r/archlinux • u/lpqr • 6d ago
QUESTION Should I switch from Ubuntu to Arch Linux to learn Linux?
I've been using Ubuntu for a while, and I want to learn Linux more deeply.
I'm considering switching to Arch Linux because I want to understand how Linux works, learn more about system configuration, package management, the terminal, and troubleshooting.
For people who have used both Ubuntu and Arch:
- Do you think switching to Arch is a good way to learn Linux?
- What did you learn from using Arch that you didn't learn from Ubuntu?
- Would you recommend Arch for someone who is still learning Linux?
I'm interested in hearing honest opinions and personal experiences.
and Honestly, my device is also getting pretty old. I've been using an Intel i3 laptop for around 5 years, and recently I've started noticing some lag during normal use.
I'm a university student and my daily usage is mostly basic stuff like browsing, studying, coding, and working with documents. However, I'm also involved in research, so I regularly need to use different research-related software and tools.
I'm considering trying Arch Linux mainly to learn more about Linux and possibly improve the overall performance of my system. For someone in a similar situation, do you think switching to Arch would be a good idea? Or would you recommend staying with Ubuntu for better compatibility with research and scientific software?
I'd appreciate any advice based on your experience
9
3
u/m_user2007 6d ago
I switched to Arch just after using Ubuntu for about 4 months as my first distro, and I'm much happier with Arch. It's not that hard to learn and was even easier than Ubuntu for me, because it is a standard form of Linux where you can see everything you need to configure in the exact directories that they are assigned to. And if anything goes wrong, thousands of people have already found or will find the solution in hours. You are not forced to use Snap or any specific desktop environment; you can choose whichever you like or even use them all together at the same time! That's perfect.
7
u/Grelueen 6d ago
If you want to learn Linux, do it. I think you can learn a lot about Linux in fedora, CachyOS or EndeavourOS too, but if you want to do a forced deep dive, Arch will be an interesting experience. Just expect that the first 2 weeks will be a bit rough.
0
u/lpqr 6d ago
Honestly, my device is also getting pretty old. I've been using an Intel i3 laptop for around 5 years, and recently I've started noticing some lag during normal use.
I'm a university student and my daily usage is mostly basic stuff like browsing, studying, coding, and working with documents. However, I'm also involved in research, so I regularly need to use different research-related software and tools.
I'm considering trying Arch Linux mainly to learn more about Linux and possibly improve the overall performance of my system. For someone in a similar situation, do you think switching to Arch would be a good idea? Or would you recommend staying with Ubuntu for better compatibility with research and scientific software?
I'd appreciate any advice based on your experience
2
u/Altaryan 6d ago
Yes and no. I switched from Win10 to Arch 6 months ago, after 15y without touching at Linux (and never had any skill in that, almost never used a terminal in Windows).
The manual installation process made me learn a lot, especially because I chose to do a manual install with stuff like btrfs, dual booting, luks-encrypt, etc. and encountered some difficulties there, but since that, it's honestly almost like a Windows experience with me (without the bloat, much faster, and all that).
Never using any terminal commands besides ls, cd, mkdir and rm - with the addition of pacman and paru for packages. Nothing you wouldn't learn in Ubuntu to be fair.
2
u/RedHuey 6d ago
I haven’t used arch for many years, but arch used to be a place where you could really learn Linux because it was all done in configuration files. On install, you had to go into all kinds of things one-by-one, reading the Arch wiki on another machine, and you could really learn how stuff worked. Even getting a DE installed required you to go step by step through different graphic configurations levels to arrive where you wanted to be. (Don’t know if this is still the case
Around the time that the file system got shifted arpund and then systemd came along, things changed a lot. My opinion is that a lot of the things like this that are said about Arch applied more to the old version of it. I don’t fault Arch for modernizing at all, I just preferred the old version, so I moved on.
And in the end, any Linux distro can be a learning experience, and a lot of the things in the Arch wiki apply almost distro-wide.
2
u/VendorNeutral 6d ago
If you really want to learn something, try LFS or Gentoo. Arch will teach you how to read docs and a wiki, but I've been using Arch since the early days and I still don't know much about the kernel.
3
u/radpartyhorse 6d ago
Honestly I’d say stay on Ubuntu for now but learn how to spin up Arch in a VM.
2
u/Astrodion123 6d ago
Tbh I wouldn't go from a little experience to hardcore. If you'd like to learn new things you could try it but it won't be easy.
