been a Linux distro learning experience for me. So far the custom Debian Bookworm distro from OrangePi has required the least hair pulling and best performance. I’ve also tried the custom Ubuntu distro from OrangePi, Armbian and DietPi. I have not tried the OrangePi custom Arch Linux distro because there were known, major bugs (terminal crashes on launch), but maybe I’ll give their most recent build a try. Still trying to figure out how to connect the SBC to a home network.
I started my Linux journey in 1997 with red hat, ditched windows entirely in 2001, I have used numerous Distro's since then, today me and my wife use Endeavour OS "Arch based easier install" I only have software installed that I want no excess stuff. I have used Mint in the past, it is the distro that i used to introduce my wife to using Linux, but even she has moved on. Thankyou for this video.
😍the t-shirt. I've been using Debian stable since King Charles I died and always wanted to try Arch but just never got around to do it somehow. People say there's too many Linux distributions and I tell them "it depends on how you count them". 😆 My top list is: Debian, Arch, Mint, cause I love stability and I'm often a bit lazy, but I also love to fiddle with the OS sometimes. Debian is like something in between Arch and Mint. I'd absolutely recommend Mint, especially to newbies to Linux, and I'd recommend Debian for musicians, Arch for musicians who are also Linux power users. Love RE-20 for podcasting. Great choice! Classic radio sound.👍
I recently moved from Windows 10 to Debian 12. I installed the cinnamon desktop first, because I really disliked the look of Gnome 3, but I eventually decided to take a chance on Gnome 3 and I'm really enjoying it. The mistake some make is to think of a distro as if it is its own OS, rather than being what it is, a spin or flavour of an OS. As far as my needs go, Debian 12 is a good option, but I may dabble with a few distros in a virtual machine to keep up-to date with what other distros are doing. The hobbyist in me may even install and look at Arch in a VM to build up my Linux knowledge.
I move around the Linux desktop user world. My first Linux Distro was Mandrake. Mandrake was awesome! After getting bored with that I tried Redhat 9 when it was still free prior to the introduction of fedora. I tried fedora 1 and it was very buggy, so after getting fed up with fedora I jumped to Ubuntu on advice from a friend. I used Ubuntu for a long time up until the Unity desktop came out. Hating the Unity desktop I jumped to Zorin, then Linux Mint, and then to OpenSUSE. OpenSUSE was probably the best distro that I have ever used...it was very stable. Now I have Linux on 3 different laptops: fedora 40, Mageia 9, and Linux Mint. I just use the desktops provided with the distributions because of time. I love Linux but I do not have the time to tinker with the OS because of other life obligations. But, when I retire in about 5 years maybe I'll try Arch or Gentoo and see what all of the hoopla is about. I admit that I use the "easier" distros, but I use what I like and I do not use Windoze! Linux has everything that I could want or need.
You're absolutely right, I want to try others distros in the future but right now I'm completely satisfied with my Linux mint, and that's all right.
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.
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
Thanks for explaining this, it makes sense. I just switched from windows, landed on mint after pulling my hair out trying to learn stuff on a few other distros. I felt like I needed a degree in computer science and spent weeks trying to make things work. With windows it would take me a day or two to get everything up and running and then I could just get back to working on music. Mint so far has been almost as easy as windows, though I must admit I have been relying on ChatGPT as my pocket nerd helper. Maybe one day I will want to make a purpose built system for music production, especially with how blown away I am by pipewire, but thats not today! Thanks again!
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
Makes good sense. I'm using Mint because I'm new to Linux and need something similar to windows. But a power user like you who has the knowledge to make the own system should make their own. Thanks.
I actually get this. It's why, as much as I love Zorin for having been my first full-time single-boot Linux distro, I've moved on to Fedora 40 Workstation. Once I figured out how GNOME's Extension Manager will let me set up GNOME the way I want to set it up, Zorin's 'Layouts' feature -- while initially very convenient -- started to feel more like a constraint than a benefit.
I started with Ubuntu and hated it back in 2008, and never went back to Linux until I tried Mint, then Manjaro. From there, I moved to Arch, and not looked back.
I like a desktop, because I liked going from DOS 3.3 to Windows 3.1. That said, I do a lot in PowerShell on the servers I maintain for work; and Terminal in Arch when I want to really control something or do what a GUI cannot accomplish.
But no bloat Arch is the way I prefer to roll.
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.
It’s nice to hear someone endorse something they do not use while talking about why they use something else. Mint is a wonderful desktop if you want a great desktop immediately. Arch is great if you want to spend the time and customize to exactly what you want and not what someone else assembled assuming what you want. Mint works great for me, but after watching this video I think I’ll spend a free weekend and try arch again.
Great video, thank you.
Loved the video!
I would say I'm a power user and I'm tired of Microsoft's BS, but I'm also a gamer. So I'm slowly looking for a distro that would go well with a gaming computer. I'm searching for the one that is going to give me the least amount of headache. 😂
So far I thought about Pop! OS or EndeavourOS, but I still need to do a lot of research...
