Why is arch linux so..."Good"?

[kevdog]

When is the timeline on grub2?

[Eisenwinter]

When is the timeline on grub2?
I have read about it in Wikipedia, and apparently it's been in development since as early as 2002 (!!!)

[Skripka]

When is the timeline on grub2?

I believe the best that could be said about the timeline of their project is "WIR"

[kevdog]

WIR = yea whenever I get around to it someday!

If that is truly the response of the developers, then that is just so sad!

[handy]

I don't know why people are in such a rush for ext4?

Who cares?

Use one of the other so called faster than ext3 file systems if you must, until ext4 is truly stable.

I use JFS, it has been fine for me. I doubt I'd really notice any difference between it at ext3 anyway.

I think that sometimes people make mountains out of mole hills... ;)

[bailout]

Thanks for the replies. I do have doubts over ext4. I saw there is a thread on the jaunty forum about the data loss issue. Isn't jaunty going to use ext4 as default though?

As to the partitions. I always have a seperate fat32 data partition so that it is available to both linux and windows and I am not into distro hopping; Iam hoping that the rolling updates to Arch will reduce the reinstall/major update nature of ubuntu tbh. The main question I had there was what the advantages were of having a seperate boot partition. I have fedora on my aao at the moment and that used a seperate boot partition as default because it uses lvm. I didn't want the lvm so just installed it into one partition.

[asimon]

WIR = yea whenever I get around to it someday!

If that is truly the response of the developers, then that is just so sad!
Why? They probably have little spare time to work on it and no billionaire to sponsor them fulltime. It's the most honest answer they can give. They just dunno when it's ready for the masses as they do very little progress.

If something is sad then that they don't get more help. For distributions grub1 seems to do the job good enough so they don't care much.

[hatten]

i just want a bootloader that can boot from inside a lvm, too bad the grub developers are lazy (as every dev is)

[Shea7993]

Wow okay, reading through all this made me understand... Whenever someone told me about ARCH, it was that its soo powerfull... in terms of hacking lol, aparantly the hackers choice distro, lol, this just shed new light on arch for me, now i understand beter

[GreenDance]

Is Arch like Ubuntu-Minimal-CD?

[RATM_Owns]

Eh... kind of.

Except there are no new releases.

You just install, update whenever you want, and you already have the latest version.

[doorknob60]

Because you build it from scratch with only the applications you want, and that makes it go a lot faster, and it has a great package manager, and probably the best wiki of any Linux distro, and a nice community with the forums and AUR, it's just nice :) And it's rolling release, always keep your stuff up to date :)

[/usr/sbin]

Well, it's praised for it's simplicity. Not simplicity in that it's easy for a beginner but that it provides a bare-bones system that a user builds onto as he/she desires.
When you install Arch you're left with just the most basic CLI-only system that provides the bedrock for the rest of your setup.
It's fast, bleeding-edge, and has a good community.

Is the iso that you download very big? Becasue i am looking for a distro that i can download within my download limit?

[hatten]

It's quite small, the ftp installer is 148 MB, and the core installer is 311 MB. The difference is that with the ftp installer you download exactly the packages you need, while the core got a snapshot of all packages for core. I would suggest the ftp if you've got a low limit, cause with core you have to update your system after install, and that will be some more MB's to download. You will then also need to download X and such, if you want stuff like that, but you could wait with those until next month if you've reached your limit. But you will probably be able to download the iso and a bunch of programs without reaching your limit.

[handy]

I love Arch, it has been the best system I've used since starting on computers in early 1986.

I'm posting this to warn any prospective Arch users who have ATi GPU's to perhaps wait a little while before trying Arch.

ATi's closed drivers have been causing a lot of trouble lately, particularly on Arch, as it uses the latest releases of most everything. & ATi is behind the times when it comes to the current kernel, X.org & other packages that may be associated with the graphics display.

For those that want to use Arch & use an ATi GPU, you will most likely find that the open drivers & the current closed drivers are both unsatisfactory (though it will depend on your GPU as to whether the open drivers will be good enough for 2D or not). If you want to use the closed drivers you are best off using the previous kernel *29 version & the previous catalyst version. As they worked quite well for most GPU's.

If you seriously need to know more go here:

http://aur.archlinux.org/

Search for catalyst & read the comments from the bottom to the top.

[koleoptero]

It's funny when ubuntu seems to be the most popular distro in the internet (see various linux related sites like gnome-look) and gets much praise everywhere else, in the ubuntuforums arch gets more praise than ubuntu.

I don't know if you understand what I mean but it's weird.

[BLTicklemonster]

use and find out why

Love the name, by the way.

[handy]

It's funny when ubuntu seems to be the most popular distro in the internet (see various linux related sites like gnome-look) and gets much praise everywhere else, in the ubuntuforums arch gets more praise than ubuntu.

I don't know if you understand what I mean but it's weird.

