I'm not a computer expert or planning to be. I'm just a computer user, a coder, a gamer, and I think I will get the opportunity to afford cheaper PCs if I use the Arch distro from Linux which is very lightweight and fast. I've heard Microsoft forces you to bloat your PC with win11.

Any linux distro is significantly more lightweight than windows. But I'd say that there is not much difference between arch and for example the most bloated distro: ubuntu.

If you are a coder, the CLI will be easy. Most of the time the use of CLI is comparable to a single line in your code where you call a function with some parameters.

But arch is difficult for a beginner. (I wrote some more about my experience with it here: https://lemy.lol/post/61578059/24360161 )

If you have time, interest and discipline to read the documentation and learn a lot, then arch is great.

If you just want to use a Linux OS, install Mint and just use it. It's no big deal, just a normal OS. It's very intuitive, low friction and no microslop bloat.

If your main concern is boat, you will likely be fine with any Linux distribution. There are more beginner friendly ones out there.

That said, if you play lots of PC games, even if they’re Linux compatible, switching away from Windows isn’t going to magically double your FPS. Hardware still matters.

If you can search the internet good and can read the arch wiki you'll be fine. If you've been playing on computers and maybe modding some games you'll also be fine. The command line is only scary cause we are used to visuals.

Arch isn't exactly intended for beginners, and the "windows is more bloated than Linux" thing applies for pretty much every Linux distro.

If you're willing to spend a significant amount of time learning and tinkering, a distro like Arch could provide what you need. However, if you're just starting out, you might want to start with something easier. Distros like Linux Mint or Fedora are plenty lightweight compared to Windows, and they require much less learning to get started actually using your computer.

As for "which distro allows you to use the cheapest PC", this mainly comes down to how much effort you're willing to put in, not necessarily the distro you use. At a certain point, a desktop computer will "just work" for basic desktop tasks, the distro doesn't change much there.

Since you are a coder, I suppose you using CLI should be fine. However, there are many other alternatives, which is fast and even based on Arch Linux.

don't switch to Arch if you're a gamer. Go with Fedora or (i'm told) Bazzite

Arch is incredibly user friendly - gets completely out of the way of the user so they can do exactly what they want how they want.

Arch is not very beginner friendly - depending on what you consider a beginner, it will not hold your hand except for the install process where it provides a walkthrough script. If you have configured Linux before it will be familiar but you may have to read documentation. It’s not designed to be difficult, but it is designed for people who know why the choices they are making matter. If you do not understand then there will be a gap and that may feel a bit frustrating, but it is on you to bridge that gap.

My son had a netbook with win10 and office. This ate 27 of the 32 GB the thing had. An "important update" of 8 GB did not work, putting the device in a download and fail cycle.

I installed Linux on this machine - Kubuntu, with LibreOffice and a load of extra software. Took only about 4 GB of space.

My main concern is also boat.

I'm not a computer expert or planning to be.

I don't use Arch, but my perception is that it is meant for people who want to be computer experts.

Do you have any reason not to use Linux Mint?
As others have mentioned, Mint has 95% of the benefits over Windows that Arch has, and Mint is designed for folks who just want to use their computer.

If you are doing some gaming maybe try Bazzite, it will come setup for the hardware option you choose. Good place to start before jumping right into arch

Arch is not a distro for beginners. One day you'll wreck it.

If you just want it to work, I would advise you try these and stick with the one you like the most:

• Mint (Cinnamon)
• Zorin (Gnome)
• Fedora Workstation
• Fedora KDE Plasma
• Ubuntu Desktop (Gnome)
• Kubuntu (KDE)
• Aurora (Gnome)
• Bluefin (KDE)
• Bazzite (KDE & Gnome)

All my family's PCs run linux. We use Bazzite for gaming and Aurora for work. Easier and more reliable than Windows.

If you want to lessen the barrier of entry to Arch, maybe try CachyOS. It's Arch based and very close to normal Arch, but has some conveniences. Might be worth a look. It's also got it's own CPU specific repositories (same content as Arch), giving even more performance.

I think the whole "XYZ Distro is faster!" arguments are overblown. Most distros will be fast enough on reasonably modern hardware, and any performance gains will usually come with compromises and/or lots of tinkering. Generally speaking a standard arch install (that is, you've not manually configured anything) will be roughly the same speed as a more beginner friendly distros like Mint and Fedora (which is still more lightweight than Windows).

To answer the question in the title: Yes you'll survive the CLI. Just give yourself time to learn the fundamentals and treat it as learning a programming language. More user friendly distros generally don't expect you to use the CLI, which is part of the reason they are recommended.

That does look quite threatening

Arch-based I find is a good middle-ground. I use CachyOS and it’s more or less preconfigured, there’s a selection of packages preinstalled, but it’s still pretty baseline so you can build it up to whatever you want. There’s probably enough to get you going out-of-the-box if you’re new.

But yeah if you’re brand new to Linux there’s distros designed for that audience and you can always hop away to something when you’re ready or if your use-case changes.

I have an old netbook that ran win10 poorly. I have since put Debian on it and it's been great.

