Arch Linux is the s#$t!

[irishScott]

Firefox (with OpenBox) loads in half a second. Literally. Switched from Ubuntu last night.

But the main thing I love about it is that it's designed for the "competent linux user", but at the same time explains so much without handholding. The Beginner's Installation Guide wiki is the most informative, to the point, well-structured guide I've ever read. That and a few other clues along the way show this is a group of people who actually care about what they're doing, expect you to know a thing or two and aren't preaching to the lowest common denominator; without the somewhat snooty holier-than-thow attitude I've enountered in other high-level distros (notably Gentoo). I learned more out of that wiki in 3 hours than I did out of ubuntuforums in a year. Finally learned, in a couple of sentences, what a DAEMON was (and how it came to be called a DAEMON). Yeah, laugh if you want, but it's holes in the foundation like that that have plauged me since the start of my linux sojourn.

So in short it's the fastest distro (except for maybe Gentoo) that I've ever seen, ridiculously customizable, and actually expects you to know how to, say, edit configuration files and use the command line. On that note, I should add that Arch crams most functionality into a few key configuration files that are logically put together and commented out the ass (with examples for almost every section). Thank God a configuration file I don't have to spend an hour of googling/foruming over to get all the pertinent details.

IIRC from the wiki one of the key principles of arch linux is to provide maximum functionality to the user, even if at the cost of complexity. Combined with the rest of their philosophy (check out http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux) I'm not a lonely man in the Universe anymore.

 

[speg]

Sweet, I just started using Ubuntu a couple weeks ago and am still pretty clueless on most things Linux. e.g., I have very little understanding of the installation concept. So I think I'll stay away from the distro (I don't want to have to edit config files and other nonsense) but might read the wiki and see if I can learn some basics

 

[lxskllr]

I've heard a lot of good things about Arch. It seems like it's the hardcore distro, that isn't stupid to use. I'll stick with Debian based distros, but I may give Arch a try for playing purposes.

 

[irishScott]

I've heard a lot of good things about Arch. It seems like it's the hardcore distro, that isn't stupid to use. I'll stick with Debian based distros, but I may give Arch a try for playing purposes.

Yeah it takes a while to put together, the idea being maximum customization (hence the reason it's so fast), but the beginner's guide (link: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide) in the wiki walks you through the installation process command-by-command. Literally. Very easy to follow if you have any decent linux/unix experience, just make sure you have it pulled up on a laptop or something during the install. There's also a really nice feeling about knowing (or at least knowing about) literally every package installed on your system; and in my case I could argue that the time I spent customizing Arch to my specs from the ground up would have, in most other distros, gone to removing and figuring out how to remove various pre-installed programs I never use without crippling the system (ie: Evolution mail in Ubuntu)

And IMO apt-get has nothing on Arch's pacman unless you really want/need a GUI.

Distrowatch also approves: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090914
(For the record I used the network install and everything went smoothly. Core install disk works, but arch is rolling release so you'll probably be updating everything post-install as opposed to downloading the latest and greatest off the bat).

 

[Nothinman]

Yeah it takes a while to put together, the idea being maximum customization (hence the reason it's so fast),

If you use OpenBox on Ubuntu instead of Gnome I'm sure it'll be about the same. What can you customize in Arch that you can't in Debian or Ubuntu?

and in my case I could argue that the time I spent customizing Arch to my specs from the ground up would have, in most other distros, gone to removing and figuring out how to remove various pre-installed programs I never use without crippling the system (ie: Evolution mail in Ubuntu)

Or you can do the Ubuntu install via the alternate disc or Debian netinstall to get a base system and just add in the packages you want.

And IMO apt-get has nothing on Arch's pacman unless you really want/need a GUI.

Do you have any technical reasons why you believe that?

 

[irishScott]

If you use OpenBox on Ubuntu instead of Gnome I'm sure it'll be about the same. What can you customize in Arch that you can't in Debian or Ubuntu?



Or you can do the Ubuntu install via the alternate disc or Debian netinstall to get a base system and just add in the packages you want.



