Its a shame the way people has been introduced to operating systems. really

This is 99.99% of all issues. Rather we are talking a computer or a car. People don’t wan’t to take time to learn how to do certain things they want a catered system. The issue is Arch is not a catered system it is a Do It Yourself System. This is where I think projects like ours do a bit of an injustice to those new to Arch systems. People jump into the Arch world and don’t go through the struggle to install the manual way that would teach them how things work. They want a GUI solution for everything. A button to push as if life really works that way. The shame is in the expectations that those users have.

Not just the expectation that everything should just work all the time but also the expectation that people will be able to help when we are unable since they don’t know how to do basic things to get us the usefull information we need to help them solve their issues.


I guess a big reason is the ease of getting started with Linux nowadays, all from gui apps and tools. Anyone can get the basics going. This is good in my opinion, popularity leads to more development. But I dare say that at the end of the day, Linux in general just isn’t for the average Joe. It is for the above average interested tinkerers and tech-hobbyists (and pros). For those, it is a wet dream.

1 Like

That’s exactly my issue with people new to Linux users treating EndeavorOS/Arch as if they are running Mint or Ubuntu and don’t take any self responsibility in being able to learn how to do it themselves and put the responsibility elsewhere by posting it on the forum even for things that a person could figure out themselves if they took the time to.


No Debian and Debian based systems as well as OpenSuse are very good systems for the Average Joe. They are Static release systems so very little to go wrong in between upgrades. A Rolling release is a different monster its is more geared toward the tinkerers, developers and hobbyist. The issue there is people assume that Debian and Arch are the same with a different approach but what they fail to realize is they are not the same at all. They are very different in every way but the Linux name being attached everyone acts like Linux is just different variations of like one thing when its not.

1 Like

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that :wink:

I use Debian on all my machines except my main daily driver computer, where I use Arch. To me, the difference is mainly the release model, other than that they work basically the same.


So do apples and oranges but it doesn’t make the the same. Yes they are both fruit but both are very different.

I get what you’re saying…but in my opinion, if you understand a bit about the packaging commands of both, they are mostly the same.
Obviously updates on debian are far fewer than on Arch, but they do happen (occassionally).


I get the process is the same. the issues isn’t the process its people learning the process. That is where things fail

Debian will not hold your hand. Many Debian-based distros will try to hold your hand.

But in any distro, you’ll quickly run into stuff that necessitates going under the hood. Which is also where we find the Linux Freedom (as in stuff you can do). Which is why I’ll say that Linux isn’t for the average Joe, but a wet dream for the tinkerer and enthusiast.


I just finished setting up Debian on this computer and I definitely agree with @LamnaNasus , I don’t know I’d call Debian a distro for the average Joe. It had a decent install process and some other things I had to do for daily usage setup, where Fedora is just click pave and play. Debian’s update/stability process after may be slow and steady and reliable, but I wouldn’t say it’s the simple distro for every “average” Joe setup and going on.

There’s so much fantastic Linux today we’re very spoiled. It wasn’t like this 10 years ago.


I prefer doing Debian arch style - installing the base and build from there. I find it very well suited and “user friendly” for that approach. But even with a ready-made DE install, you’ll have to do all the setup mostly under the hood and from the command line. I’d sooner recommend MX Linux or Mint to a person who is just starting out.


I agree this is what the average Joe would want to have and start with. Something as I said earlier that Caters to them. Been years since I’ve actually messed with Debian so really don’t remember it at all to be honest. I know a lot of users start with the Debian based system like Ubuntu, Linux Mint as well as Mx and the others. What also needs to done is for them to learn the system. To me that is just being a responsible owner.

My issue is People don’t learn one system then jump to another with the same lack of knowledge but act like they been doing it for years. This is why I really never supported those systems that look to attract users. They don’t stop to take the time to let users really understand the differences in what they had to what they have been enticed to try.


I used the netinstall suggested by @Stagger_Lee . It was a LOT better of a process than the DE/Calamares install, and I was able to curate it more. I’m actually very happy/impressed with it for now. I still had to setup sudo and such, but if I were a sysadmin, I like that sudo isn’t setup by default. It feels like a little Arch and a little walkthrough where you need to know what you want, but if you do, you can end up with a very specific to you computer. It’s not historically been my favorite, but I never really gave it a fair shake and wanted to.


I think it’s a bit off topic though. But people have to start learning somewhere and then are most comfortable in that. I know it’s who don’t really even use computers, they write school papers on their phone, which is appallingly to me personally. But Android is all they’ve known and that’s what they’re comfortable on.

1 Like

On a related side note:

When I first joined Linux forums, I found it strange that many people who had been registered for years still asked very basic questions.

But then I realized that a common approach to Linux is leave it and come back, in the first few years. I’ve done this myself, having returned just now from a 3 year absence while taking another bachelor, as an adult.

I don’t suppose that my case is particularly typical, but I was on the early Ubuntu train (5.06 on) - and found that learning was quite difficult. Not the using (that was simple) but when something fouled up, expertise was needed and despite the comprehensive documentation for 'buntu, the why was rarely addressed. By the time I left, it was mainly a place to run my conky’s - and once Unity was dropped, not even that. My conky group was on Arco and Arch or Fedora - so I went with Arco, then Arch - then I found EndeavourOS. The thing is, when something went wrong on EnOS I could look up the fixes for the most part and the problems went away. If I had to ask, a simple answer or a direction ‘pointer’ was easily available here, so I didn’t my hand held through a process very often (I would have said not at all, but ZFS in particular has required some help time!).

Mostly I stay because it is so rare for anything to foul up, even compared with Debian-based systems, and those rare things are easier to fix here!

I probably needed 'buntu beginnings for year or so (back then the forums there were much like here but with more layers of assistance due to size) but if I had started here I like to think I would have survived only because so little goes boom!

I suspect we need more ‘bottled’ solutions to point people to as step one - I used to have a ‘document’ with links to paste to questioners, containing threads where the problem was solved, or wiki-style info entries. It is actually quite well covered here, but perhaps a post on how to learn to search in our information setup needs to be prominent?