What did you guys think of the ”utility boost” towards the end of the video? Yay or nay? Also if !subscribed: print(”What are you even doing mate, subscribeee”) subscribe() else: print(”Heyyo”)
Arch (via pacman/pamac) also handles dependencies, just like apt or yum do. Manjaro/Garuda are great for people who aren't experts in Linux. (Garuda also can be easily set up for backup imaging in case it breaks via Timeshift) The real big difference between the other Distros for Arch-based distros is that Arch (and Garuda and Manjaro) are rolling releases. These keep the packages very up to date, compared to others. It does have a chance to break your install, though. That doesn't happen often anymore, but it can.
I really like garuda, I am a gamer and needs to install alot of stuff after installing a distro, but this one has everything I need out of the box, I usually dont like bloated distros but garuda has won me over anyway. And the theming is great its alot like I use to theme myself. Its a little bit buggy but they ironed out most of the bugs now.
Have you ever encountered a problem with partition error after instaling arch on a recent dell? I can not install arch on my new machine. I have the default bios settings. Halp plz
@@kattihatt are you having a bad day or something? I don't think the commenter was trying to be rude. He's just using a template to make a funny comment
I’m an arch purest BUT I love this distro it’s so simple and saves a TONE of time. If they keep The AUR, pamac, and other little utilities and cut out the extras, this will be the best distro. Manjaro is super bloated and sluggish. Garuda is just slightly too resource heavy. Or you can just start trimming the fat with sudo pacman -Rr until something breaks. EDIT: there is a barebones edition, pretty much the best distro I've tried in a while
You're wrong about needing to install extra stuff on Arch whenever you install a package - you're using a package manager either way, which manages dependencies, so installing firefox on arch and ubuntu is pretty much the same.
Maybe he's never heard of pacman. Seriously, when I install new software on my Arch system, all I do is pacman -S and the system does the rest, installing dependencies, default config files, etc. I really don't understand what this guy is talking about.
9:57 this is not rly accurate, the default arch package manager 'pacman' works like any other package manager and installs all the dependencies the package needs. Same is the case with aur managers like 'yay'.
Here's my take on what Kalle is trying to say. For a specific package A, there might be at least 3 types of dependencies, (1) the required dependencies, (2) the recommended deps, and (3) the suggested deps. On distros like Ubuntu, apt-get usually installs package A along with the above (1), (2), and (3) dependencies. However, on Arch, pacman will only install the package A along with the type (1) dependencies only. The type (2) and (3) dependencies are called 'optional dependencies' or 'optdepends' in the Arch-way. Please correct me wherever I was wrong. Hope this helps. Have a great day everyone :)
That's how it used to be, to run Arch was to be familiar with the Terminal, and wiki, not anymore, I've had Garuda for a few days, fully setup, and customized...without the Terminal, I only used that to download Blackarch's repository, other than that, I didn't type Sudo or Pacman 1 time.
i mean manjaro isnt really an arch based distro, i mean it uses pacman but the repositories are manjaro's not arch's like arco endevour etc which misses the whole point of an arch based distro
Manjaro Linux is the standard Arch-Based distro for new users. I recommend giving that a look first, because it's such an established product as compared to Garuda which is very new, and has an uncertain future.
i tried garuda for 3 days. I crashed like 7 times while running a node js server and some tabs on brave + visual studio code. its a distro only for looks, the performance and usage is very very bad
I used Manjaro KDE as my daily driver for about 8 months on my laptop. It was pretty good but after a while I found it annoying that there were any good tiling managers for it. I wound up swapping to Pop OS and I might swap to Manjaro Gnome with pop tiling extension. That feels like it could be a good idea.
I personally don't like garuda. It feels like too much eye candy, too bloated. And maybe I am biased, because I use artix on my PC, Gentoo in one of my laptops, Openbsd on other laptop, and now doing an LFS build. I don't like garuda beacuse it's feel is crap for me. I don't like the icons and theme because it is too neon. Maybe I don't like the desktop because I an xmonad user, idk. I just think that something like endeavour linux is a better option: it isn't bloated by default, it is easy to install and is arch based. BTW, arch isn't as hard to install as people think. Arch is relatively easy to install, you just basically copy paste commands
I personally am an arch purist, I've been using pure arch for 3 years now, tried all kinds of distros but always came back to arch because all other distros did stuff that annoyed me a lot. I think I'm gonna give Garuda a shot now as it looks like a project that I personally thought about doing myself (making an out of the box usable arch installation).