Do you have any technical reasons why you believe that?

Woah, someone's sensitive.

It's not that you can't customize other distros, it's that they usually don't emphasize it. In Arch the process of customization is much more streamlined IMO. ie: the wiki explaining basically everything you need to customize step by step (from window managers to partition flags). Ubuntu currently lacks anything on this scale of comprehensiveness beyond Ubuntuforums which, while useful, are still forums and information is usually quite fragmented. I personally found Ubuntu's actual wiki to be lacking in terms of specific details. As for another example, in Arch you can actually modify the base system in install. Not that most would want to do this, but it's the little details like this that add up and put it over the competition in terms of customization IMO.

As for apt-get vs pacman, that's just a matter of preference. I personally find pacman to be much more intuitive on the command line now that I'm past the initial learning curve, as well as more versatile in terms of command line options and configuration. Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

I'm not lambasting Ubuntu by any means, but suffice to say Arch is more my speed. Fewer if any bugs, faster, exhaustive wiki that directly and efficiently fills the gaps in my knowledge, configuration via text files as opposed to GUIs, and customization being the primary goal, not one possible option.

Ubuntu vs Arch is just emacs vs vim. (I use the latter)

 

[Nothinman]

Woah, someone's sensitive.

Maybe a bit, I just never understood the point of the "optimized" distros like Gentoo. IMO they're a complete waste of time. Well, I guess there is some benefit in that you might learn a bit going through the install once or twice, but actually using the system long term seems dumb to me. If you want to build a system from the bottom up do a LFS install, then once you're comfortable with the core system and how it fits together move onto a full distro like Debian and let the package maintainers worry about that minutia.

It's not that you can't customize other distros, it's that they usually don't emphasize it.

Mostly because it doesn't matter. Even current low end machines are fast enough to run the default Ubuntu install just fine. And people who just want heavy customization generally already know enough to make Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc do what they want.

Ubuntu currently lacks anything on this scale of comprehensiveness beyond Ubuntuforums which, while useful, are still forums and information is usually quite fragmented.

Yea, I've never really seen anything outside of the most basic answers there either. But that could be considered a testament of the distro. To me it says that they're hitting their target demographic of new users with little/no Linux experience. Which is good overall, but kind of sucks for those of us with more experience.

As for another example, in Arch you can actually modify the base system in install. Not that most would want to do this, but it's the little details like this that add up and put it over the competition in terms of customization IMO.

The key point being "Not that most would want to do this". I haven't looked at the Arch base install, but the Debian and Ubuntu ones are bare enough that I've never went "Man, I really wish I could remove that package.". Obviously it's possible since Ubuntu took Debian and did just that, but I can't imagine that it's worth the time for a normal desktop install.

As for apt-get vs pacman, that's just a matter of preference. I personally find pacman to be much more intuitive on the command line now that I'm past the initial learning curve, as well as more versatile in terms of command line options and configuration. Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

But in what way? What does apt-get do wrong that you don't like? Or maybe better yet, what does pacman do that you like so much? Personally, I use aptitude most of the time, I like having a UI so that I can browse new packages, fix conflicts manually, etc before committing whatever transaction.

I'm not lambasting Ubuntu by any means, but suffice to say Arch is more my speed. Fewer if any bugs, faster, exhaustive wiki that directly and efficiently fills the gaps in my knowledge, configuration via text files as opposed to GUIs, and customization being the primary goal, not one possible option.

The bugs I'll give you, Ubuntu seems to have major problems with upgrades, sound, etc from what I've read. But I'd still rather spend a half-hour or so fixing those after an install than 5hrs doing an Arch or Gentoo install.

And what configuration in Ubuntu isn't accessible via text files? Sure they push the GUI tools because they're aiming for non-Linux users, but that's not the only way to do things in Ubuntu.

Customization shouldn't be your primary goal, using the system should be.

 

[Jodell88]

Why is there a debate on Arch linux vs Debian/Debian based distros?