Arch is for people who want to think they are computer experts.

Debian/Fedora are for the experts that have moved beyond reading release notes.

With Fedora & Ubuntu you can also switch between desktop environments without re-installing

I’m not a computer expert or planning to be.

Then don't use Arch. Seriously, where are you guys even finding out about Arch, much less wanting to try it? Whoever told you Arch would be a good fit, don't listen to them on anything Linux-related again. Arch is not for beginners, and it's not for people who don't want to learn the ins and outs of their computer because they're having to dig into the guts to fix it whenever an update breaks something. Arch is a fine distro for people who WANT those things, need bleeding edge hardware support, and don't mind having to fix it whenever it breaks. It doesn't sound like that's at all what you're looking for though.

Thanks for suggestion. I will look into Bazzite distro and also fedora. Thanks!

Thanks for the info. All this time Arch was my only option for gaming because othrer distros look as bloated as Windows. Thanks!

Is that CachyOS?

Are you saying Kubuntu is not as bloated as it looks? And I think Fedora will be smaller than that?

Thanks, I will look into that distro!

Bloat is relative, I guess.

Honestly, for any semi-modern hardware, the different amount of "bloat" between any two distros is small enough to be irrelevent for most everything you would do on a computer up to and including gaming, especially compared against Windows. Yes, Arch may be less bloated than, say, Ubuntu, but are you really going to notice or care that your system is idling at 1.2 GB of RAM usage instead of 800 MB?

Don't know about Fedora. And you would have to do odd things to bloat any Linux distribution anywhere near a Winslop system.

I mean try it if you are curious nobody is holding you back but personally recommend something easier to start with?

OpenSuse Leap (or if you're adventurous, Tumbleweed) can safely be placed here too.

I can second CachyOS. The last time it caused me headaches was kinda my own fault. VirtualBox needed some dependencies which I didn't read thru, then it installed an older kernel version for some god damn reason and I lost my ethernet driver. Took me quite some time to figure it out, but as I said, not Cachy's fault!

I wouldn't say arch and arch-based are the same thing. If someone specifically asks about arch, I'd be inclined to advise them it's not suitable for people not interested in reading and learning a bit. But I also agree arch-based are pretty solid and much more beginner friendly.

I don't know about Steam OS but with EndeavourOS, you still have to keep an eye on the Arch news and make any manual interventions that are required. If you don't, you can end up with a broken system. If you do that, it's utterly reliable.

That's one of them, another is EndeavourOS which is my distro of choice.

Ahhh look it has windows!!

I switched with barely any knowledge, just an interest in the field, and a lot of free time. I believe that it is possible for everyone who really wants to use it.

Linus Torvalds uses Fedora last I heard, LTT built him a beast pc, take that for what it is worth. He likes to test the kernel and he says Fedora is most accommodating for him.

I don't think Arch is the distro I would go for if I just wanted speed. I suppose it depends on speed of what—generally systemd Linux will boot noticeably faster than Windows, and non-systemd Linux boots noticeably faster than systemd Linux—but once you're booted up, I don't think there's a significant performance difference. Arch is a Linux distro that uses systemd so it'd be the middle option if you're wanting fast boots. There are other minimalist distros too, some of which end up in arguably faster systems, but Arch is probably the easiest of the minimalist distros due to being well-documented and supported. But the reason for going for a minimalist distro is usually customisability, not performance. On modern hardware the performance difference is negligible. On very old hardware, you should be looking for another distro made specifically for old hardware (I don't think Arch even supports 32-bit).

Just install Debian

If I was back in college and using Linux for the first time, I'd probably go with Fedora tbh. Arch is a pain in the rump for a first-time user and Fedora really is a "it just works" distro whilst still maintaining speed and keeping things up to date with it's (more or less) rolling release schedule.

As other said, arch may not be for you. But I would recommend looking at KDE Neon too, it's Debian based, with KDE as desktop environment, which is nice coming from windows. Whenever you encounter installation instructions about ubuntu, you can do the same on it, when with Fedora or arch you'll be left alone figuring out how to install your stuff.

And my biggest advice is: take notes of what you do on your computer. EG, how did you install x our y software (Flatpak, command line, .deb package etc), which commands or software where useful for X problem.
It will help you troubleshoot later or uninstall things you don't remember his you installed them first, basically learn how linux works.

Yeah Linus uses Fedora because:

• Stable release schedule - he knows when he'll have to do major upgrades
• Stable software - he knows stuff he isn't messing with just works
• Don't modify their kernel much - this rules out Ubuntu which is the Debian based distro with a stable release schedule

I know KDE devs rate opensuse highly for similar reasons, if you primarily develop 1 app/framework/kernel you don't want the fun of irregular updates that haven't been properly tested (or have been tested and need manual intervention anyway) especially if those updates could potentially break your thing.

I'm probably repeating what others are saying, but you, friend, are the people who will bring Linux to the world, not us nerds. Your post reflects that you haven't learned a few things you're definitely gonna learn, but you are on the right track, like a bloodhound (ie. a thinking person) with a strong scent (something is rotten in silicon valley).

