Gaming Gentoo Linux, Linux Mint, or Arch Linux?

[Urza]

Ubuntu and it's derivatives (eg Mint) are awful for anyone who actually wants to be competent in maintaining their system, and take advantage of the many benefits using an open platform like Linux provides. It's a horrible, buggy distro, and any problem you encounter will be obscured by so many layers of software that chances are you'll never solve it (short of having someone more experienced do the work for you).

I definitely recommend arch. It has ample documentation and a great community. Its setup very simply and intuitively, which makes it great if you actually want to learn about the platform.

You say Ubuntu and its derivatives are horrible and buggy, yet recommend him a bleeding-edge distro? Arch breaks ten times more often than Ubuntu for me...

Except with arch you'll be able to fix it.

 

[Kickstarts]

Thanks for all the advice, guys. I'll go with either Mint or Fedora. The Gui looks awesome on both of them, and I'd like to try something other than Ubuntu. But yeah, since I also want to learn more about Linux-based OS, I'll move further on with those harder to maintain and use OS.

Again, thanks for all of your precise answers!

 

[Advi]

Ubuntu and it's derivatives (eg Mint) are awful for anyone who actually wants to be competent in maintaining their system, and take advantage of the many benefits using an open platform like Linux provides. It's a horrible, buggy distro, and any problem you encounter will be obscured by so many layers of software that chances are you'll never solve it (short of having someone more experienced do the work for you).

I definitely recommend arch. It has ample documentation and a great community. Its setup very simply and intuitively, which makes it great if you actually want to learn about the platform.

You say Ubuntu and its derivatives are horrible and buggy, yet recommend him a bleeding-edge distro? Arch breaks ten times more often than Ubuntu for me...

Except with arch you'll be able to fix it.

and you can't fix it on ubuntu because....?

 

[nutella]

Ubuntu and it's derivatives (eg Mint) are awful for anyone who actually wants to be competent in maintaining their system, and take advantage of the many benefits using an open platform like Linux provides. It's a horrible, buggy distro, and any problem you encounter will be obscured by so many layers of software that chances are you'll never solve it (short of having someone more experienced do the work for you).

Perhaps, but I think it helps to start on Ubuntu or Mint first. I wouldn't recommend either in the long run as well, but for someone who has no idea how a command line works, it can be helpful.

 

[The Catboy]

I use both Linux Mint and Linux Fedora
EDIT: Say don't use any of them, just use Fedora

 

[Urza]

Ubuntu and it's derivatives (eg Mint) are awful for anyone who actually wants to be competent in maintaining their system, and take advantage of the many benefits using an open platform like Linux provides. It's a horrible, buggy distro, and any problem you encounter will be obscured by so many layers of software that chances are you'll never solve it (short of having someone more experienced do the work for you).

I definitely recommend arch. It has ample documentation and a great community. Its setup very simply and intuitively, which makes it great if you actually want to learn about the platform.
You say Ubuntu and its derivatives are horrible and buggy, yet recommend him a bleeding-edge distro? Arch breaks ten times more often than Ubuntu for me...
Except with arch you'll be able to fix it.

and you can't fix it on ubuntu because....?

As I stated in my post, Ubuntu comes with so many unnecessary pieces of software and such a cluttered file hierarchy that finding the cause of and fixing the problems that come up is a nightmare for those not familiar with the platform.

QUOTE

Perhaps, but I think it helps to start on Ubuntu or Mint first. I wouldn't recommend either in the long run as well, but for someone who has no idea how a command line works, it can be helpful.

Well the nice thing about arch is that it comes with very little. You have to setup what you want, and every time you get something working you've learned a little more.

 

[Advi]

As I stated in my post, Ubuntu comes with so many unnecessary pieces of software and such a cluttered file hierarchy that finding the cause of and fixing the problems that come up is a nightmare for those not familiar with the platform.

Perhaps, but I think it helps to start on Ubuntu or Mint first. I wouldn't recommend either in the long run as well, but for someone who has no idea how a command line works, it can be helpful.

Well the nice thing about arch is that it comes with very little. You have to setup what you want, and every time you get something working you've learned a little more.

Ubuntu minimal install CD
boot
install
sudo apt-get install --no-install-recommends ubuntu-desktop

 

[Urza]

As I stated in my post, Ubuntu comes with so many unnecessary pieces of software and such a cluttered file hierarchy that finding the cause of and fixing the problems that come up is a nightmare for those not familiar with the platform.