It simply is different strokes for different folks. Think of it this way, Linux is a car, Debian/Debian based distros is an automatic transmission and Arch Linux is a manual transmission. Both can get you to the same place, its just one is more engaging than the other in getting there.

P.S You have a be a complete and utter noob to get Arch Linux up and running in 5 hours. I can do it in less than one with all the essentials installed and I'm not an expert by any means.

Disclaimer: Arch Linux user and proud of it

 

[Nothinman]

Why is there a debate on Arch linux vs Debian/Debian based distros?

Because I use Debian and have no idea why I should even consider using Arch.

It simply is different strokes for different folks. Think of it this way, Linux is a car, Debian/Debian based distros is an automatic transmission and Arch Linux is a manual transmission. Both can get you to the same place, its just one is more engaging than the other in getting there.

Car analogies rarely work and this one doesn't make sense either. At best, you could compare them to kit cars that have varying levels of parts already assembled. But once you get both built the actual usage of both is virtually the same.

P.S You have a be a complete and utter noob to get Arch Linux up and running in 5 hours. I can do it in less than one with all the essentials installed and I'm not an expert by any means.

Then you must not be customizing very much even though that's one of irishScott's main selling points of Arch.

 

[Jodell88]

Then you must not be customizing very much even though that's one of irishScott's main selling points of Arch.

So far in six months I've used kde, gnome, gnome unstable running the gnome shell, xfce, dwm, xmonad, awesome, pekwm, scrotwm, openbox, blackbox, fluxbox, enlightenment and compiz as a standalone wm. If that's not customization, I don't know what is.

 

[sourceninja]

Sorry, that's not customization. That's installing different desktop/window managers. Something many linux users do.

now if you were compiling your binaries to only support your cpu arch and applying ample amounts of funroll loops, that would be customizing!

I used to be into tweaking OS. I compiled the whole OS to only support what I wanted to use, optimized as much as possible (sometimes so optimized it wouldn't even run right). Eventually I realized it was pointless and just settled on a solid, stable, easy to use operating system. Recently, I took that a step further and switched to OSX.

 

[Nothinman]

So far in six months I've used kde, gnome, gnome unstable running the gnome shell, xfce, dwm, xmonad, awesome, pekwm, scrotwm, openbox, blackbox, fluxbox, enlightenment and compiz as a standalone wm. If that's not customization, I don't know what is.

Not IMO. All of those, with the possible exception of gnome shell since gnome unstable isn't in Debian unstable, are packaged in Debian and should be in Ubuntu too. Installing them is as simple as 'aptitude install fluxbox' which will also add them to the GDM menus so you can pick which one you want on login.

I would consider something like Gentoo's USE flags as a level of customization that might warrant a separate distribution. USE flags let you specify "I want all of my apps that support sound to only come with ALSA support." in order to reduce the amount of extra libraries installed. Which really only ends up saving you some disk space anyway so even that's pretty pointless 99% of the time.

 

[Jodell88]

Sorry, that's not customization. That's installing different desktop/window managers. Something many linux users do.

now if you were compiling your binaries to only support your cpu arch and applying ample amounts of funroll loops, that would be customizing!

I used to be into tweaking OS. I compiled the whole OS to only support what I wanted to use, optimized as much as possible (sometimes so optimized it wouldn't even run right). Eventually I realized it was pointless and just settled on a solid, stable, easy to use operating system. Recently, I took that a step further and switched to OSX.

Hehe you took things to an extreme that I'll never go to. Of course changing the DE or WM isn't all I've done.

I actually use Arch Linux so that I can understand Linux more, learn how things are done, what is it some other distros hide from you etc. In this regard Arch Linux is great because its emphasis is letting the user do the ground work and not allowing the programs to configure themselves.

 

[Nothinman]

I actually use Arch Linux so that I can understand Linux more, learn how things are done, what is it some other distros hide from you etc. In this regard Arch Linux is great because its emphasis is letting the user do the ground work and not allowing the programs to configure themselves.