Bro I’m a 17 year old kid i wanna learn programming please help me out by recommending what should i learn first on linux as in language and what applications should i install to develop a program
I tried Garuda after I watched this video. I had mostly only used Windows before. It cost me a lot of time to configure everything to be what I like it to be(like themes, input method). But now it becomes my main system.
In my experience , the more bling and custom apps that come with a big distro, the greater the chances for problems over time - especially after a major Kde, Plasma, display manager, or package manager update.
I would disagree with the point of “Debian or Fedora install extra stuff with the package you want but Arch don’t”. For example in ubuntu there is a gcc package and a g++ package. Whereas in Arch g++ is a part of gcc. Also in Ubuntu there is separate packages for users and devs, so there is a package for pulseaudio and pulseaudio-dev. Whereas in Arch there is one pulse audio package and that package includes everything even the dev stuff (headers and libraries). So i would disagree as it is literally the other way around.
@@karimfadi flatpaks and snaps are the only thing you should (if you dont wanna mess with firejail) use to download proprietary software like discord , chrome, zoom, teams, etc, because they are containerised, the apps can not tell anything about your system, so more secure. flatpaks are alright, opensource, good packagers, only downside being their runtimes are frigging huge i.e. can end up 2-3gb of runtime after 3-4 apps, but the thing with snaps is their core is closed source and managed by canonical which defeats the purpose. plus the snap daemon takes a shit ton of ram and bootup time :( (also all the big companies support snaps which makes it spookier) native apps will give best experience but flatpaks and stuff have their own uses too. tldr, i hate snaps, ubuntu forces you to use snaps, i hate ubuntu xD
Garuda is a good and simple way for people to try out arch in a different and more simplicities way. It’s also a good stepping stone to one day taking the plunge on other arch variants despite what elitists and would-be purists might say. As someone who has been working with multiple distros of Linux since the 90s I found Garuda to be an easier and clean starter arch distro.
I know you’re trying to compare garuda with vanilla arch but you seem to come off as someone who never even Installed regular arch. Idk how can someone make such comparisons if you only personally used one and never went through the full “DIY” experience with vanilla arch Linux. No hate only love just, idk it kind of makes the video pretty pointless for that part of the video
Arch based with the ease of Debian, Ubuntu & Mint, excellent for all users. Highly recommended, I person said good riddance to Windows thanks to Garuda Dra60nized Gaming edition.
Latte-dock never... Latte dock with dual monitors with 4 panels has a core dump and crashed. To this day, latte-dock has not corrected its errors/mistakes.
Thing that's holding Linux back from mass adoption is these ELITE USERS vision for future of linux. A OS should be easy to use. It should save time. not make you waste hours of your valuable time in terminal to install your fav app and its dependencies. I'm a long time Windows user because of ease of use and time it saves me. Windows just works for me with a good antivirus. But all the tracking and arrival of Garuda Linux is making me think about switching to linux because they offer a gaming specific distro with wine+Dxvk... I know I'll loose some performance but if my windows games and apps work out of the box then I'm making this switch permanent. IF LINUX COMMUNITY WANTS TO BEAT WINDOWS AS DESKTOP OS, MAKE LINUX USER-FRIENDLY THAN WINDOWS... PERIOD! MAKE THAT TERMINAL A OPTIONAL TOOL. NO ONE CARES ABOUT ALL THAT LINUX SECURITY STUFF WHEN THEY CAN INSTALL A GOOD ANTI-VIRUS ON THEIR WINDOWS MACHINE to take care of it. (I haven't got a single virus or malware in last 10 years on windows)
I'm so new to Linux and I wanted to know which Linux would be the best for beginners coming from Windows and is the transition hard ? loved the video as usual!!! cheers
When I started using Linux I also thought that windows is only for me but after using it for around 2 weeks I just fall in love with it ❤️❤️ Now I'm using Manjaro Linux 💕
Just go for Ubuntu or Linux mint first, when u feel more comfortable with Linux command line, and how Linux actually works u can go and try Arch Linux like (Manjaro), and then if u want to go more further, try to install Arch from the beginning and take a look at tilling window managers when ur main focus will be on keyboard,,, it takes so much time but trust it's worth it, I dual boot windows with Arch, I still use Windows for Adobe products and sometimes for playing games.