Perhaps, but I think it helps to start on Ubuntu or Mint first. I wouldn't recommend either in the long run as well, but for someone who has no idea how a command line works, it can be helpful.

Well the nice thing about arch is that it comes with very little. You have to setup what you want, and every time you get something working you've learned a little more.

Ubuntu minimal install CD
boot
install
sudo apt-get install --install-no-recommends ubuntu-desktop firefox

And what would be the advantage of the Ubuntu minimal install over arch?

 

[nutella]

Perhaps, but I think it helps to start on Ubuntu or Mint first. I wouldn't recommend either in the long run as well, but for someone who has no idea how a command line works, it can be helpful.

Well the nice thing about arch is that it comes with very little. You have to setup what you want, and every time you get something working you've learned a little more.

True enough, though there aren't really a lot of people who care enough for learning now. It's kind of annoying seeing people making a switch to Ubuntu just for Compiz effects.

 

[Advi]

As I stated in my post, Ubuntu comes with so many unnecessary pieces of software and such a cluttered file hierarchy that finding the cause of and fixing the problems that come up is a nightmare for those not familiar with the platform.

Perhaps, but I think it helps to start on Ubuntu or Mint first. I wouldn't recommend either in the long run as well, but for someone who has no idea how a command line works, it can be helpful.

Well the nice thing about arch is that it comes with very little. You have to setup what you want, and every time you get something working you've learned a little more.

Ubuntu minimal install CD
boot
install
sudo apt-get install --install-no-recommends ubuntu-desktop firefox

And what would be the advantage of the Ubuntu minimal install over arch?

More stable (not bleeding edge), much easier to use and an excellent online community for support.
For a newcomer, what's the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu Minimal?

 

[Urza]

More stable (not bleeding edge), much easier to use and an excellent online community for support.
For a newcomer, what's the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu Minimal?

1) Better performance.
2) arch has an official community-maintained ports system for software not present in the main repos.
3) Also has a very active online community, which is comprised of a much higher percent of "those who know what the fuck they are doing."
4) Much better official documentation.
5) As you list as a disadvantage, it's more "bleeding-edge." On the flip-side that means developer-provided patches and fixes will reach your system that much faster.

Also, elaborate on "easier to use."

 

[xmrnogatcox]

I would go with Fedora.

Ubuntu is pretty good for a first timer, but you will learn more using Fedora.

It's really a matter of opinion, but I have been using both for a few years now and I would choose Fedora over Ubuntu any day.

Fedora- Really cool, you'll learn a lot about the internals of the Linux Kernel and command-line utilities.
Ubuntu- Just works for most people. A little bit more spoon-fed then Fedora.

I would say try out Ubuntu for a little while. If you like it, move to a more advanced OS such as Fedora or Gentoo as quickly as you are comfortable.

 

[Advi]

More stable (not bleeding edge), much easier to use and an excellent online community for support.
For a newcomer, what's the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu Minimal?

1) Better performance.
2) arch has an official community-maintained ports system for software not present in the main repos.
3) Also has a very active online community, which is comprised of a much higher percent of "those who know what the fuck they are doing."
4) Much better official documentation.
5) As you list as a disadvantage, it's more "bleeding-edge." On the flip-side that means developer-provided patches and fixes will reach your system that much faster.

Also, elaborate on "easier to use."

1) [citation needed]
2) ubuntu is debian-based and features dpkg, which a large majority of linux software is packaged in. on arch, if it's not in a repo, you need to install it from source.
3) The arch linux community is also full of elitism, while Ubuntu's forums welcome newcomers warmly. And either way, most problems can be solved with a Google search. not to mention ubuntu, like plenty of distros, have a corporate backing to them which is greatly beneficial, such as Fedora having Red Hat and openSUSE has Novell. arch is COMPLETELY user driven.
4) again, elaborate? canonical's online documentation seems damn fine to me.
5) of course there are many fixes. they're all for stuff that you don't need breaking in the first place.

and in arch's case, it depends heavily on the user's knowledge of linux's inner workings. ubuntu requires very little command line, which can be scary for newbies.