Which is fine and one of the things that I also like about LFS and Gentoo (well, the docs are the only thing I like about Gentoo) but I wouldn't use them for day to day stuff. This isn't meant as a knock against you or anything, but I want the system to configure itself for me to the best of it's ability. The fun of configuring X and everything else by hand was lost on me a long time ago. I am glad that I went through all of that because now I can dive in and fix things and get odd configurations to work without too much effort, but in general I want my system to just work and Debian does that. The system is supposed to work for me, not vice versa.

But my main point is that even the distros like Ubuntu and Debian to a lesser extent that try to hold your hand and configure everything for you still run the same software so you can still get in there and do what you need. Xorg is Xorg whether it's installed on Arch, Debian or SuSe.

 

[irishScott]

Maybe a bit, I just never understood the point of the "optimized" distros like Gentoo. IMO they're a complete waste of time. Well, I guess there is some benefit in that you might learn a bit going through the install once or twice, but actually using the system long term seems dumb to me. If you want to build a system from the bottom up do a LFS install, then once you're comfortable with the core system and how it fits together move onto a full distro like Debian and let the package maintainers worry about that minutia.



Mostly because it doesn't matter. Even current low end machines are fast enough to run the default Ubuntu install just fine. And people who just want heavy customization generally already know enough to make Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc do what they want.



Yea, I've never really seen anything outside of the most basic answers there either. But that could be considered a testament of the distro. To me it says that they're hitting their target demographic of new users with little/no Linux experience. Which is good overall, but kind of sucks for those of us with more experience.



The key point being "Not that most would want to do this". I haven't looked at the Arch base install, but the Debian and Ubuntu ones are bare enough that I've never went "Man, I really wish I could remove that package.". Obviously it's possible since Ubuntu took Debian and did just that, but I can't imagine that it's worth the time for a normal desktop install.



But in what way? What does apt-get do wrong that you don't like? Or maybe better yet, what does pacman do that you like so much? Personally, I use aptitude most of the time, I like having a UI so that I can browse new packages, fix conflicts manually, etc before committing whatever transaction.



The bugs I'll give you, Ubuntu seems to have major problems with upgrades, sound, etc from what I've read. But I'd still rather spend a half-hour or so fixing those after an install than 5hrs doing an Arch or Gentoo install.

And what configuration in Ubuntu isn't accessible via text files? Sure they push the GUI tools because they're aiming for non-Linux users, but that's not the only way to do things in Ubuntu.

Customization shouldn't be your primary goal, using the system should be.

apt-get's fine, but suffice to say I prefer synchronizing my packages as opposed to installing them. That and the way packages are searched for, even the command line UI. Pacman and my brain are on the same wavelength. That and pacman does have some inherent capabilities that apt-get lacks (writing to a specified log file on the fly for one). As for the functionality you listed (fixing conflict manually before committing to a transaction), I can do the same. Little more complicated, but just as functional once you learn how.

An operating system that being lauded as a new free alternative to windows shouldn't ship with serious bugs. Period.

I find GUIs to be annoying and overcomplicated more often than not. Mouse movement being the chief concern. Even with hotkeys it's usually more efficient to learn the command line in the long run IMO. As for the configuration files, Ubuntu seems to be moving away from using an xorg.conf for one, and it takes extra effort to get the operating system to even recognize it. I like knowing that I can tweak every nut and bolt on the system to my own liking.

As for customization vs usability, once you customize it's arguably more usable. Maybe negligibly, maybe not. Depends on the level of customization and your personal preferences. All the same, I like having a system that I can say is "my system". It works the way I want it to, and what might be more efficient or intuitive for me may not be for others or even objectively measurable. Flash cards vs Volcab Lists. Depends on how your mind works.

Like Jodell said, all it is is different strokes for different folks; and applications.

 

[Nothinman]

apt-get's fine, but suffice to say I prefer synchronizing my packages as opposed to installing them.

And the difference is?

That and pacman does have some inherent capabilities that apt-get lacks (writing to a specified log file on the fly for one).

So? I fail to see why I should care what log file is used. I almost never look at /var/log/aptitude as is.

