Currently using Ubuntu…
But, I think everything has a different purpose.
Everything has Pros as well as Cons.
In Debian, you get Stable Software but isn’t updated whereas in Arch you get the Latest[Bleeding-Edge] Software but can be a bit unstable.
As a coder and a content creator, this debate confuses me because as a coder you need stability but as a content creator, you need the latest software. Still, I’m thinking to switch to Arch as sometimes the latest version of the software is also necessary for coding.
Thinking about beginners, Debian-based was the key choice before but since the OS like Manjaro, Garuda, and Endeavour which are based on Arch were released, it also makes an easy entrance to Arch for newbies too.
3 Likes
Linux Mint XFCE can be built upon too, all the way to the Kernel as can Debian. I don’t use my Linux Mint as the standard. I have Docklike Taskbar plugin, like you get in MXLinux. You can’t get it in standard Arch only through the AUR. I don’t use the standard Thunar file manager either, Nemo is my default in whatever OS I try out. You don’t have to use any Linux OS as the developer intended, anything is possible. I can even make plain Ubuntu look and feel completely different, without installing an Environment on top. The amount of hopping I’ve done over the years, all for what? Linux is all the same when you look at it closely, from the way the filesystem files are situated to the running of it. The only drawback is the likes of Gentoo, which is just way too complicated for my little brain to comprehend. Then for years with Arch their Wiki was never updated, leaving people with bricked systems, when installing the Arch way. People having problems with Manjaro community, Manjaro community telling people to go away or F off. I never experienced anything like that, the gripe with Manjaro is having to change Kernels to get some hardware working i:e my GOXLR boot it up in Windows, wait for the software to load the Mic settings, switch off Windows altogether, do not unplug GOXLR. Go back into Linux and the GOXLR is working.
In Manjaro had to keep coming back to the 5.4.0-180 generic kernel for it to recognize the GOXLR. I’m now on Cinnamon for gaming, though really thinking about going to Feren OS his KDE build. I no longer game in Windows, all my gaming done in Linux, as Proton runs all my games flawlessly, without having to change Proton version or use any third party Proton like Glorious Egg Roll’s. The only gripe is installing the Wine Staging and all the 32bit drivers including Fonts for whichever game you’re wanting to play. Wish they’d make it easier to get hold of? Proton since 2018 has come an awful long way, meaning hopefully I can say goodbye to Windows altogether, as I only use Windows to load up my GOXLR settings. Windows 10 is no more in 2025, hopefully by then someone will come up with a way to get GOXLR fully working in Linux? As the only sound effect is the swear beep button that works in Linux, plus settings are remembered. Linux has come along way over the years. All you have to remember to do is get it setup the way you like it, then leave it the hell alone.
2 Likes
The reason most distros dont have grub-customiser is that it is very poorly designed software that permanently corrupts your grub config files.
Most distros have taken the sensible decision to exclude it, therby protecting their users.
Neville
2 Likes
I quote from Pjotr’s fine Easy Linux Tips project about Grub customizer.
Don’t use Grub Customizer
- There’s also a third-party tool called Grub Customizer, which massively complicates your bootloader. It heavily changes the contents of the system folder /etc/grub.d , which is where important parts of Grub reside. These changes don’t disappear, when you remove Grub Customizer after using it!
In that system folder, Grub Customizer changes files into so-called “proxified” files, which creates a complex and unclear situation. This additional thick layer of complexity may have something to do with the problems it can cause: the more you complicate something, the bigger the risk of failures…
Unfortunately, Grub Customizer is nowadays present in the official software sources (in the community controlled Universe repo, to be exact). This doesn’t mean that it’s OK to use now!
The main problem with Grub Customizer in a nutshell: as long as it works as expected, all is fine.
But when there is a problem with it, removing Grub Customizer and trying to boot without it can create big difficulties. Because the program has done major changes in /etc/grub.d, which would all have to be undone manually. For uninstalling Grub Customizer after using it, does not remove its changes.
That’s the downside of the complexity it adds. And for what? For a few things, most of which are non-essential, that can usually also be done without adding a thick layer of complexity…
Grub Customizer (grub-customizer) may look easy and nifty, but can mess up a vital part of your operating system. Your bootloader is as vital as it gets: after all, a system that won’t boot anymore, is useless.
Furthermore, most of what Grub Customizer does can also be achieved by other means, without adding thick layers of complexity “under the hood”.
If you would like to know more about this: a more detailed analysis of what Grub Customizer does, and how you can (hopefully) undo the complexity it has caused, can be found on this page (with screenshots).
4 Likes
Yes I found MX very pleasant to use. It has quite a number of Mxtools apps most of which really add something. For example it can make a live usb drive copy of itself, with permanence. That is not easy.
There must be reasons why it is tops on distrowatch.
Neville
1 Like
Good on you. Spread the word. This grub-customiser app is dangerous
Neville
It has some good points, but when I saw the proxified scripts thing, I thought to myself they probably didn’t do this for fun; they probably did it, because there are little possibilities.
