Arch Linux is the s#$t!

[Crusty]

I think it's the feeling of being in control after having used something like Ubuntu. Most Ubuntu users go back to windows, those who don't eventually move on to distros like Debian testing and Arch, depending on what they are after.

See, even in Ubuntu, chances are that they will eventually have to find a solution to something and system tinkering is something i think we all were amused by at some point (in my case it was Xenix).

I used to run Debian SID for a long time before Ubuntu came out, I haven't looked back to Debian since then though(for personal use).

 

[sourceninja]

I have yet to find something I've wanted to do in ubuntu that I couldn't do and would require me to use something like arch/gentoo.

 

[Nothinman]

I used to run Debian SID for a long time before Ubuntu came out, I haven't looked back to Debian since then though(for personal use).

I keep thinking about using Ubuntu but the lack of a sid-like rolling release and all of the upgrade nightmares I hear about keep me away.

 

[Crusty]

I keep thinking about using Ubuntu but the lack of a sid-like rolling release and all of the upgrade nightmares I hear about keep me away.

That's why I keep it on my laptop and not my production machines, which run lenny if they have Linux on it.

To be fair though I haven't had an upgrade issue in a while, but I'm also still running 9.04 because I wanted to avoid having to deal with Upstart for now.

I stopped using SID right around the XFree86 -> Xorg transition when I did an upgrade and totally broke my system and didn't want to try and fix it. Now that I think about it, it was probably a trivial fix but I certainly had no idea how to fix it at the time.

 

[Nothinman]

That's why I keep it on my laptop and not my production machines, which run lenny if they have Linux on it.

To be fair though I haven't had an upgrade issue in a while, but I'm also still running 9.04 because I wanted to avoid having to deal with Upstart for now.

I stopped using SID right around the XFree86 -> Xorg transition when I did an upgrade and totally broke my system and didn't want to try and fix it. Now that I think about it, it was probably a trivial fix but I certainly had no idea how to fix it at the time.

I waited a few weeks to make that transition because the nvidia packages took a while to be updated so it was simpler to just put them and most of XFree on hold for a little while.

 

[sourceninja]

I stay away from rolling releases because typically stable is old as dirt and unstable means I have to pay extra attention to what will happen when I patch. That's why I really like the ubuntu release cycle. I only need to pay attention once every 6 months or so.

 

[Nothinman]

I stay away from rolling releases because typically stable is old as dirt and unstable means I have to pay extra attention to what will happen when I patch. That's why I really like the ubuntu release cycle. I only need to pay attention once every 6 months or so.

The package apt-listbugs will do 99% of that work for you.

 

[MrColin]

Did it ever occur to you that I might not have any technical reasons (other than than the lack of bugs, rolling release, configuration files, and documentation; all of which I've mentioned) for liking it just yet? I only installed it a few days ago and haven't had the time to fully break it in. All I know is that my first impressions of Arch blow away my first impressions of Ubuntu, and the more I see the more I like.

I'm not trying to prove Arch's superiority, hell I never came here with the intent of proving anything. I was excited and just wanted to share a good experience that's a hell of a lot better than my previous Ubuntu-an experience (would have thought the thread title would have indicated as such). That's all. Sorry if that sentiment doesn't resonate with you.

And now that it's mentioned, rc.conf is one of the well commented, logically put together config files I've mentioned more than once.

That sounds interesting, thanks for sharing, I might give it a try in the near future.

 

[iGas]

It is a poor comparison to pitch Arch vs. Ubuntu IMHO.

It would make more sense to match Arch vs. Debian/Gentoo/Vector.

 

[Nothinman]

It is a poor comparison to pitch Arch vs. Ubuntu IMHO.

It would make more sense to match Arch vs. Debian/Gentoo/Vector.

Why? Ubuntu and Debian are like 80-90% the exact same software?

 

[Mem]

OK, I have the the solution! You enjoy your Debian, I'll enjoy my Arch. Seriously this is getting worse than an emacs/vim debate.

Hehe well I think most Linux users have tried more then a few different Distro's,end of the day its what you are happy with that counts,I prefer Ubuntu or Mint for my daily Linux needs,Ubuntu on my old PC is working great and has drivers for everything on fresh install,I'll give 10.04 Ubuntu a try once it goes final ,as to Arch think I'll skip on that,the install guide put me off lol.



I think we can agree Windows could learn a thing or two from Linux.

 

[Nothinman]

I think we can agree Windows could learn a thing or two from Linux.

Which might just happen: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/...ch-needed-fix-for-windows-oss-development.ars

 

[iGas]

Why? Ubuntu and Debian are like 80-90% the exact same software?

Ubuntu is a GUI heavy weight\, while the others that I mentioned are design with simplicity/lightweight in mind.

 

[Nothinman]

Ubuntu is a GUI heavy weight\, while the others that I mentioned are design with simplicity/lightweight in mind.