As for the functionality you listed (fixing conflict manually before committing to a transaction), I can do the same. Little more complicated, but just as functional once you learn how.

Without an interactive UI how's that work?

An operating system that being lauded as a new free alternative to windows shouldn't ship with serious bugs. Period.

Right. Because Ubuntu developers leave serious bugs in there so that they can release updates later on, otherwise they'd be done after 1.0 and not have a job anymore...

Even with hotkeys it's usually more efficient to learn the command line in the long run IMO.

Xorg is moving away from using a config file, Ubuntu is just following where upstream is going. If Arch is still creating an xorg.conf then they're either putting more work on themselves for no good reason or they're using an older version of Xorg that still requires an xorg.conf

and it takes extra effort to get the operating system to even recognize it. I like knowing that I can tweak every nut and bolt on the system to my own liking.

AFAIK just creating an Xorg.conf is all you need to do, there's no magic involved.

As for customization vs usability, once you customize it's arguably more usable. Maybe negligibly, maybe not. Depends on the level of customization and your personal preferences.

But you have yet to say what you've customized beyond the installed package list which is equally possible in Debian and Ubuntu.

All the same, I like having a system that I can say is "my system". It works the way I want it to, and what might be more efficient or intuitive for me may not be for others or even objectively measurable

Same here and I've had the same system for probably like 8 years now. I use E16 and I have it setup just the way I like it and every upgrade gives me newer software but the overall feel and usage patterns are the same.

Like Jodell said, all it is is different strokes for different folks; and applications.

But you have yet to say, beyond the documentation, what about Arch strokes you so right.

 

[raygunpk]

Arch Deluxe was the shit

 

[irishScott]

And the difference is?



So? I fail to see why I should care what log file is used. I almost never look at /var/log/aptitude as is.



Without an interactive UI how's that work?



Right. Because Ubuntu developers leave serious bugs in there so that they can release updates later on, otherwise they'd be done after 1.0 and not have a job anymore...



Xorg is moving away from using a config file, Ubuntu is just following where upstream is going. If Arch is still creating an xorg.conf then they're either putting more work on themselves for no good reason or they're using an older version of Xorg that still requires an xorg.conf



AFAIK just creating an Xorg.conf is all you need to do, there's no magic involved.



But you have yet to say what you've customized beyond the installed package list which is equally possible in Debian and Ubuntu.



Same here and I've had the same system for probably like 8 years now. I use E16 and I have it setup just the way I like it and every upgrade gives me newer software but the overall feel and usage patterns are the same.



But you have yet to say, beyond the documentation, what about Arch strokes you so right.

There isn't one. Functionally they both serve the same purpose, synchronizing just makes more sense to me.

And I might. Not because it improves my personal functionality, but because I just happen to like it. Sorry if you don't get that. As for an armchair situation, maybe I'm troubleshooting something, going over a lot of applications and want to consolidate my log files into one folder. And no, I'm not going to waste time arm-chairing more if that doesn't work for you.

Without GUI? Since when does looking up package dependencies, what's installed on your system and any other info before saying pacman -S/apt-get install/whatever require a GUI? Sure it takes a little more effort, but it's just as doable.

I never said that, anymore than I said Arch Linux was objectively better than Debian/Ubuntu. Jesus you jump to conclusions. I'm just saying that if Ubuntu is going to tout itself as the new, fresh, and most importantly free alternative to Windows ala Apple it better be as functional out of the box as Windows, if not better. Requiring someone who's just trying out Ubuntu as their first distro to manually fix bugs so their sound will work properly only dissuades said person from using linux in the first place, especially if you're trying to push it on the non-technically-inclined.