 

[Urza]

1) [citation needed]
2) ubuntu is debian-based and features dpkg, which a large majority of linux software is packaged in. on arch, if it's not in a repo, you need to install it from source.
3) The arch linux community is also full of elitism, while Ubuntu's forums welcome newcomers warmly. And either way, most problems can be solved with a Google search. not to mention ubuntu, like plenty of distros, have a corporate backing to them which is greatly beneficial, such as Fedora having Red Hat and openSUSE has Novell. arch is COMPLETELY user driven.
4) again, elaborate? canonical's online documentation seems damn fine to me.
5) of course there are many fixes. they're all for stuff that you don't need breaking in the first place.

and in arch's case, it depends heavily on the user's knowledge of linux's inner workings. ubuntu requires very little command line, which can be scary for newbies.

2) Which is what the ports system is for.
3) Using something that's clearly a joke as proof of elitism? One needs only to take peek at the newbie forum to see that what you're saying is absolutely false. In addition, solving all of your problems through Google will teach you nothing, and you'll remain as incompetent as when you started.
4) I'm not sure which documentation you're referring to, but the documentation provided on the official site is a joke compared to the arch wiki.
5) Like the MSN cert update last month that broke Pidgin (on every platform)? Obviously application breaks are always caused by the platform its on, and not any deficiency in its own code

6) If you're using the minimal Ubuntu install, how is there less CLI usage than an arch install?

 

[auser]

Easy to pick up and run with, without being too linux familiar? Ubuntu.
Very "vanilla" distro that is great for learning more about linux after you've been exposed to it a bit (or are feeling up to a moderate level of involvement from the start): Slackware. (you can install some tools like slapt-get to make it easier on updating, etc)
Masochist? Gentoo

Never tried Arch or Mint myself.

 

[Advi]

1) [citation needed]
2) ubuntu is debian-based and features dpkg, which a large majority of linux software is packaged in. on arch, if it's not in a repo, you need to install it from source.
3) The arch linux community is also full of elitism, while Ubuntu's forums welcome newcomers warmly. And either way, most problems can be solved with a Google search. not to mention ubuntu, like plenty of distros, have a corporate backing to them which is greatly beneficial, such as Fedora having Red Hat and openSUSE has Novell. arch is COMPLETELY user driven.
4) again, elaborate? canonical's online documentation seems damn fine to me.
5) of course there are many fixes. they're all for stuff that you don't need breaking in the first place.

and in arch's case, it depends heavily on the user's knowledge of linux's inner workings. ubuntu requires very little command line, which can be scary for newbies.

2) Which is what the ports system is for.
3) Using something that's clearly a joke as proof of elitism? One needs only to take peek at the newbie forum to see that what you're saying is absolutely false.
4) I'm not sure which documentation you're referring to, but the documentation provided on the official site is a joke compared to the arch wiki.
5) Like the MSN cert update last month that broke Pidgin (on every platform)? Obviously application breaks are always caused by the platform its on, and not any deficiency in its own code

6) If you're using the minimal Ubuntu install, how is there less CLI usage than an arch install?

I know it was a joke. Lighten up

. Also, Ubuntu Minimal installation uses a GUI, I've found it much faster and more straightforward than the Arch install. And Pidgin's breakage was the Pidgin group's fault, it also broke on Windows systems too.

All I'm saying is that while Arch is a great distro, it is a terrible one to start with if you have no prior knowledge of how Linux works.

 

[Urza]

Also, Ubuntu Minimal installation uses a GUI, I've found it much faster and more straightforward than the Arch install.
arch's install is very well documented, with each step thoroughly explained. How one could actually fail it, I'm not sure.

QUOTEAnd Pidgin's breakage was the Pidgin group's fault, it also broke on Windows systems too.

That's exactly my point. The majority of all breaks are due to the developer's fault, and not the package maintainers'.

 

[Advi]

Also, Ubuntu Minimal installation uses a GUI, I've found it much faster and more straightforward than the Arch install.
arch's install is very well documented, with each step thoroughly explained. How one could actually fail it, I'm not sure.

QUOTEAnd Pidgin's breakage was the Pidgin group's fault, it also broke on Windows systems too.

That's exactly my point. The majority of all breaks are due to the developer's fault, and not the package maintainers'.