If you do a Debian desktop install you get a full Gnome desktop. How is theirs any more lightweight than Ubuntu's?

 

[iGas]

If you do a Debian desktop install you get a full Gnome desktop. How is theirs any more lightweight than Ubuntu's?

Debian can be install with package group selections while Ubuntu doesn't. Even Gentoo & Vector can have heavy weight GUI as well. Minimum Debian install then add Openbox/Enlightment/XFCE/LXDE/IceWM/Blackbox/Fluxbox/etc... IMHO would be just as quick or quicker than Arch/Openbox/Firefox.

IMHO, the OP comparison between out of the box Arch vs. Ubuntu is like comparing a Volkswagen Jetta vs. Toyota Sienna on a day to day commute. The minivan will not be as fun or as maneuverable in traffics, but it will do the tasks that you ask and will also does a great job at ferry kids to soccer practice.

A more configurable OS such as Debian, Vector, or Gentoo would be more of a match to Arch IMHO.

While we are on the subject why play around with Firefox if the OP need browsers speed when one can use Chome/Opera that are quicker?

 

[Nothinman]

Debian can be install with package group selections while Ubuntu doesn't.

I'm not sure what this means but it has to be wrong since Debian and the Ubuntu alternate installer disc both have the exact same installer.

Minimum Debian install then add Openbox/Enlightment/XFCE/LXDE/IceWM/Blackbox/Fluxbox/etc... IMHO would be just as quick or quicker than Arch/Openbox/Firefox.

It should be just the same speed-wise and all of those WMs are packaged for Ubuntu as well.

A more configurable OS such as Debian, Vector, or Gentoo would be more of a match to Arch IMHO.

There's nothing less configurable about Ubuntu.

 

[jhu]

If you want hardcore, you should look into linux from scratch. I used to use that just for kicks and then came to my senses. Then I started using Debian and only compiled processor intensive programs I use regularly (i.e. Povray).

 

[hamunaptra]

To the OP, I 100% agree with you!. I have tried linux in the here and there in the past 10 years, and always wanting to seek windows likeness and how close can they get to windows desktop functionality.
I have tried the latest ubuntu and sure it looks great, nowadays I really want to learn the technical side of linux. So, I set out to find a distro that basically does the base install, has a great getting started tutorial and thats enough information I would need to figure out my own "custom" build of linux from there.

A couple months back after looking into gentoo like distros(mainly because I love the system rescue cd distro which is gentoo based). I went and searched around and discovered Arch linux, basically very similar to bsd style init and gentoo, kinda hybrid bsd and linux. I loved it! at first I was overwhelmed but now, I have a arch linux install running my NAS computer I built from atom board and 1.5TB HDD.
Arch is the bomb when it comes to a base install and then allowing user to custom build from there, most effecient way...without having to be a HARDCORE linux fiend and stuff lol.
I love pacman too, awesome package management system.
I love the rolling release model, I just use fsarchiver to backup my system before doing huge system upgrades, that way something goes wrong...restore the file system =) great backup program.
I love the simpler BSD like init too, with rc.conf, so much nicer then sysv init style linux distros.

Arch taught me a crapload about linux too, I went from trying to wrap my head around the UFS style thinking to ... well, being completely comfortable with with most common command line commands and configuration files, and on and on. I used to fear the console, now I think everyone should learn to use it =) its so damn effecient!

 

[Jodell88]

To the OP, I 100% agree with you!. I have tried linux in the here and there in the past 10 years, and always wanting to seek windows likeness and how close can they get to windows desktop functionality.
I have tried the latest ubuntu and sure it looks great, nowadays I really want to learn the technical side of linux. So, I set out to find a distro that basically does the base install, has a great getting started tutorial and thats enough information I would need to figure out my own "custom" build of linux from there.

A couple months back after looking into gentoo like distros(mainly because I love the system rescue cd distro which is gentoo based). I went and searched around and discovered Arch linux, basically very similar to bsd style init and gentoo, kinda hybrid bsd and linux. I loved it! at first I was overwhelmed but now, I have a arch linux install running my NAS computer I built from atom board and 1.5TB HDD.
Arch is the bomb when it comes to a base install and then allowing user to custom build from there, most effecient way...without having to be a HARDCORE linux fiend and stuff lol.
I love pacman too, awesome package management system.
I love the rolling release model, I just use fsarchiver to backup my system before doing huge system upgrades, that way something goes wrong...restore the file system =) great backup program.
I love the simpler BSD like init too, with rc.conf, so much nicer then sysv init style linux distros.

Arch taught me a crapload about linux too, I went from trying to wrap my head around the UFS style thinking to ... well, being completely comfortable with with most common command line commands and configuration files, and on and on. I used to fear the console, now I think everyone should learn to use it =) its so damn effecient!

Hello fellow Archer. I feel the same way ^_^