What’s the deal with Arch/CLI/“complicated” linux distro hate? GUIs generally suck more than CLI/TUI tools. If Arch distributed an official GUI installer ISO, nobody would ever use it; the ISO would be huge compared to its current size and the archinstall TUI is the best installer I’ve come across so far. Just stop being afraid of the terminal.
Debian also doesn’t come with a GUI package manager as far as I’m aware.
Also stop shilling Linux Mint to new users. Fedora, OpenSUSE TW, Debian, Ubuntu, and I’d even say Clear Linux are all more attractive operating systems to use for anyone who switches over. Cinnamon is just not as good as the alternatives and if you’re not using Cinnamon, you might as well use Debian.
May I know why Linux Mint is that bad of an OS? For me I feel like Mint is more refined than Ubuntu (especially with how canonical is going).
There’s only one app center, one update manager, familiarity with windows, fast enough and has essentials pre installed (even if it is bloat for veterant Linux users).
I can accept the argument that there is no Wayland and packages are a bit behind, but for the average user, that’s fine
There are a couple of issues with Mint, the biggest one by far, in my opinion, is the slow update schedule, anything more than 6 months really isn’t usable for the desktop, this leads to a reliance on Flatpak and the inability to compile and use a lot of packages. The second biggest issue is Cinnamon, it’s outdated, very restrictive, lacks a lot of important features, and is generally ugly (in my opinion of course) you can’t even really change the default desktop since the others ones are extremely outdated in the repos. It’s still ok to use but just not very compelling beyond it’s similarities to Windows when compared to other distros.
I’d generally say that the non-immutable spins of Fedora are way nicer to use due to the larger repos and newer packages. You also don’t really lose anything on Fedora that you’d get on Mint, you still have a GUI package manager and installer so even new users can use it intuitively.
If people didn’t need Arch with GUI, distributions like EndeavourOS, Manjaro, Garuda wouldn’t exist
The best CLI installer I used was from FreeBSD, the arch CLI installer didn’t even run on bare metal and I’m not afraid of the terminal, I often use it to configure dot files and use programs that don’t have a GUI, I just think that the lack of choice between GUI and CLI is bad
What’s the deal with Arch/CLI/“complicated” linux distro hate? GUIs generally suck more than CLI/TUI tools. If Arch distributed an official GUI installer ISO, nobody would ever use it; the ISO would be huge compared to its current size and the archinstall TUI is the best installer I’ve come across so far. Just stop being afraid of the terminal.
Debian also doesn’t come with a GUI package manager as far as I’m aware.
Also stop shilling Linux Mint to new users. Fedora, OpenSUSE TW, Debian, Ubuntu, and I’d even say Clear Linux are all more attractive operating systems to use for anyone who switches over. Cinnamon is just not as good as the alternatives and if you’re not using Cinnamon, you might as well use Debian.
May I know why Linux Mint is that bad of an OS? For me I feel like Mint is more refined than Ubuntu (especially with how canonical is going). There’s only one app center, one update manager, familiarity with windows, fast enough and has essentials pre installed (even if it is bloat for veterant Linux users).
I can accept the argument that there is no Wayland and packages are a bit behind, but for the average user, that’s fine
There are a couple of issues with Mint, the biggest one by far, in my opinion, is the slow update schedule, anything more than 6 months really isn’t usable for the desktop, this leads to a reliance on Flatpak and the inability to compile and use a lot of packages. The second biggest issue is Cinnamon, it’s outdated, very restrictive, lacks a lot of important features, and is generally ugly (in my opinion of course) you can’t even really change the default desktop since the others ones are extremely outdated in the repos. It’s still ok to use but just not very compelling beyond it’s similarities to Windows when compared to other distros.
I’d generally say that the non-immutable spins of Fedora are way nicer to use due to the larger repos and newer packages. You also don’t really lose anything on Fedora that you’d get on Mint, you still have a GUI package manager and installer so even new users can use it intuitively.
If people didn’t need Arch with GUI, distributions like EndeavourOS, Manjaro, Garuda wouldn’t exist
The best CLI installer I used was from FreeBSD, the arch CLI installer didn’t even run on bare metal and I’m not afraid of the terminal, I often use it to configure dot files and use programs that don’t have a GUI, I just think that the lack of choice between GUI and CLI is bad
I do not want a distro with garbage pre installed, you have the choice to not use Arch, it is the “CLI choice.”
Of course it has one.