Oh come on, Arch is not difficult to install, if it were looked at in a vacuum then sure, but there are a ton of guides where you if you don't know how to install, can just follow along and will have a working Arch system with KDE or Gnome or whichever DE (or WM, but that's not really for beginners) you choose. That means, first time spending 30-60 minutes following a tutorial (30 because it's your first time+15 if you get stuck at some step for some reason + 15 if your internet is slow) and learning a ton while also having a working arch system Second time you install arch, any guide will be just a reminder for stuff and you can do it in 20-40 minutes. After that the installation really is fast, if you exclude installation of desktop environment (which is literally one command, but takes time because of downloading and installing a lot of packages) then you can easily install arch in under 10 minutes, did it multiple times on many machines.
@@aniketraj4823 yes, but almost everyone who installs arch, first time they use the tutorial. It's not meant to first time give you info about options, first time you learn what is actually happening in instalation instead of following GUI, you learn about bootloaders(which means you'll later know that you can choose either one you want), you learn a bit more about usergroups and sudo(which means you'll later know there are also doas and similar alternatives), you learn about partitioning(which will help you later understand about LVM which you might choose on next installation) etc... It's just important to first time follow some generic tutorial, not some special that will immediatelly force those stuff, like different bootloader or LVM or whatever as that way you might not learn about how many things function. First time I also followed a tutorial, it helped me understand how the installation process for a distro worrks.
So usually the issue is not following the guide itself. Just because it worked the first time for you on your system, it doesn't mean that it will work for everyone. Over the years I have installed Arch on several different machines and many are not really friendly to arch Linux installation process. Sometimes, especially on laptops, the installation process throws up some random error on some step. For example, on my laptop the arch-chroot command does not work for some weird reason and I have to manually rbind and make-rslave on the sys folder to chroot into my install, steps which I actually know from installing Gentoo. There is no way a newbie will be able to figure stuff like that by simply watching some guide. They will have to dive deep into the arch wiki and the less knowledgeable you are about linux, the more time this will take.
Hey... Don't you think Garuda consumes more battery power in laptop as compared to other linux distros... I personally tried to run this distro on my laptop so many times and every time I feel like it is sucking the power quiet faster....
Nice video! I like the idea of reviewing linux distros. It would be nice if you could include screen recordings to actually see the distro without breaking the amazing structure you have for your videos! Thanks, Kalle! ✅
Garuda KDE Dr460nized is for high specs even the Garuda Xfce edition eating atleast 2GB of ram on standy only... If you have old hardware you need to install directly Arch Linux my old laptop eating only 800mb on KDE on standby.
Especially now, with the built-in installer. Garuda is quite cringe, imo, but that seems to be a theme for most Arch-based distros. Literally just get Arch lol
@@soda64 the built in installer isn't that good, use the archfi/archdi install scripts instead. Look it up on RU-vid or go to the github page for documentation.
Garuda uses extra ram for a more snappy experience, and they think unused ram is wasted ram. So some of the people that didn't like Garuda because of the buggy experience maybe are low on ram
A small fun fact: In Hinduism, Garuda is the divine half human-half bird and is the king of all birds and the mount of Lord Vishnu, one of the many gods in hindu religion. The Garud Special Force which is a SF unit of IAF, has Garuda as a martial motif as Garuda is a watchful protector who can swiftly go anywhere to fight his enemies. Proud of our own another Linux distribution and the developers!🇮🇳🇮🇳
If you don't like bloat, there's a bare-bones version for Garuda Linux, which just installs pure (means literally) Arch Linux(using calemeres) for you with btrfs + timeshift preconfigured + software like ananicy & nohang + ZRAM enabled by default chaotic aur + Garuda welcome utility
There's manjaro minimal iso version too which has less bloat and you can make it no bloat very easily , Garuda also has bare bones edition which like manjaro minimal or endeavour os has very minimal bloat which is actually useful for a new user.