Many of us started with Ubuntu, then learned enough about Linux to distro-hop, eventually finding Arch & being blown away by it.

We are not anti-Ubuntu, we are pro-Linux amongst other systems (as Ubuntu is purported to also be), & many Arch users still use Ubuntu as well, &/or just like to support the Linux/BSD/* community here & possibly elsewhere.

[kpkeerthi]

I was using Arch and I switched over to Jaunty when it was released. But I don't think I will stick with Ubuntu. Arch is so tempting and I simply can't resist it.

If you are an experienced Linux user, you'll definitely appreciate Arch's design & its tools. For beginners, I'd recommend Ubuntu/Mint anyday.

[handy]

I agree, Mint is the easiest distro' to set up & use, of those I've tried.

[p0cky84]

because of the control the user has over what she installs. You begin with close to nothing and go from there... you can have very minimalistic and fast system if you go that way, but it takes some understanding of the user's behalf to set it up.
That would be pacman (http://www.archlinux.org/pacman/) you're refering to. Not archlinux.

But the real reason is because archlinux does not have any of the unnecessary crap that follows with almost all the other distributions.
In general it's just a very lightweight system.

Tho, lateley it seems there has been some errors relating to the libreadline module, which causes the system to be completely incompetent (happened to me, I had to boot up a live cd and do pacman -R /mnt/mounted -Syu several times.)

[C!oud]

That would be pacman (http://www.archlinux.org/pacman/) you're refering to. Not archlinux.

:confused:, no that would be archlinux...

[tjwoosta]

It's funny when ubuntu seems to be the most popular distro in the internet (see various linux related sites like gnome-look) and gets much praise everywhere else, in the ubuntuforums arch gets more praise than ubuntu.

I don't know if you understand what I mean but it's weird.

Its not like that at all. Ubuntu is obviously king on UF. Arch threads here are few and far between compared to the amount of threads about how great Ubuntu is. Not to mention that whenever there is an Arch thread it gets bombarded with impulsively angry Ubuntu fans who try to discredit it at every opportunity.

Many Arch users started off using Linux with Ubuntu, which is why we return and hang around the UF community and help new users. We are not here to convert people, only to share our experiences and acquired knowledge.

In my case I started experimenting with other distros after about three months. In about one year I went from Ubuntu, to Debain, to openSUSE, to Fedora, to Mandriva, back to Debain, then Ubuntu again, then Mint, then Elive, OpenGEU, openSUSE again, then Slackware, then finally Arch. I was searching for the perfect distro for me.

Ive been using Arch for about the past year and after experimenting with just about every major distro I feel no desire to switch again. Arch is for me.

Im not saying Arch is for everyone. Im not saying its better then Ubuntu, only different. Arch is just what fits me, and many arch users feel the same way. We are only trying to share our positive experience with others, not put down Ubuntu or stop people from using ubuntu. If you ask me there is no one distro thats perfect for everone, thats why so many distros exist, because different people like different things.

The point is that just because something is more popular, and gets all the spotlight, doesn't necessarily mean its better for everyone. All Im saying is that if your a distro hopper like I was perhaps you could consider giving arch a try next. If your perfectly content with using Ubuntu, then by all means continue using it, there's no reason to switch distros if you already have whats perfect for you.

[handy]

What he said. :)

[Skripka]

What he said. :)

Arch Linux is Sooo good because it is only 45% obsolete. ;)

[jrusso2]

This is too funnny first you all say how easy it is. Then allow a whole day to install, and oh yes have two computers connected to the internet and thats all you need.

[Exershio]

I love Arch and can't see myself switching to another distro at all anytime soon. It's perfect for my needs.

And of course, I started off with Ubuntu as well. :P

[yabbadabbadont]

This is too funnny first you all say how easy it is. Then allow a whole day to install, and oh yes have two computers connected to the internet and thats all you need.

Just because something takes a while, does not mean that it is difficult. Gentoo is the same way. If you can read, comprehend, and follow the instructions in the installation handbook, the process is not very difficult. It can, however, take a while to complete. Especially if you decide to manually configure your kernel and modify the default USE flags.

[Pogeymanz]

This is too funnny first you all say how easy it is. Then allow a whole day to install, and oh yes have two computers connected to the internet and thats all you need.

Nah, it is pretty straight-forward. The beginner's guide is now included on the install CD, so you just follow the guide almost verbatim. No need for two computers.

The first time I installed Arch, it took about three hours to get everything up and running.

These days I can install Arch and have it fully updated in about an hour, without my old configs. With them, it's way shorter.

[Exershio]

This is too funnny first you all say how easy it is. Then allow a whole day to install, and oh yes have two computers connected to the internet and thats all you need.

Time consuming != hard

It's easy in that it does not take a Linux guru to install. However, it takes time to install because what you install is entirely up to you. In fact, it is extremely easy with Arch's Beginner's Guide (on their wiki) that any power user could install it without much difficulty.