First off, you don't have to deal with the command line at all, 99% of the time, even on Arch. But Arch is not your only nor your best choice, if that is a specific thing that worries you. Being on the bleeding edge is not what you think - you will get up-to-date GPU drivers on any decent distro, but Arch's approach means you will have more instances of your graphical desktop breaking in various and weird ways, necessitating a trip to the console on the regular.

Me in particular giving you advice: you should install Debian, because it aims for stability as its primary virtue, sacrificing speed of package updates to get that - they make sure that everything that is being updated continues to work flawlessly together, before it arrives in the regular release cycle. I run it because it never breaks, and if you use the KDE Plasma Desktop you get a full-featured OS that will work the same way other KDE desktops on other distros work. You can even look into Debian Sid, which is their "rolling release" version that tracks pretty closely with Arch's package updates.

Only caveat with Debian: by default, it will install the Gnome desktop, and you need to select KDE Plasma when you get to a screen where you select your Desktop Environment (DE) during the install process. You can uncheck "Debian Desktop Environment" and "Gnome" which are both selected by default, but you can select which DE you want to use at the login screen, so it won't hurt you to leave Gnome installed as well - it is more Mac-like and has strong opinions about things like what colour you should be able to use as your desktop background, so I'm not a fan, but I do like their general approach. But KDE Plasma is the one that feels very much like Windows. Others do as well, there are some distros that are actually tooled to look exactly like various Windoze versions.

Others will recommend Linux Mint, and while I used to have reservations based on their lack of work on Wayland support, they seem to be catching up there, and as much as the devs will tell you Wayland is coming no matter what (and unlike the AI slopmerchants, they are correct), but it's not ready today for quite a lot of things, so it's not something you need to worry about. Even if you didn't understand this paragraph, don't let it get you bunghed up in your head.

Even if you are certain you're gonna want the up-to-date version of some software, you can still do that on Debian, one way or another - Steam, for instance, I don't remember what I did when installing it, but it was effortless and I have the same Steam as anyone, far as I know. I certainly have no problem playing my games.

You will be doing stuff in the console no matter what, but vanilla Arch is basically S&M for people who love that kind of pain, and could well put you off of the GNU/Linux OS entirely if being dragged through that slog is not your thing. There are also distros that use Arch as the underlying base, much as Ubuntu and many, many other distros use Debian as the base of theirs.

I've installed both Arch (systemd) and Void (runit) on the same laptop as an experiment to see whether you could have them both coexisting on the same filesystem. (Which you can - main difficulty is keeping their kernel names separate in /boot.) There was very little difference between them in time-to-desktop. Arch was faster, if anything. And I run more services on a desktop than I would on a server.

Choosing init scripts over systemd is fine for philosophical reasons or if you prefer it for maintenance, but speed isn't an issue. Init scripts are simpler, but systemd goes to great efforts to start things in parallel. Critical servers should be load-balanced and redundant anyway so that you can restart them for updates; whether they take a second longer to start-up doesn't matter.

In my own experience, runit is much faster to boot than systemd. Perhaps your experiences differ but I know a lot of people say the same.

I agree start-up time is not a big deal. I just mentioned it as it's the only real performance difference I've noticed between OSes.

I mean, Arch is a pretty nice place to start for someone who is interested in understanding how the system works and to get a glimpse of what is system administration.
But if that is not the objective, and the person just wants to use the pc normally, then I guess any other distribution will be fine.
At this point I feel there really is no point to all these different distributions.
When Ubuntu came out it was the great new thing simple to use and friendly to new users. When Mint came out it was the brand new Ubuntu even better than before.
But at this point... Pretty much any distribution is usable, do we really need so many?

There's some 5 arch based that came out past year, God knows how many Debian based and so on. I feel this has become futile.
Just pick any distribution, it will be fine:
arch may break a bit more often than the other ones, provided you can set it up; pick any derivative if you don't want to spend time setting it up.
Debian may have packages that are a bit outdated, pick any derivative if you want a bit newer packages.
Fedora will be in between.
Suse will also be in between.

That's pretty much it: do you want something extremely stable? Debian. Do you want the latest update few hours after they've been pushed by dev? Arch. None of these constraints? Literally any other distribution.

For a programmer, learning the Unix CLI is quite recommended, because it gives you tools that you otherwise would have to find for each particular use-case. Once you get the hang of it, you see that Unix lets you combine a bunch of utils to do many unforseen tasks, while in Windows you're expected to get a specific app to do any particular task.

PowerShell allows you to do some of that, but it's woefully behind the times compared to Unix tools that were around for ages, and is simultaneously too complicated for its own good. Plus afaik it's tied to the OS version, which sucks.

I advise reading through any oldstyle book on ‘learning the Linux CLI’. Even if you don't remember most of it afterwards, you get the grasp on what utils are available to you, and can find them when the need arises.

Second this. Arch will be extremely painful without starting out with at least some basic knowledge.

I'm not a car expert or planning to be.

Anyways I'm going to build my first car by hand.