From my research regarding GRUB2, it seems like configuring GRUB2 is a mess in the first place. I did not find any C API and besides that there are only some minor tools to help configure GRUB2. That’s it.
If you have only few possibilities to adjust GRUB2, then they maybe have no choice, but make it so “bad” and “complicated”. Maybe GRUB2 is just crap and using the proxified scripts is one type of workaround that may be used to circumvent the issues that come with GRUB2 by default.
I’m saying, that there are always at least two sides to a story. I’m sure the GRUB2 configuration discussion has also two views on it.
@kc1di
Thanks for your data about Grub Customizer. I for one know what Grub Customizer can and cannot do, I have used it before with both good and bad results, and one had better be prepared to do either a timeshift restore or a reinstall. The choice should be mine to make.
Never used it, don’t see the point when if you’re Dual booting another Ubuntu based Linux just run Grub2. There are many ways to customize Grub2 right down to the background image on the Grub background. With Grub Customizer it seems to me, all you’re doing is piling more into the boot, for what purpose? As with most Distros Grub is only on screen for a limited amount of time, usually five seconds. Mine setup up for twenty seconds, in case I am doing something else, like filling up my vape for instance. My Linux Mint XFCE Ulyssa is further down the list. Dual booting on separate hard drives through my Icy Dock with Cinnamon Una and Feren OS KDE build. They all have NVIDIA drivers installed, so the splash screen is the name of my motherboard, instead of the icon or name of the OS. Boot is seconds to the login screen. Picture below is my Cinnamon Grub file, the only change I made was with the GRUB_TIMEOUT=20
Boot is on Cinnamon hence why my Linux Mint work horse XFCE Ulyssa is further down the grub screen.
Grub is just that, a finder for the beginning of your OS, it’s soul purpose to mate with your OS, chat it up, get it drunk then bring it home to it’s login screen.
3 Likes
I created a dedicated thread for discussing GRUB2 itself.
1 Like
I think Debian and Arch appeal to different constituencies, so a simple evaluation of one as better than the other isn’t really appropriate: a person who values stability above all else will favour Debian, whereas someone who wants to dive in and make use of the latest kernels/software will favour Arch. Likewise, someone who wants a straightforward installation process giving a ‘complete’ system would prefer Debian to Arch, whereas the opposite would be true for somebody wanting to build a highly customised system from a minimal base.
Also, your list of reasons for preferring Debian contains some inaccurate (or at least highly debatable) points.
-
Pamac exists as a GUI based alternative to Pacman. Arch doesn’t use a store per se, but it does have its own repositories (and AUR as well).
-
There are plenty of Arch derivatives other than Manjaro (e.g Endeavour and Arco), though not as many as Debian (which benefits from the successes of Ubuntu and Mint, both of which serve as the basis for other distros).
-
Arch is less stable, by philosophy, but it is easy to achieve a more stable system simply by using the LTS kernel (still much more recent than either Debian stable or Ubuntu, but subject to less frequent change).
-
I can’t comment regarding community, but the online documentation available for Arch is excellent.
-
The choice of desktops and window managers in Arch is huge - check out the relevant section on this page List of applications - ArchWiki. I doubt Debian offers any more.
-
Arch isn’t really designed to be beginner friendly: its appeal will be mainly to people who want to build their own system, most of whom will have previously dabbled with an ‘easier’ distro. I wouldn’t say Debian was beginner friendly either - newbies would have a far easier time with one of its derivatives. As Manjaro is to Arch, so Ubuntu and Mint are to Debian.
-
OK, Synaptic is a more widely used package manager than Pacman, but is this important?
-
Arch is about as flexible as it is possible to be. Almost everything about it can be customised.
-
Arch is based on GNU/Linux just as Debian is. Arch installs less by default, leaving the decisions on what to add to the base system to the end user. I can’t see how you can assert that Debian is a purer form of Linux.
-
Arch installations are certainly a bit more challenging and time consuming than typical distro installations. You need to view an Arch installation as a part of building a custom system from the ground up, whereas most distros provide a predetermined finished product that can then be tweaked.
Btw, I use arch (and Mint).
2 Likes
The issue for me is that GRUB2 is seriously difficult to configure. If, like me, you have multiple systems, the standard menu quickly becomes very long and messy. Grub Customizer provides an easy way to produce a better menu, but it makes changes to important files so is absolutely not without risk.
My own solution has been to have two active GRUBs available as boot options (EFI based computer), one modified using Grub Customizer, and one not. The default is the modified one (attached to a Mint system). So far I haven’t had any issues which have required me to switch to the unmodified one (attached to an Arch system), but I have checked that it works as a fallback.
Having SuperGrub on a bootable DVD is my second fallback.
That is a clever solution.
I also use 2 grubs, but on 2 separate disks one controlled by Debian, the other by Void. I can choose which grub to use by setting the boot order i the BIOS
Neville