For one thing, Ubuntu allows the user to ease into the OS himself with minimal assistance, it's good for getting comfortable with Linux. It's also almost fool-proof to start off. If you know little about Linux, yes in fact it is possible to screw up an Arch install. If documentation solved everything, we'd live in a perfect world.

And you're missing the point. Rolling release systems release packages as soon as they are ready to go with little testing; packages are tested more often on a versioning system (Debian Stable is like a brick wall), and that has to do with individual libraries and dependencies, not an entire application. Rolling release systems can be dangerous for new users, one false move and an application is broken. People make mistakes and that is a part of learning, which is what a more 'cushioned' distro like Ubuntu is good for.

If he wants to dive straight into Arch, he should at least use something like Chakra, which makes it much easier to deal with, because it comes prepackaged with a graphical point-and-click installer and full-featured GUI which he can replace later. Minimalism should not be your main focus at all when you are just learning.

 

[Urza]

Also, Ubuntu Minimal installation uses a GUI, I've found it much faster and more straightforward than the Arch install.
arch's install is very well documented, with each step thoroughly explained. How one could actually fail it, I'm not sure.

QUOTEAnd Pidgin's breakage was the Pidgin group's fault, it also broke on Windows systems too.

That's exactly my point. The majority of all breaks are due to the developer's fault, and not the package maintainers'.

For one thing, Ubuntu allows the user to ease into the OS himself with minimal assistance, it's good for getting comfortable with Linux. It's also almost fool-proof to start off. If you know little about Linux, yes in fact it is possible to screw up an Arch install. If documentation solved everything, we'd live in a perfect world.

And you're missing the point. Rolling release systems release packages as soon as they are ready to go with little testing; packages are tested more often on a versioning system (Debian Stable is like a brick wall), and that has to do with individual libraries and dependencies, not an entire application. Rolling release systems can be dangerous for new users, one false move and an application is broken. People make mistakes and that is a part of learning, which is what a more 'cushioned' distro like Ubuntu is good for.

If he wants to dive straight into Arch, he should at least use something like Chakra, which makes it much easier to deal with, because it comes prepackaged with a graphical point-and-click installer and full-featured GUI which he can replace later. Minimalism should not be your main focus at all when you are just learning.

If you know little about Linux, you can screw up an Ubuntu install just as easily (and I've done it). While documentation doesn't solve all the world's problems, it does help solve the problem of a newbie user not knowing what they are doing. Not much is more important when dipping your toes in a new situation.

A rolling release will teach him valuable lessons about taking proper precautions when implementing updates, in addition to how to diagnose and solve such problems when they occur.

 

[Advi]

Also, Ubuntu Minimal installation uses a GUI, I've found it much faster and more straightforward than the Arch install.
arch's install is very well documented, with each step thoroughly explained. How one could actually fail it, I'm not sure.

QUOTEAnd Pidgin's breakage was the Pidgin group's fault, it also broke on Windows systems too.

That's exactly my point. The majority of all breaks are due to the developer's fault, and not the package maintainers'.

For one thing, Ubuntu allows the user to ease into the OS himself with minimal assistance, it's good for getting comfortable with Linux. It's also almost fool-proof to start off. If you know little about Linux, yes in fact it is possible to screw up an Arch install. If documentation solved everything, we'd live in a perfect world.

And you're missing the point. Rolling release systems release packages as soon as they are ready to go with little testing; packages are tested more often on a versioning system (Debian Stable is like a brick wall), and that has to do with individual libraries and dependencies, not an entire application. Rolling release systems can be dangerous for new users, one false move and an application is broken. People make mistakes and that is a part of learning, which is what a more 'cushioned' distro like Ubuntu is good for.

If he wants to dive straight into Arch, he should at least use something like Chakra, which makes it much easier to deal with, because it comes prepackaged with a graphical point-and-click installer and full-featured GUI which he can replace later. Minimalism should not be your main focus at all when you are just learning.

If you know little about Linux, you can screw up an Ubuntu install just as easily (and I've done it). While documentation doesn't solve all the world's problems, it does help solve the problem of a newbie user not knowing what they are doing. Not much is more important when dipping your toes in a new situation.

A rolling release will teach him valuable lessons about taking proper precautions when implementing updates, in addition to how to diagnose and solve such problems when they occur.

You make a good point.

In the end it's all subjective though, so I suggest he use this tool to try a bunch of distros out.