I feel like Linux would be more acceptable to people looking for alternative to windows if a bit more care was spent on the image of the software from a customer facing perspective.
I went to the Archlinux website to check out what it was a was met with a wall of text and techno babble with complicated sounding package names and stuff that a layman would never be able to parse.
All this from the distro that on their home page claims to “keep it simple”.
“Linux” isn’t one singular distribution. Arch is for people that have tried a few different distros, know exactly what they want, and want to “keep it simple” by having those exact features without any unnecessary bloat. They don’t mean “simple” in the sense that any idiot could just instantly use it.
If you want “simple” to mean “any idiot can use this” then maybe check out Mint, Ubuntu, or PopOS. Those have a nice GUI setup and sane defaults that should just boot into a usable system that people can go do their Facebook doom-scrolling in.
I was more so referencing the appearance of the home page of the site itself. My original Linux experience is from the early 2000’s Pre-Ubuntu so I am familiar with being able to tailor exactly what you want from a technological standpoint but not all people are looking for that.
PopOS and Mint do the best job I have seen of being reasonably inviting to non-technically literate users. Ubuntu is pretty bad but not nearly quite like Arch.
I think the point I was trying to articulate (not very well as it seems) was that there are few Distro’s websites that I could send to friends or family with out scaring them away permanently and that’s a shame. The Arch Linux site just seemed to pop that thought into my head.
PopOS and Mint do the best job I have seen of being reasonably inviting to non-technically literate users. Ubuntu is pretty bad but not nearly quite like Arch.
While I’m not going to say that Arch doesn’t want those users, Arch is not really designed for those people. Arch is designed for those who want to build their OS from the ground up and pick the pieces they want. For people who fit this, they (traditionally) would not want a flashy website - they just want the information. You’ll find that most people whether they use Arch or not, if they’re familiar with what it is they would not recommend it to new users.
Due to the rolling release nature of Arch, the homepage is designed to be essentially a changelog for what you need to be aware of when updating your system. Or in other words, the “bread and the butter” is supposed to be the latest news portion right below the introduction. Such as the latest news post as of this time of writing.
the “keep it simple stupid” for Arch Linux has been always on the packaging and system maintenance site and not on the end user site
probably the reason why so many Arch Linux forks exist which simply add the more end user attractable parts like a fancy website and/or hyper stylized themes out of the box (i.e. Garuda)
Can I ask, are you in the linux community and just commenting on Arch’s choices, or was this your first look at this sort of thing and are noting your observations? No judgment either way, just curious.
To your point, the definition arch is using is computationally simple, as in fewer ‘moving parts’. In that vein, I think the aesthetic of some HTML on an information dense page makes sense. But I can see why it doesn’t fit with what most would consider simple design with their computers.
I was curious about your experience with it, because starting using linux with arch a bit on the deep end, and other distros have more inviting set ups (and web pages). In fact I would say almost every single one is more welcoming in the sense you’re describing than arch. To the counter point though, at a certain point the fluff of a lot of web pages end up as bothersome distraction, and arch caters to avoiding that sort of design.
I have dabbled in Linux a bit in the past. Around 2005-ish I was messing around with Debian, Ubuntu and one other I can’t remember the name of at the moment. It was more of a hobby and messing around with spare hardware I had sitting around.
Life happened and I ended up with only one available computer and just stuck with windows for convenience sake. Queue a decade and a bit later and the writing on the wall is that FOSS is going to be the only way to go so I am once again starting to dabble into the world of Linux.
Rad! Yeah Arch is definitely has the mentality of, “Why would I need all that swooping pictures stuff when this HTML file works just fine?”
I currently use EndeavourOS, basically arch with an installer, and it’s been great for me because, with all it’s ‘simplicity’ and conciseness, the arch community is really great for documentation. And the Arch User Repository is an amazing tool.
What would you even want on the Arch homepage? The closest to a “default” Arch install would just land you at the TTY login/prompt. It doesn’t have the same out-of-the-box experience as other distros like Linux Mint or Fedora or even Debian.
