For a programmer, learning the Unix CLI is quite recommended, because it gives you tools that you otherwise would have to find for each particular use-case. Once you get the hang of it, you see that Unix lets you combine a bunch of utils to do many unforseen tasks, while in Windows you’re expected to get a specific app to do any particular task.

PowerShell allows you to do some of that, but it’s woefully behind the times compared to Unix tools that were around for ages, and is simultaneously too complicated for its own good. Plus afaik it’s tied to the OS version, which sucks.

I advise reading through any oldstyle book on ‘learning the Linux CLI’. Even if you don’t remember most of it afterwards, you get the grasp on what utils are available to you, and can find them when the need arises.

I’m probably repeating what others are saying, but you, friend, are the people who will bring Linux to the world, not us nerds. Your post reflects that you haven’t learned a few things you’re definitely gonna learn, but you are on the right track, like a bloodhound (ie. a thinking person) with a strong scent (something is rotten in silicon valley).

First off, you don’t have to deal with the command line at all, 99% of the time, even on Arch. But Arch is not your only nor your best choice, if that is a specific thing that worries you. Being on the bleeding edge is not what you think - you will get up-to-date GPU drivers on any decent distro, but Arch’s approach means you will have more instances of your graphical desktop breaking in various and weird ways, necessitating a trip to the console on the regular.

Me in particular giving you advice: you should install Debian, because it aims for stability as its primary virtue, sacrificing speed of package updates to get that - they make sure that everything that is being updated continues to work flawlessly together, before it arrives in the regular release cycle. I run it because it never breaks, and if you use the KDE Plasma Desktop you get a full-featured OS that will work the same way other KDE desktops on other distros work. You can even look into Debian Sid, which is their “rolling release” version that tracks pretty closely with Arch’s package updates.

Only caveat with Debian: by default, it will install the Gnome desktop, and you need to select KDE Plasma when you get to a screen where you select your Desktop Environment (DE) during the install process. You can uncheck “Debian Desktop Environment” and “Gnome” which are both selected by default, but you can select which DE you want to use at the login screen, so it won’t hurt you to leave Gnome installed as well - it is more Mac-like and has strong opinions about things like what colour you should be able to use as your desktop background, so I’m not a fan, but I do like their general approach. But KDE Plasma is the one that feels very much like Windows. Others do as well, there are some distros that are actually tooled to look exactly like various Windoze versions.

Others will recommend Linux Mint, and while I used to have reservations based on their lack of work on Wayland support, they seem to be catching up there, and as much as the devs will tell you Wayland is coming no matter what (and unlike the AI slopmerchants, they are correct), but it’s not ready today for quite a lot of things, so it’s not something you need to worry about. Even if you didn’t understand this paragraph, don’t let it get you bunghed up in your head.

Even if you are certain you’re gonna want the up-to-date version of some software, you can still do that on Debian, one way or another - Steam, for instance, I don’t remember what I did when installing it, but it was effortless and I have the same Steam as anyone, far as I know. I certainly have no problem playing my games.

You will be doing stuff in the console no matter what, but vanilla Arch is basically S&M for people who love that kind of pain, and could well put you off of the GNU/Linux OS entirely if being dragged through that slog is not your thing. There are also distros that use Arch as the underlying base, much as Ubuntu and many, many other distros use Debian as the base of theirs.

As other said, arch may not be for you. But I would recommend looking at KDE Neon too, it’s Debian based, with KDE as desktop environment, which is nice coming from windows. Whenever you encounter installation instructions about ubuntu, you can do the same on it, when with Fedora or arch you’ll be left alone figuring out how to install your stuff.

And my biggest advice is: take notes of what you do on your computer. EG, how did you install x our y software (Flatpak, command line, .deb package etc), which commands or software where useful for X problem. It will help you troubleshoot later or uninstall things you don’t remember his you installed them first, basically learn how linux works.

