OpenSUSE or ArchOS?
 

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)

Better Looking - tie. Both have multiple desktops and themes that can be installed, both can be configured to look AMAZING. Out of the box, suse wins simply because on a default install Suse has a desktop and Arch doesn't.

I would take Arch. While I don't actually like Arch, every time I use OpenSuse, I find that a lot of the software I like simply isn't available without adding 3rd-party repositories. Last time I ran it I had I think 6 3rd party repositories to get OpenSuse to have all the software I wanted. Caused issues and eventually caused it to become unstable and crash due to conflicting versions of software.

Arch, when you enable the AUR, has almost every conceivable piece of software you might want (ok, missing a few, but mostly). It's got some of the absolute BEST documentation in all of FOSS, many other distro's will even link to the Arch Wiki when asking how to do something, or for information on how a program works. It's THAT good. IMO, it's pretty slow nowadays though. I've installed it several times recently on different hardware, and each time I've been surprised by the less than stellar boot times of Arch. It runs fine once booted, but it seems like it's REALLY slow to boot anymore. As in, taking 20-30 seconds longer to boot than a "as close to identical as I can get" Debian installation. I was unimpressed and went back to Debian due to that (also Debian has more software that I use without having to compile myself).

In the end, any of the "major" distro's and many minor ones can be made to be just as nice looking as any other if you're willing to take the time to do it. You could set up a mate or KDE desktop to look very similar to the Pantheon desktop. Maybe not identical, but similar. Probably other desktops too, I just don't have enough experience with others to say for sure. My preference for looks is KDE4, but since it's no longer active, I'd choose KDE5 reluctantly.

Thank you! I can see you're a Debian fan haha, but could you mention a few distros that you'd recommend me to check out? Looking for the same things here; appearance, software availability, etc. (Honestly just all-around good/great distributions)

Mageia 5 is good if you want to have a KDE base. I know they have a couple other options, can't remember what they are. While not bleeding edge, they have the most up-to-date ESR Firefox, and most of their software is fairly up to date. I've been very impressed with 5 after being completely unimpressed with 4.

Chakra is a nice OS if, again, you're wanting to go KDE (I prefer KDE so most of the disto's I know well have a large KDE base). Uses the Arch package management, although not binary compatible with Arch any longer. Very nice looking defaults, although maybe not the best software selection as it is extremely KDE-centric.

Debian is obviously going to be my favorite, as you could tell. Can be set up with just about any desktop you want. With the "respins" that are out there, you can even get some of the desktops that aren't available in "vanilla" debian. LXQT is available in Sparky Linux, Trinity is avialable in Q4OS, and your Pantheon desktop from Elementary is available via an unofficial repository (only for stable), with Elemetary looking to make it officially avaiable on Debian eventually. Main thing to me for Debian is the sheer volume of software when you enable contrib and non-free.

Arch does have Pantheon desktop avaialble in AUR also.

PCLinuxOS is, again, nice if you're looking for KDE. IMO, it's got limitations, and it's software repositories are limited, and they discourage you from using apt-get to update system (I don't like synaptic).

I can never recommend any *buntu. I dislike how Canonical operates, and so dislike all the *buntu based distros. That's why things like Elementary I don't like. There are tons of people who use them, but I dislike them. Also I don't know Gnome/Mate/Cinnamon to give good recommendations that aren't *buntu based.

What is Debian like? Actually, fun fact it was the first distro I tried but it has been ages so I need a refresher ;) Is it significantly superior to Arch in terms of what's available/looks or are they about even?

I did see the Pantheon desktop available in AUR here. I'll be honest; I'm not sure how essential all of those bugs are-- does it look stable enough to use? (And I'm fine going through and fixing the bugs that they mention how to fix; most look like easy fixes)

Also I completely agree with the Ubuntu thing. Many dislike Canonical, and frankly I just don't want to be like everyone else; Ubuntu is too popular for me, and it's kind of the same deal with Elementary. I'm figuring if I can make Arch look like elementary than I'm golden.

Looks, again, all the major players can look amazing. I've had Arch & Debian set up so that they were nearly identical before, so looks neither one is going to win. Debian (with contrib/non-free) will have just a SLIGHTLY less overall package availability than Arch (with AUR). But it really is a slight advantage, and both will have realistically anything you may want. Taking away the AUR, Debian now has the advantage in repositories, but I see no reason to avoid AUR.

This I can't answer, I've never been a big fan of the OSX-ish launcher panels, so have never tried to install Pantheon on anything.

Yes, with a wee bit of work, I'm willing to say you can make Arch look just like Elementary.

Command Line vs GUI?
 

Thanks so much!

and also, how often am I going to have to be using command line for Debian/Arch? Call it lame but I prefer GUIs whenever I can use them. I'm okay using command line here and there but if I'm going to be opening Terminal CONSTANTLY just to get anything done; eh it might be a problem. ;P

I know you can configure Debian to avoid command line quite a bit after installation. Install synaptic (gtk) or muon (kde) gui software management with apper for notifications of updates, Arch I'm not so certain. Since I actually despise gui when it comes to package management, I haven't a clue if it has anything available or not. I'm sure it does, I just never used them to know anything about them.

If you're not comfortable in the command line then you will not be happy in Arch.

It's not that I'm uncomfortable with it, just that I prefer GUIs when available.

There will be none available.

worst choice I' ve heard !

Really? so what about PaMac, or Octopi?

---------- Post added 10-01-15 at 12:27 PM ----------

Lmao. It's a gaming PC. Linux isn't better than windows for gaming, no matter where you stand on that. I can't even run half my games on Linux (even with WINE) so yes, windows will be my main OS. Sorry mate.

try this >>> http://kaosx.us/

I Think the original question flawed.
The majority of distributions out there can look like the majority of distributions out there -- things like Ubuntu's Unity only exist one one but they are fairly rare. Unless you're lazy then you will need to try every distro until you find one with defaults which you like, er, but you can't do that because you're lazy.
My point being that the distro and desktop are not really linked unless you're trying Linux for the first time -- after that you pick a desktop and pick a package management system (or none) and go from there.
Try Slackware and Debian and play.