All I know is last time I installed Ubuntu it wouldn't recognize my laptop's graphics or audio properly. Audio was a bitch and a half, but graphics were far more annoying. Even adding so much as extra resolutions didn't function as it should have. My original xorg.conf was blank, so I made one from scratch, copied and pasted from a previous install that worked. Ubuntu refused to recognize it. Also tried dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg, no effect. Maybe they've fixed this since, but I basically resigned myself to using Ubuntu at sub-resolutions for homework/programming purposes and went back to Windows for day-to-day use. This was after spending 5 hours searching Ubuntuforums and trying out various solutions I didn't understand at the time, probably borking my system even more in the process, none of which worked.

Fine, Arch is rolling release. No full upgrades or installs to worry about. The bug fiascos, such as a above, are non-existent. I learned a a lot about linux/unix in the process of install thanks to the documentation, and I know, explicitly, about every package installed on my system.

As for why it strokes me so right, aside from the above it's the details on how it's put together. The way the config files are commented. The way the wiki's written. The way pacman's syntax and commands are put together as opposed to apt-get's. All the little stuff like that. It matches how my mind works, it improves how intuitive it is for me, I just like it. That's all this thread was about. I think it's better than Ubuntu yes but aside from the bugs I have nothing against the latter, I just don't like it. Deal with it.

 

[Nothinman]

There isn't one. Functionally they both serve the same purpose, synchronizing just makes more sense to me.

So you just like that word better? And how does synchronizing make more sense? When I install a package those files are being placed new on my system and the package manager database is updated, sure sounds like installing and not synchronizing to me.

And I might. Not because it improves my personal functionality, but because I just happen to like it. Sorry if you don't get that. As for an armchair situation, maybe I'm troubleshooting something, going over a lot of applications and want to consolidate my log files into one folder. And no, I'm not going to waste time arm-chairing more if that doesn't work for you.

I gotta say I still don't get it. The only time I ever look at /var/log/aptitude is when I'm going back trying to figure out when I updated something because it broke, which is extremely rare. And keeping it in /var/log with a standard name makes it easier for me to find when I need it.

Without GUI? Since when does looking up package dependencies, what's installed on your system and any other info before saying pacman -S/apt-get install/whatever require a GUI? Sure it takes a little more effort, but it's just as doable.

But if I say "Install package Y" and that happens to conflict with package Z the package manager really only has 2 options, either remove Z or refuse to install Y. And the former could potentially affect dozens or hundreds of other packages so it can't really be done automatically. In aptitude you'd get presented with the problem and the suggested resolutions.

And the better example for interactive use is installing a package that depends on a meta-package with multiple packages that provide the same functionality. Like installing logcheck also pulls in an MTA and in Debian there's probably a dozen of them. Sure it'll pick a default on it's own, but if you don't want the default that means you've either got to cancel that operation and rerun the command specifying which one you want or let it finish then forcefully remove what it picked and install the new one. In the case of aptitude you get shown all of the packages that will be added/removed before anything's done so you can tweak the transaction and do it all in one fell swoop.

I'm just saying that if Ubuntu is going to tout itself as the new, fresh, and most importantly free alternative to Windows ala Apple it better be as functional out of the box as Windows, if not better. Requiring someone who's just trying out Ubuntu as their first distro to manually fix bugs so their sound will work properly only dissuades said person from using linux in the first place, especially if you're trying to push it on the non-technically-inclined.

Pretty much any distro of Linux is more functional than Windows or OS X out of the box regardless of sound issues. Hell, sound was the only thing that didn't work out of the box when I installed Win7 on this notebook and it's got a standard AC97 chipset.

All I know is last time I installed Ubuntu it wouldn't recognize my laptop's graphics or audio properly. Audio was a bitch and a half, but graphics were far more annoying. Even adding so much as extra resolutions didn't function as it should have.

I'm using Debian but the only sound issues I've had recently were with WINE which isn't a fault of the Linux drivers but WINE itself. I've got all nVidia cards so I've always had to go through a few extra steps to get the non-free drivers installed and the xorg.conf I created back when I first installed the machine, 5 years ago or so, has worked fine ever since.

Fine, Arch is rolling release. No full upgrades or installs to worry about. The bug fiascos, such as a above, are non-existent.

