i know i didnt posted the requested things but i cant even reach the Point (Sorry im an absolute Beginner with Linux System Basics) .
I Just made myself a Garuda Stick (tried out a lot ) GNOME / KDE / LXQT.
Everything seems fine the Stick boots up and it doesnt matter which option i am choosing (nvidia / source driver) ill get a Black Screen and System reboots after 30 seconds.
Welcome to the flaming dragonā¦errrrā¦I mean Garuda.
Just wanted to add, Arch in general is not ā¦idealā¦for newbies. Not trying to discourage you, but it is not a training wheels distribution, mostly intended for moderate to advanced users. However, if you got the gumption to dig in and learn as you go, well, good on you. Have fun.
I somewhat disagree with this. AUR has so much of the weird software that folks would otherwise need to compile themselves, which is quite the undertaking for a *nix newb, whereas AUR makes it pretty easy and reliable.
Sure, Arch has its drawbacks, but on balance, it holds itself own IMO for newbs, but has the potential to remain in their lives if/as they develop through intermediate/advanced/uber nerd.
Chrispynut (has to be voted the best signature of the year), I understand your point, and agree somewhat, especially your last sentence, but I point to exhibit A; all the newbie help posts on the forum.
Plus, you forgot to mention, Arch is a rolling-release. You can visualize that with the newbie sitting at the top of the rolling release, roller-coaster, before the cart descends into an update breakage of screaming confusion. It is all subjective, but I never recommend Arch for newbies. Linux Mint has good training wheels, then you get off the bike and upgrade to Arch.
Mint's been my goto suggestion (and a personal favourite of mine), but things still break on there and far more expectantly. Atleast with Arch, breaks are expected.
I wouldn't recommend without warning and it would be for the more adventurous newb, but there are certainly advantages to the lack of complacency with Arch as opposed to Mint. Something breaks on Arch it's "that was inconvenient timing", something breaks on Mint it's "OMG everything's dead, what did I do wrong, my computer's useless, I have no idea what to do, panic panic panic".
Beyond that, Mint's stability comes at the cost of restriction, breaking through those restrictions to customize more than a little and the increased stability's out the window.
More options to allow for better fit to the individual. I have hopes for the immutable distros to offer Windows/Mac like stability/reliability without "going to the dark-side".
Do any of you ever run just plain old vanilla Arch installed by the wiki? It's as stable as any other rolling-release distribution out there. Many of us have used it for years, some for that very reason.
What? Did you think Garuda developers would use an inferior, unstable base?
I don't think Arch itself is unstable, but from the issues I have seen over the years, it is the outside app maintainers. A lot of that has to do with Arch constantly updating and there is no 'pause' like in Debian and other distros between updates to catch breakages, or play catch-up, so issues occur more frequently.
I am a big fan of rolling-releases, but I also know how to strap on a tool belt.
Edit to add: Manjaro tries to put a 'pause' in Arch to catch the issues, but those of us who have used that distro know how well that works.
The Archlinux home page lists the various items and workarounds and it has only gotten better over time.
It is users that tend to break things or ignore warnings. And that is true for any distribution. Is Debian less stable because of what Mint or Ubuntu users do with it? Even Debian Testing, which I ran for years, is more stable than its users.
Developers adopting any of the major distribution package bases might add to the perceived instability. Take, for example the recent Pamac breakage. Who was responsible for that? Arch? Garuda? Or was it the Pamac developer and/or maintainer that wasnāt paying attention to what was planned?
Yaāll be barking up the wrong tree. I mean, I have read these same arguments here as in the Manjaro or other distributions that depend on Archās stability. It seems a lot like biting the hand that feeds you (collectively). But you know where I never read it? From knowledgeable users In the Arch forums.
Putting all the blame on the users is not valid. I am not saying the users donāt create their own messes now and again, but there is plenty of Arch updates and maintainer examples to justify my statement.
You can take the recent KDE update push from Arch that caused all the ālibicuiXXXā errors that popped up on the forum in the last few days. It caused several issues with various apps, leaving the user not able to update. That was not a user created problem. Thankfully Nico jumped in and saved the day there.
Did you happen to stumble upon that in the Arch forumsā¦or just here?
Is libicu* even an Arch package? Or is it something the user or distribution installed? All I can find is an AUR pkg with a similar name. Nothing in the normal Arch repositories. I ask because I run Arch + KDE (in it right now), and I see no file or pkg by that name anywhere on my system, nor did I have any such related problems.
Yes, now I do. Thank you for providing actual information. This is very interesting, as, in reading down the list of applications that make use of it, I note that I have several installed and running.
That begs the question of why my very vanilla Arch+ KDE was not impacted/affected in any way. It has been totally business-as-usual. There could be several reasons:
I do not have any āappmenuā packages installed. And I note the majority of them are AUR packages. I found only one in the actual Arch repos. Arch Linux - Package Search
I may have updated subsequent to patching of anything impacted that I have installed.
So it still appears that Arch is a stable base. The update to icu broke AUR packages, not Arch ones. And that will happen from time to time. But breakage has been so rare for me running ArchāI mean broken Arch packages, not something easily pinned or rolled-backāthat I remember only one that impacted me much. Networkmanager. Frigging networkmanager. But that was half-expected, as it had always been a fitfull application in Debian Testing, too.
As I said, the majority of appmenu packages are in the AUR: AUR (en) - Packages
So Iām sticking by Arch. And I still say that Garudaās developers would not and did not use an inferior, unstable package base for their distribution. Arch is as stable as any rolling-release out there. To call Arch anything else, is to insult Garudaās developers.
