I'm doing a triple boot for my new computer build (Mac OSX, Windows, Linux). Windows will be the main OS I will use however I plan to use Mac OSX pretty often too--Linux will just be there because, well... why not?

To me what matters in a distribution honestly varies. Currently I'm going for what looks cool--and in that sense, ElementaryOS wins, hands-down. However I want something slightly more than that. I've been a fan of OpenSUSE for a long time now but I heard Arch is like building your own Linux from the ground-up. One of the reasons I am a fan of OpenSUSE is because I liked that about SUSEStudio.

So my question: what are the pros/cons of ArchLinux vs OpenSUSE? Which do you think I should go with? And which looks aesthetically better? For ArchLinux I'm aware there's several different desktop environments supported-- and I plan to install it using Architect so please don't factor in here "OpenSUSE is easier to install." Architech makes ArchLinux fairly simple to install and I am not brand new to Linux (however it has been a while).

Things I plan to do on my computer:
*Game (though this will be done mostly on Windows!)
*School *Netflix *Play around! Youtube, etc.

My PC Build: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Feliks/saved/#view=fvKV3C

Pros/Cons would be greatly appreciated, along with your personal recommendation. I'm up for your opinions, especially from those who have used either/both!


(Also, which desktop environment do you all prefer, particularly in terms of aesthetics? This is one thing I really like from ElementaryOS--the Pantheon environment but unfortunately it isn't really a choice on other distros)

Do yourself a favour and follow the guide linked in my signature.

It really is very simple (I can install Arch to a USB stick with fewer than 10 commands) and will familiarise you with the basic configuration of your system and also teach you how to chroot into an unbootable system and configure a boot{loader,manager} -- this will be very useful when the bleeding-edge nature of Arch causes problems.

Thank you. Will definitely take a look at that!

(So where does that leave Pros/Cons and what you prefer? :P)

I have used Arch for years since I abandoned gentoo during the devs wars - we're talking 10 years ago or so.
Love it, and use it for my really important stuff, my photo collection.

I used Opensuse for a while after needing it for a SLES course I did years ago - I just object to having to register with SUSE (Novell at the time) to use the forums.
fsck that.

Day to day I use Fedora for the toolset they maintain. The devs piss me off frequently, but seem to be coming around. For your question of Arch vs OpenSuse, I vote Arch.

1 members found this post helpful.

They're completely different distros. If you want something that "just works" then suse will be the better option between the two. If you don't mind tinkering to get things working (even things that you might take for granted in other distros) then arch will be better. With tumbleweed, it makes suse more comparable than arch in terms of being up to date, but it's still more "user friendly" you won't need to rely on the command line as much, if at all to do what you want in terms of system maintenance. I would also not advise avoiding the install process, if you can't hack that then you can't hack using it. In terms of desktop environments, everyone has their own preference but I'm a fan of the new plasma 5 desktop, and the port of gnome 2 called mate.

Good luck.

I stand by everything I suggested in your first thread.

I really doubt I can't hack the other installer, I just didn't see much reason NOT to go with architect. I will probably go with the standard Arch installer because you all are so adamantly for it and in all honesty, I've been excited to try it from the beginning anyways. The reason I didn't want to start with that is because I'm worried about screwing up my partitions, and I don't want to frick up my entire system just from Arch. Any advice on that would be appreciated.

(however I'm confused why a tool like Architect exists if you shouldn't use it. FYI, architect isn't a GUI installer.. it just automates the CLI commands for you and explains their reasons, which to me seems helpful. You can literally watch it before your eyes and you're still in control of everything.).

1) There is not much point in installing a system if you do not want to learn how to use it. Using a simpler installer will not make managing the system easier.
2) If you cannot tolerate the time needed to install the system, then you will not like the vastly more time required to babysit the system. If you want a system that will sit on a partition and only be booted occasionally, almost any distribution would be better than Arch. That is not an insult toward Arch. Being a rolling release system means it needs regular maintenance. Only booting occasionally, you also would not learn much about the system, which takes us back to point #1.

Then do not bother. To be honest, there is no point installing something simply so it will be there. Especially considering your primary criterion appears to be
Only you know what looks good to you. So the only way you can discover the coolest is to look at screen-grabs on websites and/or install systems one-by-one until you find the one you want. Unless you know how to install a GUI. In which case the default GUI would be irrelevant, since GUIs look the same on every Linux distribution and BSD system.

Also I want an honest answer to this: how often will I HAVE to use the Terminal in Arch? I am not uncomfortable using Arch, I am fine with Terminal and whatever I don't know, I figure I can learn. I am generally good at following instructions like the Arch Wiki has and if not, I can ask for help here.

That being said, I like the option to use GUIs and so I'm curious as to how much I actually am required to use the terminal after set-up. I have a friend who uses Arch who said he has rarely had to go in to the command line/terminal. Wondering if the same case was true for you guys.

Thanks all

Being honest here, these forums aren't near as friendly as I recall them being around 5 years ago.

Anyways, by "why not" no, there is a point of it being there. I want a triple-boot and that's what I want. If that's not something you'd like that's fine, but to me I want a triple boot and therefore I am putting Linux on there. There are other benefits, like using Linux programs and just using Linux in general. I have liked Linux for years I just haven't really had a situation like this where I am considering actually booting it. (Usually I have ran it virtually).