The end result is much worth it. A fast system without programs I'll never use, configured to my liking, a rolling release system so you dont really ever need to reformat/reinstall (unless you want to). I'd say installing Arch once is less time consuming then version hopping every 6 months when Ubuntu rolls a new release out the window.

[handy]

Arch Linux is Sooo good because it is only 45% obsolete. ;)

lol, yeh, I saw that.

Actually it has improved since you looked it's now 40%. :) & still 6 weeks more up to date than its closest rival according to Open Source Watershed. :popcorn:

http://oswatershed.org/

[nothingspecial]

whenever there is an Arch thread it gets bombarded with impulsively angry Ubuntu fans who try to discredit it at every opportunity.

That`d be me :D

[koleoptero]

Its not like that at all. Ubuntu is obviously king on UF. Arch threads here are few and far between compared to the amount of threads about how great Ubuntu is. Not to mention that whenever there is an Arch thread it gets bombarded with impulsively angry Ubuntu fans who try to discredit it at every opportunity.

Many Arch users started off using Linux with Ubuntu, which is why we return and hang around the UF community and help new users. We are not here to convert people, only to share our experiences and acquired knowledge.

In my case I started experimenting with other distros after about three months. In about one year I went from Ubuntu, to Debain, to openSUSE, to Fedora, to Mandriva, back to Debain, then Ubuntu again, then Mint, then Elive, OpenGEU, openSUSE again, then Slackware, then finally Arch. I was searching for the perfect distro for me.

Ive been using Arch for about the past year and after experimenting with just about every major distro I feel no desire to switch again. Arch is for me.

Im not saying Arch is for everyone. Im not saying its better then Ubuntu, only different. Arch is just what fits me, and many arch users feel the same way. We are only trying to share our positive experience with others, not put down Ubuntu or stop people from using ubuntu. If you ask me there is no one distro thats perfect for everone, thats why so many distros exist, because different people like different things.

The point is that just because something is more popular, and gets all the spotlight, doesn't necessarily mean its better for everyone. All Im saying is that if your a distro hopper like I was perhaps you could consider giving arch a try next. If your perfectly content with using Ubuntu, then by all means continue using it, there's no reason to switch distros if you already have whats perfect for you.

I have seriously thought about using Arch, but I'm lazy, and I use almost every program I currently have in ubuntu so there's really no reason to switch to a more lightweight distro (except if I get frustrated with gnome again and go to Arch + *box).

I don't have anything against praising what you use and like. It's one of the best ways to find out what's new and good most of the time. Also I don't have anything against Arch.

It's just that, as I said, it seems weird to me that so many users here use Arch. Not that you shouldn't or that you should keep your opinions to yourselves. On the contrary I believe eceryone should speak up their minds. It's what makes these forums so good.

That said, I find Arch and their minimal approach to an OS very tempting for my 4 years old laptop. If I get angry at Gnome and Ubuntu again for any reason I will most probably try out Arch.

EDIT: And about the bashing of Arch from ubuntu fanboys, I haven't seen anything like it, it's sad if it's being done, and I'm totally against it.

[heroidi]

last night i tried to install arch on virtualbox but didn't figure it out how to do it started installing it at 00:00 and didn't end it until 05:00 of the morning till i slept from tiredness but i still wanna install it...

[CJ Master]

last night i tried to install arch on virtualbox but didn't figure it out how to do it started installing it at 00:00 and didn't end it until 05:00 of the morning till i slept from tiredness but i still wanna install it...

Beginners Guide is your friend. (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide) If you are following the Beginners guide then what's getting you stuck?

[Stagnation]

This is too funnny first you all say how easy it is. Then allow a whole day to install, and oh yes have two computers connected to the internet and thats all you need.

I'm not sure most beginner/average Linux users would call it "easy". The Arch Way is that it be "simple" not "easy". There is a difference.

Once you get used to it the simplicity really starts to shine, the configuration starts to make sense, and then it becomes easy.

I guess the "two computers connected to the internet" comment is directed at the somewhat mysterious (to the Arch newbie) installation. I have the beginner's guide printed out and it's been included on the installation media for a while now.

[lancest]

Arch is great for me except it does not come with the little newest Gnome improvements of the Ubuntu desktop- such as the notification system. Anyway why would it since it uses upstream Gnome?
People may actually be using Ubuntu because they prefer the desktop polish.
Camera's work instantly. That isn't the point of Arch anyway though is it.
Probably around Gnome 3 time I will be more interested in Arch again. I would prefer upstream Gnome with OFTB Ubuntu type tweaks.

[jukingeo]

Hello all,

I have been using Ubuntu Studio (Hardy 8.04) for a while now. Initially it gave me problems, but with updates and fixes it is much better now. For the most part I am going to stick with Ubuntu and I have not been distro hopping that much anymore.

I mostly want to do audio/video editing work and even though Ubuntu Studio is geared for this, it does fall short in may places.

