Arch Linux or OpenSUSE?
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) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
(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. |
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.
|
Quote:
(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.). |
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
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 :) |
Quote:
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) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
And yes, i have used both. I wouldn't use either of them now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:34 AM. |