If I was back in college and using Linux for the first time, I’d probably go with Fedora tbh. Arch is a pain in the rump for a first-time user and Fedora really is a “it just works” distro whilst still maintaining speed and keeping things up to date with it’s (more or less) rolling release schedule.

Just install Debian

I don’t think Arch is the distro I would go for if I just wanted speed. I suppose it depends on speed of what—generally systemd Linux will boot noticeably faster than Windows, and non-systemd Linux boots noticeably faster than systemd Linux—but once you’re booted up, I don’t think there’s a significant performance difference. Arch is a Linux distro that uses systemd so it’d be the middle option if you’re wanting fast boots. There are other minimalist distros too, some of which end up in arguably faster systems, but Arch is probably the easiest of the minimalist distros due to being well-documented and supported. But the reason for going for a minimalist distro is usually customisability, not performance. On modern hardware the performance difference is negligible. On very old hardware, you should be looking for another distro made specifically for old hardware (I don’t think Arch even supports 32-bit).

I switched with barely any knowledge, just an interest in the field, and a lot of free time. I believe that it is possible for everyone who really wants to use it.

I mean try it if you are curious nobody is holding you back but personally recommend something easier to start with?

no you wont. if your a normal human wanting to use linux just use smth nornal like ubuntu, or mint.

Any linux distro is significantly more lightweight than windows. But I’d say that there is not much difference between arch and for example the most bloated distro: ubuntu.

If you are a coder, the CLI will be easy. Most of the time the use of CLI is comparable to a single line in your code where you call a function with some parameters.

But arch is difficult for a beginner. (I wrote some more about my experience with it here: https://lemy.lol/post/61578059/24360161 )

If you have time, interest and discipline to read the documentation and learn a lot, then arch is great.

If you just want to use a Linux OS, install Mint and just use it. It’s no big deal, just a normal OS. It’s very intuitive, low friction and no microslop bloat.

I’m not a computer expert or planning to be.

Then don’t use Arch. Seriously, where are you guys even finding out about Arch, much less wanting to try it? Whoever told you Arch would be a good fit, don’t listen to them on anything Linux-related again. Arch is not for beginners, and it’s not for people who don’t want to learn the ins and outs of their computer because they’re having to dig into the guts to fix it whenever an update breaks something. Arch is a fine distro for people who WANT those things, need bleeding edge hardware support, and don’t mind having to fix it whenever it breaks. It doesn’t sound like that’s at all what you’re looking for though.

I think the whole “XYZ Distro is faster!” arguments are overblown. Most distros will be fast enough on reasonably modern hardware, and any performance gains will usually come with compromises and/or lots of tinkering. Generally speaking a standard arch install (that is, you’ve not manually configured anything) will be roughly the same speed as a more beginner friendly distros like Mint and Fedora (which is still more lightweight than Windows).

To answer the question in the title: Yes you’ll survive the CLI. Just give yourself time to learn the fundamentals and treat it as learning a programming language. More user friendly distros generally don’t expect you to use the CLI, which is part of the reason they are recommended.

If you want to lessen the barrier of entry to Arch, maybe try CachyOS. It’s Arch based and very close to normal Arch, but has some conveniences. Might be worth a look. It’s also got it’s own CPU specific repositories (same content as Arch), giving even more performance.

Arch is not a distro for beginners. One day you’ll wreck it.

If you just want it to work, I would advise you try these and stick with the one you like the most:

• Mint (Cinnamon)
• Zorin (Gnome)
• Fedora Workstation
• Fedora KDE Plasma
• Ubuntu Desktop (Gnome)
• Kubuntu (KDE)
• Aurora (Gnome)
• Bluefin (KDE)
• Bazzite (KDE & Gnome)

All my family’s PCs run linux. We use Bazzite for gaming and Aurora for work. Easier and more reliable than Windows.

If you are doing some gaming maybe try Bazzite, it will come setup for the hardware option you choose. Good place to start before jumping right into arch