I have come across this thread and many others in regards to this "Arch" Linux. Going over to the Arch site and forum, I can see that there is quite a bit of support for Arch. Apparently there is a growing interest in it.

From my readings, I understand that setting up Arch isn't for the faint hearted. However, I would give it a go IF and ONLY IF I could improve my current standings in terms of audio/video production within Linux.

Here is what I would like to do/run:

1) Ardour
2) Audacity
3) Mixxx
4) Muse
5) RoseGarden
6) Jack
7) VLC (A video playlist program & capture)
8) OpenShot
9) K9Copy (DVD ripping program)
10) Cinelerra
11) Blender
13) USB & Firewire capability

This would just be a production machine for the use of making video presentations & music videos. It will not need any wireless hookups or anything for office productivity outside of a web browser and connection (for updates of course).

In terms of hardware, I will need video capture capability and of course a standard sound card (5.1 capability is a plus, but not necessary).

Can Arch be set up to be the ultimate in multi-media production?

Once I find a system that works, I do intend to duplicate the set up on other machines. I mostly will be using older P-III and P4 machines that range from 512meg ram all the way up to 2gig ram & 1 gig to 3 gig processors.

Thank You,

Geo

[bankie]

I don't have experience with content creation in Arch (or any distro for that matter) so I can't give you any specifics.

However, every program you've listed is available through either the AUR (http://aur.archlinux.org/index.php) or Community repo. Many of them have a mention on setup in the ArchWiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page).

[eldragon]

I don't have experience with content creation in Arch (or any distro for that matter) so I can't give you any specifics.

However, every program you've listed is available through either the AUR (http://aur.archlinux.org/index.php) or Community repo. Many of them have a mention on setup in the ArchWiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page).

and if any of those need a special tweak, it will be dead easy to apply it to the source and rebuild the package.

[jukingeo]

However, every program you've listed is available through either the AUR (http://aur.archlinux.org/index.php) or Community repo. Many of them have a mention on setup in the ArchWiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page).

Hmmm, I know OpenShot is only being tested in Ubuntu, so I don't know how that would fair in Arch.

Also I would absolutely need good USB and Firewire support. Up to now, this has been a problem in Linux. I have seen many cases where an extreme amount of 'hoop jumping' is necessary to get USB devices to fully function under Ubuntu. I really am looking for an 'out' in that regard. I would be hoping that with it's custom configurability that Arch wouldn't have these issues.

Geo

[Soley]

So I've been trying out Arch & hanging out on their forums for a while. I've asked some questions, but the problem I've found with Arch has nothing to do with the distro. It's the people in the community. I don't know if I've just run across a few bad apples, but they really can't seem to grasp simple questions people ask.

I dunno. Maybe it's just me.

That being said, Arch is damn fast compared to a fresh install of Ubuntu. That's why I've moved to #! (crunchbang).

[eldragon]

So I've been trying out Arch & hanging out on their forums for a while. I've asked some questions, but the problem I've found with Arch has nothing to do with the distro. It's the people in the community. I don't know if I've just run across a few bad apples, but they really can't seem to grasp simple questions people ask.

I dunno. Maybe it's just me.

That being said, Arch is damn fast compared to a fresh install of Ubuntu. That's why I've moved to #! (crunchbang).

the problem is you are expected to read and search before you ask. and when you ask, you have to supply as much info as you can..

you will get a negative reply usually when stuff is already documented in the wiki...

[Soley]

the problem is you are expected to read and search before you ask. and when you ask, you have to supply as much info as you can..

you will get a negative reply usually when stuff is already documented in the wiki...

And I did. And I supplied as all the info. The responses I got were questions I covered in my original question. I had never connected to a network via command line and while in the wiki it does say you have to add && dhcpcd wlan0 after iwconfig wlan essid "Network". It's phrased in a way that doesn't seem to flow with the way to set it up.

[mdsmedia]

the problem is you are expected to read and search before you ask. and when you ask, you have to supply as much info as you can..

you will get a negative reply usually when stuff is already documented in the wiki...
While this approach doesn't go down terribly well with some users, I learned a heck of a lot in just installing Arch, because I had to research things I didn't understand.

I now have a situation in which my PC clock is displaying UTC, and used to show local time. I have fiddled with the rc.conf file and entered the "date" command in the terminal, and probably messed up the settings, so I have to go back and read and work out where I mucked up, rather than having answers spoon-fed to me. The date is also 1 day fast, so not sure where that went wrong but the system clock is correctly set.

What I guess I'm saying is, the approach that the Arch Forums takes leads to far less noise to signal ratio, so if you google and your answer is in the forums, you're more likely to be able to find it. The ArchWiki is awesome, but not without its flaws. If you don't do some research and homework yourself, you're unlikely to get much help in the forums if you ask something which is already well documented. The retisence to answer "simple questions" forces the user to help themselves before asking for help.