When I say "what looks cool"--well, honestly scratch that line. I see that you took it as a sign of unprofessionalism but what I actually meant by that question was what desktop environment you all personally like most. While opinions vary, there often are general consensuses. Anyways after asking this question in another forum, I've come to the conclusion I can make Arch look however I want it to so like I said, just forget about that line.


By the "learning how to use it" comment, I have to admit I'm not sure what you mean. I know how to use Linux and frankly it's not that much different from other systems I've used before? It's different but easy to pick up. I never said I wasn't willing to learn by the way; if you scroll up you'll see I wanted to use Architect to avoid messing up my partition set-up. (That comment might not have been there when you replied, I edited it before seeing your response.)

Is Arch extremely different from other Linux distributions? I get that the setup is different; obviously with a CLI instead of a GUI and a "build-it-yourself" atmosphere but other than that.. how's it super different? (This is an honest question lol)

The honest answer is your question is contradictory. You are fine with CLI, but worried you might need to use it. You are not uncomfortable using Arch, but your previous comments suggest you have never used it. It is difficult to give an answer to a question that does not make sense. Although the problem could just be bad wording. In which case choosing your words better would be helpful to those willing to help. I can only respond to what I see on the screen, so if the words do not accurately convey your thoughts, just explain what you actually mean and we can move forward from there.

It is your computer to do whatever you want to do to it. I do not care if you install one system or eight. I merely pointed out that your plan, as stated, has little reason to justify it. Especially since you are adverse to spending more than a small amount of time on the other systems. (Partitioning, installing, configuring all take time.) You asked for advice and you got it. You are free to accept the advice you like and ignore the advice you do not like.

If the question mark is a typo and it is actually a statement, your level of expertise would have made this thread unnecessary. If it is a question, my answer is there are significant differences between Windows and Linux.

Those "obvious" differences are wrong. Many Linux systems require using CLI, either rarely or regularly, and it can be used on all systems if one wants to. Build-it-yourself can be done on many systems. A Debian minimal installation for example.

Not really. You simply follow the install guide on the Arch wiki. Few 'pacman -S xorg' and 'pacman -S whatever-desktop', few config edits and you are there. Plus, considering
you won't be bulding it anyway.

Really, after the install the Arch is just about regularly updating the system and occasionally fixing a broken package in the least convenient moment. Some people feel oh so 1337 doing this, so they use Arch...

I think you should go with openSUSE because you are a fan of openSUSE. It looks pretty cool too imho, but ymmv, so better check it yourself. Arch looks pretty vanilla, because it is pretty vanilla. You may like it, you may not.

Because it's not leet enough. It's just a continuation of the old Arch ncurses-based installer, therefore talking about any inability to administer the system aferwards is ridiculous. If someone picked it at the time it was discontinued it wouldn't be a problem, but now they have 'more leet way if installing things' so you are considered noob if you use it. Someone apparently called that BS, the result is Architect...

And yes, i have used both. I wouldn't use either of them now.

You aren't going to be needing to use the command line every day more than likely, if that's what you're asking but you will need to be comfortable with it because there are no GUI tools for all your sys admin tasks (aside from those that your DE might provide). If an update accidentally screws your system (not likely, but happens time to time) you'll need to be able to know how to fix it. This will involve checking logs, editing config files and doing all this in the command line. Arch is designed for those who love the command line, for people who like modifying things and tinkering taking control over everything their system does. This is why tiling window managers are so popular in the community (despite being fringe everywhere else seeing as how "unfriendly" they are. This why based on what you've said not liking terminals, it means it's almost certainly not for you. It's probably best if you try it in a VM first to be sure, but I would say that it probably isn't for you. This isn't a neg or anything, we all have different needs from our systems. Hell, even Linus Torvalds uses Fedora because he wants something that just works and doesn't want to be in a situation where he needs to configure things manually and fix things via the terminal. However if you love the prospect of delving deeper, then Arch is for you - you just need to know which kind of user you are and the best way is to probably play around in some VMs.

https://www.archlinux.org/about/
It is the lack of abstraction (both graphical and otherwise) that sets Arch apart.

Attempting to introduce more abstraction (such as this "Architect" installer) is rather perverse -- you have a much greater chance avoiding "messing up" your partition set-up by using a simple low-level tool (such as `parted` or `fdisk`) to configure the partitions yourself, IMO.

1 members found this post helpful.

There's no problem in using it, even I have wrote scripts to make my installs easier on myself but I think the install process is a good litmus test - if it makes you uncomfortable going through those steps setting up arch, then you're more than likely going to be uncomfortable with what it takes to maintain arch day to day. It's also a gatekeeper in a way as if one is unable to boot into arch after attempting to install it, then they're definitely not in the position to be running it day to day. This isn't because arch always breaks or because you need to be in the terminal every day doing things, but because arch doesn't do things for you and many of the things you'd want to do with it require your input and intervention. once you've set things up it won't be as hands on, but whenever you wish to install something new (whether software or a new DE or whatever) then its going to take manual intervention again. For someone who doesn't like having to configure things all the time, this will seem tedious while for others they will enjoy the sense of control - that's the ultimate day to day difference I would say.