I do wish Ubuntu would setup a rolling release branch like Debian unstable. But a rolling release doesn't automatically kill any kind of bug. If you installed PulseAudio or whatever Ubuntu's using now you'd probably have similar problems eventually.

As for why it strokes me so right, aside from the above it's the details on how it's put together. The way the config files are commented.

And I feel the same way about Debian. When I install a package I know the config files are in /etc/packagename, docs are in /usr/share/doc/packagename, startup options are in /etc/default/packagename, etc. Using something like Fedora/RHEL where that consistency isn't there is just frustrating.

The way pacman's syntax and commands are put together as opposed to apt-get's.

Technically apt-get was supposed to only be used by developers for debugging the apt libraries, users are supposed to use the various front-ends like aptitude, synaptic, dselect, etc.

 

[irishScott]

So you just like that word better? And how does synchronizing make more sense? When I install a package those files are being placed new on my system and the package manager database is updated, sure sounds like installing and not synchronizing to me.



I gotta say I still don't get it. The only time I ever look at /var/log/aptitude is when I'm going back trying to figure out when I updated something because it broke, which is extremely rare. And keeping it in /var/log with a standard name makes it easier for me to find when I need it.



But if I say "Install package Y" and that happens to conflict with package Z the package manager really only has 2 options, either remove Z or refuse to install Y. And the former could potentially affect dozens or hundreds of other packages so it can't really be done automatically. In aptitude you'd get presented with the problem and the suggested resolutions.

And the better example for interactive use is installing a package that depends on a meta-package with multiple packages that provide the same functionality. Like installing logcheck also pulls in an MTA and in Debian there's probably a dozen of them. Sure it'll pick a default on it's own, but if you don't want the default that means you've either got to cancel that operation and rerun the command specifying which one you want or let it finish then forcefully remove what it picked and install the new one. In the case of aptitude you get shown all of the packages that will be added/removed before anything's done so you can tweak the transaction and do it all in one fell swoop.



Pretty much any distro of Linux is more functional than Windows or OS X out of the box regardless of sound issues. Hell, sound was the only thing that didn't work out of the box when I installed Win7 on this notebook and it's got a standard AC97 chipset.



I'm using Debian but the only sound issues I've had recently were with WINE which isn't a fault of the Linux drivers but WINE itself. I've got all nVidia cards so I've always had to go through a few extra steps to get the non-free drivers installed and the xorg.conf I created back when I first installed the machine, 5 years ago or so, has worked fine ever since.



I do wish Ubuntu would setup a rolling release branch like Debian unstable. But a rolling release doesn't automatically kill any kind of bug. If you installed PulseAudio or whatever Ubuntu's using now you'd probably have similar problems eventually.



And I feel the same way about Debian. When I install a package I know the config files are in /etc/packagename, docs are in /usr/share/doc/packagename, startup options are in /etc/default/packagename, etc. Using something like Fedora/RHEL where that consistency isn't there is just frustrating.



Technically apt-get was supposed to only be used by developers for debugging the apt libraries, users are supposed to use the various front-ends like aptitude, synaptic, dselect, etc.

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.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why Arch?

1. It's a rolling distro WITHOUT having to use unstable packages (if you don't want to)
2. rc.conf is an awesome way to handle all modules (including being able to blacklist them) and startup daemons. It doesn't get any easier than that.
3. ABS, AUR and yaourt.

I like debian a lot but i strongly dislike Ubuntu because of Canonicals response to issues with excluded modules which can cause problems with previously working hardware on an upgrade. "clean install always because we forget some config files and screw up kernel modules every single time we send out a version upgrade"

pacman is not superior to apt-get, it's to apt-get as yaourt is to aptitude and if you are going to compare apples to apples you need to compare apt-get to pacman.

 

[Nothinman]

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.

That works, I was just trying to figure out what Arch does that's so awesome because you didn't mention anything technical other than the documentation.

2. rc.conf is an awesome way to handle all modules (including being able to blacklist them) and startup daemons. It doesn't get any easier than that.

God, that's one of the things I disliked most about BSD systems.