[Icehuck]

And I did. And I supplied as all the info. The responses I got were questions I covered in my original question. I had never connected to a network via command line and while in the wiki it does say you have to add && dhcpcd wlan0 after iwconfig wlan essid "Network". It's phrased in a way that doesn't seem to flow with the way to set it up.

I recommend getting the netcfg scripts to run your wifi for arch. You can then just "sudo netcfg homewifi" and it will connect. You can also have it connect to your wifi while booting up the machine.

[eldragon]

And I did. And I supplied as all the info. The responses I got were questions I covered in my original question. I had never connected to a network via command line and while in the wiki it does say you have to add && dhcpcd wlan0 after iwconfig wlan essid "Network". It's phrased in a way that doesn't seem to flow with the way to set it up.

im not sure if you are looking for support from me...but here it goes..

first run the ifconfig as root
then run the dhcpd command (as root)

see if that works for you..

like someone ese said, you should get the netcfg scripts.

[chris200x9]

off topic but I was just reading this thread and a comment said an arch install isn't for the faint of heart. Why does arch get such a bad wrap?!

1. partition
2. install
3. edit like 3 config files that are pretty straight forward
4. pacman -S xorg nvidia xf86-mouse-input xf86-keyboard-input fluxbox alsa-utils (or something similar)
5. xorg-config (edit as nessacery, which is probally not alot)
7. nano ~/.xinitrc write exec fluxbox
8. alsaconf
9. startx


(this only sets up root user, but arch has the adduser script its pretty straight forward.

[eldragon]

off topic but I was just reading this thread and a comment said an arch install isn't for the faint of heart. Why does arch get such a bad wrap?!

1. partition
2. install
3. edit like 3 config files that are pretty straight forward
4. pacman -S xorg nvidia xf86-mouse-input xf86-keyboard-input fluxbox alsa-utils (or something similar)
5. xorg-config (edit as nessacery, which is probally not alot)
7. nano ~/.xinitrc write exec fluxbox
8. alsaconf
9. startx


(this only sets up root user, but arch has the adduser script its pretty straight forward.

as opposed to "point, click, point click, point click, reboot" its not for the faint of heart

[mdsmedia]

off topic but I was just reading this thread and a comment said an arch install isn't for the faint of heart. Why does arch get such a bad wrap?!

1. partition
2. install
3. edit like 3 config files that are pretty straight forward
4. pacman -S xorg nvidia xf86-mouse-input xf86-keyboard-input fluxbox alsa-utils (or something similar)
5. xorg-config (edit as nessacery, which is probally not alot)
7. nano ~/.xinitrc write exec fluxbox
8. alsaconf
9. startx


(this only sets up root user, but arch has the adduser script its pretty straight forward.
If you're a pretty experienced Linux user, know how to configure those 3 config files, know exactly what you want to install, ....I could go on and on picking apart each of your points...., it's quite simple.

For those of us relatively new to Linux and editing configuration files, it's not for the feint of heart.

I could say that English is given a bad "wrap" too, but you have no problem in mucking it up.

[chris200x9]

as opposed to "point, click, point click, point click, reboot" its not for the faint of heart

If you're a pretty experienced Linux user, know how to configure those 3 config files, know exactly what you want to install, ....I could go on and on picking apart each of your points...., it's quite simple.

For those of us relatively new to Linux and editing configuration files, it's not for the feint of heart.

I could say that English is given a bad "wrap" too, but you have no problem in mucking it up.

i agree with both of you to a certain extent, but saying it's not for the faint of heart and things like that build arch up as something you have to be "l33t" to use which is not the case at all. *Almost* anyone who can read can install and run arch. I encourage linux user's of any skill to at least try it.

[Xanavi]

That`d be me :D

Thanks for the sig link, I was looking for this very thread.

[jukingeo]

off topic but I was just reading this thread and a comment said an arch install isn't for the faint of heart. Why does arch get such a bad wrap?!



That would be me that mentioned something along those lines, however you misread that what I said. I said that I READ that Arch isn't for the faint of heart. I am in no way saying it is. I don't know anything about Arch, but would like to find out more.

I have READ about the initial configuration and some people praise it and others condemn it. I don't know where I would fit in the picture. I would say that I am just getting out of the beginning phases of Linux, but I don't do much work 'under the hood' in the terminal. Yet, the idea of having a bit more control over the system is appealing. I am pretty much technically inclined too and when I was in Windows, I could handle most problems with that OS.

A big problem I am having with Linux distributions in general is getting hardware to talk properly to each other and the OS with Linux. Setting up a more 'custom' set up could alleviate those issues. BUT I could also be opening up a can of worms too.

I don't know...BUT I am always willing to learn :).

Geo

[mdsmedia]

i agree with both of you to a certain extent, but saying it's not for the faint of heart and things like that build arch up as something you have to be "l33t" to use which is not the case at all. *Almost* anyone who can read can install and run arch. I encourage linux user's of any skill to at least try it.
I tend to agree, with some reservation.