Out of curiosity, when you say you like to customize your desktop, besides only having installed the apps that you'll use, what else do you do to make it worth using Arch?
I never really thought about how many times people ask that. I have no idea how many distros I have installed currently. I mostly use Mint on my Windows replacement machines lately. We used a very early Ubuntu for my son when he was starting out, and since he was not old enough to read well yet, it was a good fit (plus he liked Warthogs). All that weight is not helpful other places. You have to pick what fits your use case best. I think it was a great explanation for folks that were wondering.
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.
Joe Collins is a Mint guy. One of the first Linux youtubers
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.
A tool for every task and every task has its tools.
I think coming from Mac/Apple the concept of different OS for different tasks might seem novel for end consumers. However that’s the beauty of Linux. It can be your home entertainment, your personal PC, your server…
That’s what I love about it. 💚
It's a amazing this kind of video has to be made...
The user friendly nature of Linux Mint is what helped me take the final step to deleting windows from my PC permanently. Eventually, I moved on to more advanced distros, but Linux Mint will always hold a special place in my Linux journey.
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 :)
I've seen that shirt before, but I still LOL at it every time.
I don't use Linux Mint because I prefer to use newer software versions, so EndeavourOS KDE it is.
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.
You make so much sense. I use LMDE6, the debian version of Mint. it runs as expected, but there are times I want to change the version of software that is installed by default, and it starts to get a bit out of control. But I can get what I want using flatpak and distrobox. But I can see why someone like you would use Arch. And that is actually why Linux is so great, cos not one size fits all!
I use Fedora 37 with LTS kernel. I don't like Arch. I use GNOME so I don't need some over the top configuration. What I need though is for when something work and an update brakes to be able to restore and stick with it for as long as possible. In Arch it's an absolute nightmare to run with with some outdated components, especially if they're part of the system / DE, and others up to date. Plus I really don't like the package manager pacman's syntax. For the record my Fedora 37 is quite customized, down to the system level. Stable and semi-stable releases rock! I will never use arch.
I run Mint btw.
Arch Linux overdoes it. It's kinda for hobbyists, you'll never end up using anything but grub, there's no point to doing the locale manually considering 99% of the users will always do the same thing, same goes for about 90% of the Arch installation. Most people "customize" 90% of their Arch instance the same way as everyone else. The argument that it's easier to customize is just a bad argument. It's easier to replace 10% of the stuff you don't like than it is to build from a clean slate.
Some people just enjoy the process and I think that's fair. This is a hobby.
The AUR is a nice argument and I agree.
Personally, I don't care about what distro I use, at the beginning of the installation I just download the 5 main programs I spend 99% of the time in, I replace existing programs that do the same thing and I'm good to go. Sometimes I am reminded of the AUR and how easy it is to find cool stuff in there, but at the end of the day that stuff is most likely available on each distro. That stuff is also most likely not experience changing neither. At the same time I'm also quickly reminded of how much of my time I'll have to give up just to gain an additional search engine, masked as a package manager.
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 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'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.
So, I have been using Debian for 20 years at least. Always loved its stability and flexibility. Tried many distros and always relied on Debian for important stuff. Even so, I finally got a very decent laptop to run Arch as full time distro🎉
"stability'? ........ thats one word that does NOT describe Arch.
@@jimw7916 Jim, I thought of Debian, not Arch. Im using Arch for non work stuff.
Linux Mint and similar distros are for those who want an alternative to Windows but don't want to spend time building a custom OS.
Arch Linux is for those who want to build a custom OS, and learn a lot about Linux in the process.
TL;DW: Arch lets you build from the ground-up and customize everything you put into it on a use-case basis,
where "user-friendly" distros need to be torn down and redone since they're pre-configured.
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 can definitely understand starting from a blank slate when you intend to change everything anyway. For me, as a windows "power user" who doesn't mind going into cmd or powershell to do more advanced tinkering when needed, linux mint seems a great alternative. Since having switched my daily use computer to mint, I am gradually learning the commands and syntax of the terminal. Also, in my opinion, the gui is very functional; even in it's stock, out-of-the-box, form.
Hi! Thanks for an interesting video! What you said is true. Every one of us is free to use what we like and need, and the beauty about linux is exactly that: The liberty and variety of choice according to what we like and need. In the Linux ecosystem there is no wrong choosing. Simply there is a solution according to what you have/need. That's all.
Now, talking about my own experience, I used Manjaro Linux twice in my life and those two times I had to experience the breakage of the package manager. Those two times were very frustrating experiences, so far that one day I said "that is enough" switched to debian based systems (whatever: MX Linux, Mint, Debian, etc.) and never had to fight against package manager issues. Long live and prosper 🖖
I spent years playing with Linux, trying different distros, building my experience from scratch. I'm at a point where I'm just too busy...so I just do a plug and play now.....