I like debian a lot but i strongly dislike Ubuntu because of Canonicals response to issues with excluded modules which can cause problems with previously working hardware on an upgrade. "clean install always because we forget some config files and screw up kernel modules every single time we send out a version upgrade"

Yea, Ubuntu really drops the ball every release because of that.

pacman is not superior to apt-get, it's to apt-get as yaourt is to aptitude and if you are going to compare apples to apples you need to compare apt-get to pacman.

Except that apt-get was only designed to be a debugging tool while apt was being developed. People just started using it because they hated dselect, which is understandable. But I get your point and agree.

 

[irishScott]

That works, I was just trying to figure out what Arch does that's so awesome because you didn't mention anything technical other than the documentation.



God, that's one of the things I disliked most about BSD systems.



Yea, Ubuntu really drops the ball every release because of that.



Except that apt-get was only designed to be a debugging tool while apt was being developed. People just started using it because they hated dselect, which is understandable. But I get your point and agree.

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.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That works, I was just trying to figure out what Arch does that's so awesome because you didn't mention anything technical other than the documentation.

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).

God, that's one of the things I disliked most about BSD systems.

Hahaaaa, i KNEW you would say that, as a Debian man that was the expected reply.

Personally i love having all of that in one single file, i set up my screens, my codesettings, my modules and whatever i want to start right there in that file, i blacklist whatever i want in that file by just putting a ! before it OR i can blacklist it by adding it to a blacklist= "thingyone thingytwo". It's a tad more advanced than the BSD's rc.conf i have dealt with (i've tried only two, Free and Open, meant to try dragonfly but ... well maybe when i get home)

Except that apt-get was only designed to be a debugging tool while apt was being developed. People just started using it because they hated dselect, which is understandable. But I get your point and agree.

Ya, it was adapted pretty early on as i understand it and nowadays they tell you to just apt-get it.... rubbish, aptitude is much more capable.

For Arch, yaourt does much of the same thing PLUS, you can actually download a PKGBUILD from the AUR to build a package that isn't included in the repos and it usually works just fine. Now, i know you're thinking that "why would i ever want to compile anything", right? Well sometimes it's a good thing to compile a kernel out of the ordinary, you get to check the build instructions and if you need to add a patch, you can just incorporate that right then and there and from EVERY update to the kernel that patch will be incorporated as long as you keep your original PKGBUILD.

It's actually quite awesome, ABS is what others are trying to do today.

 

[Nothinman]

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.

Considering how popular Ubuntu is, that statement makes no sense.

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).

And that also applies to Windows and OS X and any system you can think of. No system works 100% flawlessly and IMO the "tinkering" to fix whatever is the problem is generally simpler and more logically on Linux than Windows. It's just different and most people think different is scary.

Hahaaaa, i KNEW you would say that, as a Debian man that was the expected reply.

It's not even a Debian-specific thing, it's SysV vs BSD init and there's a reason virtually every distro out there uses SysV and will probably move to something like upstart in the future.

With your one big script and conf file, how do you restart a single service? All I do is type '/etc/init.d/service restart' which is pretty much impossible with BSD init. You have to manually find the pid and send it a HUP if HUP causes a restart and if not then you've got to manually kill it and restart it with the proper options specified in that conf file.

Ya, it was adapted pretty early on as i understand it and nowadays they tell you to just apt-get it.... rubbish, aptitude is much more capable.

Now they share the same back-end libraries for just about everything so it's not too big of a deal. But for a while aptitude, synaptic and apt all had their own resolver functions so if they detected a problem you'd get 3 different answers.

Well sometimes it's a good thing to compile a kernel out of the ordinary, you get to check the build instructions and if you need to add a patch, you can just incorporate that right then and there and from EVERY update to the kernel that patch will be incorporated as long as you keep your original PKGBUILD.

I can see how that would be convenient, but generally patches need to be updated for each release so I wouldn't really trust automatically applied patches unless that thing can also go out and find the appropriate patch for that version of the kernel. But I haven't needed a custom kernel in years.