I feel like Linux would be more acceptable to people looking for alternative to windows if a bit more care was spent on the image of the software from a customer facing perspective.
I went to the Archlinux website to check out what it was a was met with a wall of text and techno babble with complicated sounding package names and stuff that a layman would never be able to parse.
All this from the distro that on their home page claims to “keep it simple”.
“Linux” isn’t one singular distribution. Arch is for people that have tried a few different distros, know exactly what they want, and want to “keep it simple” by having those exact features without any unnecessary bloat. They don’t mean “simple” in the sense that any idiot could just instantly use it.
If you want “simple” to mean “any idiot can use this” then maybe check out Mint, Ubuntu, or PopOS. Those have a nice GUI setup and sane defaults that should just boot into a usable system that people can go do their Facebook doom-scrolling in.
I was more so referencing the appearance of the home page of the site itself. My original Linux experience is from the early 2000’s Pre-Ubuntu so I am familiar with being able to tailor exactly what you want from a technological standpoint but not all people are looking for that.
PopOS and Mint do the best job I have seen of being reasonably inviting to non-technically literate users. Ubuntu is pretty bad but not nearly quite like Arch.
I think the point I was trying to articulate (not very well as it seems) was that there are few Distro’s websites that I could send to friends or family with out scaring them away permanently and that’s a shame. The Arch Linux site just seemed to pop that thought into my head.
While I’m not going to say that Arch doesn’t want those users, Arch is not really designed for those people. Arch is designed for those who want to build their OS from the ground up and pick the pieces they want. For people who fit this, they (traditionally) would not want a flashy website - they just want the information. You’ll find that most people whether they use Arch or not, if they’re familiar with what it is they would not recommend it to new users.
Due to the rolling release nature of Arch, the homepage is designed to be essentially a changelog for what you need to be aware of when updating your system. Or in other words, the “bread and the butter” is supposed to be the latest news portion right below the introduction. Such as the latest news post as of this time of writing.
the “keep it simple stupid” for Arch Linux has been always on the packaging and system maintenance site and not on the end user site
probably the reason why so many Arch Linux forks exist which simply add the more end user attractable parts like a fancy website and/or hyper stylized themes out of the box (i.e. Garuda)
Can I ask, are you in the linux community and just commenting on Arch’s choices, or was this your first look at this sort of thing and are noting your observations? No judgment either way, just curious.
To your point, the definition arch is using is computationally simple, as in fewer ‘moving parts’. In that vein, I think the aesthetic of some HTML on an information dense page makes sense. But I can see why it doesn’t fit with what most would consider simple design with their computers.
I was curious about your experience with it, because starting using linux with arch a bit on the deep end, and other distros have more inviting set ups (and web pages). In fact I would say almost every single one is more welcoming in the sense you’re describing than arch. To the counter point though, at a certain point the fluff of a lot of web pages end up as bothersome distraction, and arch caters to avoiding that sort of design.
I have dabbled in Linux a bit in the past. Around 2005-ish I was messing around with Debian, Ubuntu and one other I can’t remember the name of at the moment. It was more of a hobby and messing around with spare hardware I had sitting around.
Life happened and I ended up with only one available computer and just stuck with windows for convenience sake. Queue a decade and a bit later and the writing on the wall is that FOSS is going to be the only way to go so I am once again starting to dabble into the world of Linux.
Rad! Yeah Arch is definitely has the mentality of, “Why would I need all that swooping pictures stuff when this HTML file works just fine?”
I currently use EndeavourOS, basically arch with an installer, and it’s been great for me because, with all it’s ‘simplicity’ and conciseness, the arch community is really great for documentation. And the Arch User Repository is an amazing tool.
What would you even want on the Arch homepage? The closest to a “default” Arch install would just land you at the TTY login/prompt. It doesn’t have the same out-of-the-box experience as other distros like Linux Mint or Fedora or even Debian.