I'm only referring to Arch now because I have no idea about NixOS.
Arch and NixOS Those two are in the “pain” category. I would never recommend them to anyone starting with Linux, for example because they’re fed up with Windows
In my opinion, you are making the mistake of equating all Windows users. But not every Windows user is the same.
An acquaintance of mine, who works full-time as a Windows administrator, was able to install and configure Arch manually on his first attempt, for example. But yes, other Windows users would despair.
But that's exactly why you shouldn't make blanket recommendations, but rather recommendations based on the wishes and knowledge of the person who wants to use Linux.
high demanding
Basically, you should be able to read and willing use a search engine. That's all you really need.
hard to set up and use
If you use archinstall, which has long been an official part of the Arch iso file, you can install Arch within a short time. But I don't think manual installation is very difficult either. Because if you follow the official instructions, you can simply execute many of the commands mentioned therein without having to change them beforehand.
And what do you mean by hard to use?
I've been using Arch for over 10 years, almost like any other distribution. Apart from only 3 things, 2 of which can be automated.
- Before an update, I check whether something has been published at https://archlinux.org/news/ that affects my installations. If so, that has to be taken into account. The check itself can be automated with https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/informant, for example.
- The cache of pacman must be cleaned regularly. This can also be automated with a hook (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman#Cleaning_the_package_cache).
- From time to time, I synchronise my configuration files with the pacnew files. There are tools for this (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/pacman/Pacnew_and_Pacsave#Managing_.pac*_files)
requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he’s doing
Not necessarily. The most important thing is that the user is willing to read, that he is willing to use a search engine and that he is willing to learn something new. And that is often the problem these days.
And shall I tell you something? Even after several decades with Linux, I often have no idea what I'm doing. But I'm still trying to acquire new knowledge.
don’t hold the users’ hand
I agree with you here. Arch is, among other things, intended for users who want to solve their problems themselves. But that doesn't mean that you can't get help. However, it is expected that you first try to solve your problems yourself. And if that doesn't work, you should ask smart questions. However, this guide does not only help with Arch. Basically, it is (even if it is now partly outdated) still one of the most important pieces of knowledge you can have.
and don’t tolerate user error well.
I have been using Linux for over 20 years and have therefore already used several distributions. Basically none of them tolerate errors. If I make a mistake when configuring Alacritty under Ubuntu, for example, basically the same thing happens as under Arch.
Edit: Please don't take this post the wrong way. My point is not to claim that Arch is like Ubuntu, for example. But these myths that have formed around Arch (e.g. that you can only learn Linux properly with Arch (which is complete nonsense)) are a bit annoying.
However, one should first read through https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/official_repositories#Testing_repositories and consider whether it is really worth the risk.
For my part, I will simply wait until Plasma 6 arrives in the official package sources.