@@papiyabasu1564 absolutely, they all offer easy installation process. Plus Manjaro also offers stability as it's not bleeding edge but takes times before pushing updates.
Actually I tried Garuda for 5 days and the reason of why I changed to Windows was I'm a C# developer but at the end, I love Linux and specially Garuda, I'm learning JavaScript to leave C# and then I'm free to go to every os I want
The problem with most lInux reviews is, that they do no test and check out the basics like printer setup, network share discovery, audio and bluetooth support etc. - i like it, if a desktop looks nice and if it is very responsive, but in the end the things I have mentioned are much, much more important for a productive OS. If they they do not work out of the box, it is often a pain to pick the right packages and it is very time consuming.
You have tested the same version of Garuda that I have been using for the last five months. It is now my daily driver. I have come a Debian background too. My only issue is that I have to learn the new Arch command line package management. I have had trouble on Debian getting old packages to install. On Garuda my old packages just installed!
what is the point then ? You are supposed to install Arch only when you want to manually choose what to install, with Garuda they did it for you, you can use Ubuntu then and install different desktop environment having the same result
When ppl say the Arch install is hard..... These guys never installed an Stage1 gentoo! There you compile every, yes every package self on the machine.
@@_MPP_ the original gentoo wiki back in stage1 days (don't know the Year's, it's a long time ago) the wiki doesn't tells you what to do on compiling errors in random packages.
Garuda? More like Bloatuda with the amount of crap it has. Honestly it has some useful things but for me at least is excessive and if you want a graphical installer for Arch with actually useful features then go for EndeavourOS which has what you need and you build from there. Let's be honest the install process for Arch is the only thing which actually makes troubles for most people and even they are starting to compensate for that
I am sure you would change from arch based distro to debian based distro.. as a programmer/developer you will face many problems with newer releases of programming languages and newer libraries and packages so you want to code pretty much what you have with newer releases or Libraries as many of them using windows and debian based distros as they use stable releases of programming languages and libraries pretty much what you code in arch based distro is junk or not work in windows and debian based distros .. Arch is good for its well known principles K.I.S.S and you will have many bugs in the system as you use it more, then your brain would caught in fire for where the bug is caused and how to prevent it instead of coding. Just do a video of using debian and do a real comparison of arch and debian .....
For Your Information, Name "Garuda" is a bird creature from Hindu mythology that has a mix of eagle and human features and was presented as enemies of snakes.
The issue I have with Garuda is the developers' philosophy on RAM usage. I understand their un-utilized RAM is wasted RAM point but I usually have arch-based systems running on older hardware. Seeing all 16GB of my RAM being taken for a couple of browser windows and terminals is overkill. It also made my machine incredibly unstable. This was actually my first Arch-based intro - I always seem to run into issues with Manjaro even when test driving it - and while I enjoyed its KDE-flavoured version (the Dragonized one is way too sparkly for my tastes) - I found it was way too bloated and laggy. The good thing about Garuda is that it really helps highlight the differences between a Debian based system like Ubuntu. In my experience, the best Arch-based distro is ArcoLinux, especially for older hardware. Put XFCE on top and my word it's beautiful.
That one little thing about merging the mirror config after in update in Arch distros has a GUI in Garuda that makes it simple. You just have to look through the newbie menus to find it. I am liking Garuda.
I agree. the main reason why I hate Garuda is... it doesn't feel like Arch. more like ubuntu with PacMan. used for a single day and switched back to arch. Also too many bloatware. Another thing... this depends on the hardware as well but... I didn't feel it as snappy as others say on my lap. Maybe because I'm used to XFCE.
I am annular to you. I live the idea of being the person that digs into things and understands the ins and the outs, but there is so much else to do and I cash get bored easily with roadblocks in the operating system to getting to actual work.
After watching this video, I got curious with Garuda and jump ship to try my first arch-based linux. During work, I give time to setup up our web app here on Garuda. Took me a while to run our company web app system built on kinda oldish stack, AngularJs and Laravel. The spending of hours is real. I dont mind it, coz my thirst to know more about this system weighs more. And the last thing is its worth trying Garuda so thanks for this video