I spent a day....maybe 2....off and on, installing Arch, getting around errors, jumping from the Beginners Guide to the Wiki and the Forums, Googling, determined to get Arch installed, because I wanted to. I learned a lot about Arch and Linux, just getting it installed.

As distinct from Ubuntu or Debian, which I think are as simple as it gets in installation, Arch was a fun exercise, and I'm glad I don't have any hair long enough to tear out.....actually that's not fair, because if I really got that anywhere near that frustrated I just walked away and came back later.

I kept getting an error on installation of X (and xfce) and tried to find out how to fix it, only to read a thread on the forum that the error wasn't fatal.."just ignore it"...that wasn't documented in the Beginners Guide or the Wiki.

I tried installing Arch on my new Toshiba laptop which, by default, had a bad partitioning plan. Arch uses cfdisk to partition on installation. cfdisk kept aborting, before I decided to manually partition before running the install disk for the umpteenth time.

I like Arch and its philosophy, but somewhere between your scenario and "not for the faint of heart" lies the truth, I think.

[jukingeo]

I tend to agree, with some reservation.

I kept getting an error on installation of X (and xfce) and tried to find out how to fix it, only to read a thread on the forum that the error wasn't fatal.."just ignore it"...that wasn't documented in the Beginners Guide or the Wiki.

I tried installing Arch on my new Toshiba laptop which, by default, had a bad partitioning plan. Arch uses cfdisk to partition on installation. cfdisk kept aborting, before I decided to manually partition before running the install disk for the umpteenth time.

It is things like that I am worried about. I don't have any hair left to pull! At any rate, I am not too happy about the fact that the Arch community cops an attitude if someone needs a direct answer to a question. At least with Ubuntu, if I have a problem and I need an answer like NOW, I usually get a response quick enough (or at least a friendly response and a link to where I could solve my problem).


I like Arch and its philosophy, but somewhere between your scenario and "not for the faint of heart" lies the truth, I think.

Yup, and I lie somewhere between beginner and novice when it comes to Linux in general.

I think I would try and go for Arch IF and ONLY IF someone could tell me if it could solve my issues in setting up hardware in Linux. If the hardware support is like night and day when compared to Ubuntu, then yeah, I would try it out.

Geo

[mdsmedia]

It is things like that I am worried about. I don't have any hair left to pull! At any rate, I am not too happy about the fact that the Arch community cops an attitude if someone needs a direct answer to a question. At least with Ubuntu, if I have a problem and I need an answer like NOW, I usually get a response quick enough (or at least a friendly response and a link to where I could solve my problem).



Yup, and I lie somewhere between beginner and novice when it comes to Linux in general.

I think I would try and go for Arch IF and ONLY IF someone could tell me if it could solve my issues in setting up hardware in Linux. If the hardware support is like night and day when compared to Ubuntu, then yeah, I would try it out.

Geo
I wouldn't compare Arch and Ubuntu, pure and simple. Arch is a great distro, if that's what you're looking for. Ubuntu is what you're looking for if you want great support from the community. Arch is great if you're willing to put in your own time.

I should say, Arch is great having put in the time on day 1. Ubuntu is great if you just want to install and have support from day 1. If you want Linux, and support...and I mean having your hand held....Arch isn't for you. If you want Linux and you're willing to put in the time, Arch is great.

[tjwoosta]

I use arch, and I love arch, but I would have to agree that the arch community is a bit stuck up. Everyone just assumes that your some idiot and don't know what your doing right off the start.

Sometimes even if you have all the relevant information and you do the research, you will still run into minor problems that you cant find the answer for. If you ask people on arch forums half of the people will respond with sarcastic remarks and obvious solutions that you have already tried and posted about, without ever even reading your posts. Its that kind of behavior that sets a bad name for arch.

[jukingeo]

I use arch, and I love arch, but I would have to agree that the arch community is a bit stuck up. Everyone just assumes that your some idiot and don't know what your doing right off the start.

Sometimes even if you have all the relevant information and you do the research, you will still run into minor problems that you cant find the answer for. If you ask people on arch forums half of the people will respond with sarcastic remarks and obvious solutions that you have already tried and posted about, without ever even reading your posts. Its that kind of behavior that sets a bad name for arch.

This is a problem I had with JackLab. There were a few there that had quite the attitude. On top of that it is a very small supported distribution and only about 4 or 5 people really know what is going on with it. When I had questions it would take days for it to be answered. Sometimes I did get a sarcastic remark here and there. In the end, I said "to h--- with this" and I moved on.

Now when I consider a distribution, I DO look at the support forums first. I check for number of posts and when new questions are raised, how fast is the response time. From what I seen thusfar, it looked positive.

