Too much ASCII has been spilled debating about whether or not Arch Linux is worth the time, but Iād like to offer yet another way to judge the situation, starting with the cost.
Costs
- Starting Arch requires that you already know the basics of bash (or zsh). Playing about with a terminal in Ubuntu and following installation instructions from random websites is more than enough practice.
- After that, you will need about two afternoons to install the thing, starting with a couple of trial runs with a virtual machine.
- To get the system going properly, with the desktop you like, and the best login manager, youāll need another afternoon or two, depending upon your requirements.
- In the early stages, itās best to just update when you have time to fix problems. Thereās not too much to know here, just a basic understanding of when and how to deal with those .pacnew files, and some familiarity with the AUR. Once youāve done this section, things which used to be āarch is brokenā, become just a two-minute config change. New Arch users will consider a system ābrokenā, where older Arch users will fix or avoid those problems without even thinking about them.
Within a few months, the Arch user will have tinkered with their system in their free time, and have a much more streamlined workflow.
The Benefits
Hereās the crux: itās impossible to know beforehand. Some people can be sure that a dozen afternoons to read up on Arch wiki documentation simply isnāt realistic for unknown benefits, but nobody can be sure how much time will be saved.
Looking back at my old workflow, I cringe at the time wasted on loading, and interacting with the interface. Everything I do is better and faster now. However, it wasnāt possible to find that out before taking the time to make all the changes. Anyone else doing the same may find they end up recreating Linux Mint but with extra steps, and have gained nothing.
Itās hard to argue for ignorance, but at least ignorance is a reliable position.