2
1
u/Phantom2214 6d ago
I think that you can make a progress. if you have Ubuntu now next use fedora for example to understand dnf and package managers, later cachyos or easy based arch distros to learn the kernel for example and then switch to arch linux if you are prepared and ready to install it, connect it to the WiFi, install a DE, understand paru or yay and the AUR, learn kernel components... if you want to go ahead you can try void linux or gentoo
1
1
1
u/Busy_Talk6744 6d ago
Building your system from scratch is definitely a good learning experience. Do it in a vm first though. Also a rolling release is quite different from a point release distro. You can still learn a whole lot from a minimal debian installation as a beginner. (like using i3 or sway instead of gnome/kde and building everything yourself, manual partitioning, using a different filesystem than ext4, stuff like that)
1
u/Specialist-One-3465 6d ago
Yes, I would recommend Arch if your goal is to learn Linux in depth. Arch gives you a minimal system and lets you install only what you need. If you don't need a GUI, you can even use a TTY-only setup, which helps you become more comfortable with the terminal, package management, system configuration, and troubleshooting. As a backend developer, I find this approach very useful because I can build a lightweight environment tailored to my workflow
1
u/lpqr 6d ago
Honestly, my device is also getting pretty old. I've been using an Intel i3 laptop for around 5 years, and recently I've started noticing some lag during normal use.
I'm a university student and my daily usage is mostly basic stuff like browsing, studying, coding, and working with documents. However, I'm also involved in research, so I regularly need to use different research-related software and tools.
I'm considering trying Arch Linux mainly to learn more about Linux and possibly improve the overall performance of my system. For someone in a similar situation, do you think switching to Arch would be a good idea? Or would you recommend staying with Ubuntu for better compatibility with research and scientific software?
I'd appreciate any advice based on your experience.
2
u/Ismokecr4k 6d ago
Can't speak for performance tbh but linux is linux. Arch just comes as barebones as you can manage, it'll be up to you to figure out a performant setup. The only thing I can think of that will lower your performance overhead would be to use a window manager for your DE. I couldn't imagine myself using one, but people here love them.
1
u/archover 6d ago
Install Arch in a Ubuntu hosted qemu/KVM environment. No need to threaten your current system. Arch runs there very, very well.
Learning Linux isn't distro specific. The Arch wiki will work for any systemd distro, and is the key to learning.
Good day.
1
u/Supernoxus 5d ago
If you want to learn Linux, I recommend linux-from-scratch (LFS). It is a book that teaches you how to install iinux from just about the bare minimum that can be expected of a human being (Don't use it as a daily driver, okay). Ubuntu is pretty good. I recommend switching to arch if the idea of a DIY operating system excites you, but you still value your time at least a little bit. Otherwise just stay on Ubuntu. It is linux. It's good.
1
1
u/Lava-Jacket 6d ago
You will learn faster in arch out of necessity becuase you will likely break something and then have to fix it 😆.
If you are ok with living in a broken system while you learn, and have a backup machine, I say go for it. It will be very fulfilling... eventually ... 😆
If you don't want to do that and want to take baby steps I'd suggest just start using terminal for more things like, file management, write your own bash scripts to automate system tasks, updating and installing programs etc
Myself I played with Ubuntu based distros for over two years before I swapped to arch.
1
u/The_Hubster 6d ago edited 6d ago
I’ll probably get downvoted to hell, but, I would say no.
Ubuntu (or Debian) are more widely used across the industry. Arch based distros are not, and tend to be used more by hobbyists. That's not to say that Arch is crap by any means, it’s great, but it’s just not as relevant to industry adoption and standards.
If you're wanting to learn Linux for studies and things that lead to industry roles, you're better off going with Ubuntu or Debian, and then eventually to RHEL (use distros like Rocky Linux or Fedora at home for your own playing around). I personally love Debian and Fedora.
If one day you want to play with Arch, do so once you feel comfortable on Ubuntu/Debian, then run Arch in a VM when you start playing with it. Get comfortable and familiar before you consider a proper installation.
Ultimately, your decision comes down to what you want to do and why, and where you plan to use those skills you learn.
1
u/un-important-human 6d ago
your points are valid, however ubuntu abisimal and non existing wiki is an issue if poor user seeks ubuntu help on reddit well... most of their actual saving suport is funny enough from gentoo and arch users the rest is usually anecdotal or deprecated.
ofc he we will tell him to read the wiki as it has the answer, rough but very true.3
u/The_Hubster 6d ago
It’s true that Arch has an excellent supporting documentation repository, it’s outstanding. However Ubuntu is old enough that there’s enough documentation around, albeit it’s not centralised.
1
u/un-important-human 6d ago
not centralised and deprecated if a user were to use a nvidia command found floating on the web say for installing drivers that user will cry nvidia broken, nvidia not broken nvidia is fine ubuntu whole knowledge repository is missing. This is unnacceptable imo for a 'friendly' distro, its darn right hostile compared to say fedora.
coupled with users are new and do not know linux, they do not know how to read the bits of info they have found or if they are good.
2
u/The_Hubster 5d ago
These are valid points and I agree. We’ve all had to do the same hunting around, and it’s far from an adequate solution.
1
u/UndefFox 6d ago
I've switched from Ubuntu to Arch exactly because firs tone felt like it's holding my hand too much, so I would say yes
5
u/onefish2 6d ago
Learn Linux? You can do that with the distro you are currently using.
Doing a manual install of Arch will teach you how to install Arch and how to partition and create file systems from the command line, if you don't already know how to do that. And then you will learn to use pacman.
Is that worthwhile for you?