I DO make the practice of searching for information on my own IF and ONLY IF the hosting forum site has a good search engine. For example this forum has an excellent search engine (especially in advanced mode) so I will search existing info first. But I do run into a specific scenario and I have to make a post. That is what I did here. I really have not seen a post in regards to someone using Arch for the purpose of audio/video editing.

I do know that audio and video editing (especially video) is somewhat 'touchy' in Linux. There are issues in hardware setup as well and that is what I was mainly posting about.

Now I don't mind if you don't have the hand-holding like you do here with Ubuntu, but if I seriously get stuck with something and need a quick response, I certainly don't want to get an attitude.

At any rate, I think I would give Arch a shot. I certainly wouldn't put it on my main system though, but being that I DO have extra computers I can put it on another machine. So I DO have that option working out for me.

Geo

[Incitecite]

My experience with Arch has been very good. I've tried Ubuntu several times on my desktop, and have always run into trouble, but Arch I can get to work where Ubuntu does not. It's probably because it's a custom built machine with some strange hardware combinations, so just manually taking care of things just works better than Ubuntu trying to auto-recognize everything.

I can't say enough good things about Arch. For me, as a "power user" or whatever, Arch is better than Ubuntu for a number of reasons. In my opinion, these are the Pros and Cons of Arch:

Pros:

-Works better on strange hardware
-Insanely helpful forums and wiki
-Rolling Release
-The MOST up-to-date repositories
-Arch User Repo
-"Faster" than most other Distros, of course this depends a bit on your configuration
-Get to customize everything to your liking

Cons:
-Ridiculous install process
-Have to customize everything to your liking

As you can see, the double edged sword is that you have to basically build your system up from nothing, which is great once you've finished, but is not necessarily something you may want to do. If you just want a Gnome desktop with Firefox & the rest of your basic apps, there are a lot of distros that can offer you that out of the box. Where Arch shines is when you want to use the more atypical things. It seems almost like it would be a better test bed for window managers and DE's than an end-user system, but if you want the flexibility to easily change your desktop environment it's amazing. Rolling release is also nice. It's easy to see why Arch is a distro that some people take to very strongly and others have no interest in.

Because I always ran into problems with Ubuntu and then went back to Windows, I was very noob at all things linux. It's not true that you'll be overwhelmed if you're not an experienced linux user and you try Arch, all you need to do is be willing to take some time to read the beginner's guide & forums. If I can do it anybody can, so don't let the ridiculous install process put you off. That being said, the install process IS a time consuming and you'll have to do a lot of reading, but it's not so bad once you've gotten the hang of it. It doesn't seem very hard to me now that I've done it several times. The biggest thing for me though is that everything is so up to date. I'm always very annoyed whenever I try to download an app in Ubuntu and find that it's 2 months outdated. I like to have up to date software, so having a very up to date repo is very convenient.

Don't get me wrong, Ubuntu is great, it's the first thing I recommend to friends interested in trying linux. However, if you want a system that has zero unnecessary software, that's fast, extremely flexible, and cutting edge, Arch is the only choice.

That is why Arch Linux is so... "Good."

[gymophett]

it has killer documentation.

+1

[lancest]

I like Arch alot. I'm always thinking of going back to it and still might in the future. I'm a gnome user though and feel that Arch's upstream Gnome does not hold a candle to Ubuntu's in many ways. Yes I like the CLI (Bash shell) but also enjoy good GUI tools. You could make a case that Ubuntu comes with too much preinstalled by default but you could also say opin that upstream Gnome is a little too barebones vanilla- like myself. Ubuntu's themes, GUI tools, fonts, and general desktop care just takes a Linux cloud pc to another level. If you look around you will find a lot of veteran Linux users who use Ubuntu for the same reason- quality OFTB. Also I have not found Arch to be faster than Ubuntu on my machines.
Actually I hope many of the improvements I am seeing in Karmic will reach upstream Gnome so Arch can share in them.

[renkinjutsu]

this thread inspired me.. i had 18GB of unpartitioned space on my harddrive, so i went for it..

it took a loongg while to pacman everything... and the night i installed, my sister was playing counter-strike and i had to hold off on the downloading, so i had to hold off the pacmanaging to another day.

now i have gnome-panel, thunar, and rhythmbox installed and compiled pekwm from source..
all is well except the notification applet for icons doesn't work.. neither does the window list at the bottom panel =[ .. but it doesn't bother me, because my ubuntu is beautiful

[~sHyLoCk~]

Arch was good until I tried gentoo and then slackware and freebsd. Now compared to slack and BSDs, arch seems mediocre. Slackware ftw! yes, I love posting about arch just to see the arch zealots spring into action. :D
I like arch. It is quite nice for a minimal system.

[kevCast]

Arch was good until I tried gentoo and then slackware and freebsd. Now compared to slack and BSDs, arch seems mediocre. Slackware ftw! yes, I love posting about arch just to see the arch zealots spring into action. :D
I like arch. It is quite nice for a minimal system.

Same here. Slackware just beats...everything.

[dragos240]

-Have to customize everything to your liking

That would be a pro :)

[Странник]

Arch is viral :P

[SomeGuyDude]

Three letters: A-U-R.

Yaourt is KING. It's the easiest thing on the planet for installing community-based packages.

[samjh]

Arch is definitely not a distro for everybody. I really like Ubuntu, but switched to Debian Testing, then Arch. I don't like doing 6-monthly system rebuilds or upgrades, and Debian Testing was too unreliable for me.

Pros:
Simple configuration, especially its well-organised and well-documented start-up scripts (this is in stark contrast to Debian-based distros, which have some of the most arcane start-up configuration scripts in the Linux world).
I know exactly what is being run on my system.
Reliable rolling-release upgrades. I haven't suffered a single crash in around three months of use (and some abuse), which included a kernel upgrade.
Excellent documentation and community forums. Responses to questions are extremely quick, and the community wiki are up-to-date and helpful on almost any topic.
Efficient operation.

Cons:
Long installation process. I had little problems during install (except some errors during disk partitioning), but it took around three hours from burning the installation CD to booting up with Gnome.
Post-installation configuration. Because the initial installation is bare-bones, you have to do a fair bit of slog to get printing, scanning, X, and other stuff set up. Reserve at least two hours for this.
Limited number of official packages. Pacman is great, but the Arch official repository is little bit bare. I know that the Arch User Repository has a huge collection of software, but the quality of the packaging tends to vary a lot. Some AUR packages don't even work.

[jukingeo]

As you can see, the double edged sword is that you have to basically build your system up from nothing, which is great once you've finished, but is not necessarily something you may want to do. If you just want a Gnome desktop with Firefox & the rest of your basic apps, there are a lot of distros that can offer you that out of the box. Where Arch shines is when you want to use the more atypical things. It seems almost like it would be a better test bed for window managers and DE's than an end-user system, but if you want the flexibility to easily change your desktop environment it's amazing. Rolling release is also nice. It's easy to see why Arch is a distro that some people take to very strongly and others have no interest in.


Putting it in terms of my scenario, I know that for the most part, just doing everyday work (emailing, web browsing, playing audio video files) that Ubuntu (or put preferred Linux distro here) will usually do the job.

In my case I do want to play around with hardware. I am MOSTLY working with audio and video editing. I am looking to improve on the current situation I have using Ubuntu Studio. Many times I run into trouble is that there are issues with video, sound cards, and to a certain extent even networking between computers.

What I am wondering is if using Arch would significantly improve upon that situation and thus I could end up with a much better 'studio'. If the answer to that would be 'Yes', then I might pull up an old computer and try to set up Arch on it.

I would want to set it up on an 'unused' machine right now because setting it up on my main machine is asking for trouble and I wont do that.

Since it does take a very long time to set up Arch...do you have to do it in one shot, or can you set it up, then take a break and come back to it?

Thanx,

Geo

[samjh]

You can do it in stages. In my three Arch installs, I did it in three stages:
The base installation, which gets you a fully-functional command-line with networking: 30 minutes.
The desktop environment (X, then Gnome, KDE, or whatever you want) + NVidia + some tweaks: 1 hour, mostly choosing and downloading packages.
Applications (mainly: Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, OpenOffice.org) + CUPS + XSane + Flash + additional multimedia codecs: 1 hour, again mostly spent in downloading, but you can save time by installing CUPS and XSane first, then downloading the apps while you configure your printer and scanner.

Those times are current with my level of fluency in the process. The first time I installed Arch, it took longer, because I had to keep reading the Beginner's Guide.

[the8thstar]

I tried both Arch and Chakra (Arch+KDEmod) and didn't like either. Ubuntu has the software I need and my hardware runs fast enough with it that I don't need to tweak the system to no end with another Linux distro.

[jukingeo]

The desktop environment (X, then Gnome, KDE, or whatever you want) + NVidia + some tweaks: 1 hour, mostly choosing and downloading packages.


Ok, let me stop you there for a moment...the "N" word. I don't have an Nvidia video card. I have an ATI video card on the proposed test system. BUT in most cases usually machines I find do have Nvidia cards. So the golden question is, will Arch also work with ATI---accelerated 3D ?

Thanx,
Geo

[C!oud]

Ok, let me stop you there for a moment...the "N" word. I don't have an Nvidia video card. I have an ATI video card on the proposed test system. BUT in most cases usually machines I find do have Nvidia cards. So the golden question is, will Arch also work with ATI---accelerated 3D ?

Thanx,
Geo

I have an ati card that I use with the open source drivers perfectly fine in arch with 3D support. The proprietary ati driver is also available through the AUR and works great from what I hear.

[samjh]

So the golden question is, will Arch also work with ATI---accelerated 3D ?

As C!oud said, yes, ATI cards also work. Arch officially supports only the open-source driver for ATI cards. ATI's proprietary Catalyst driver can be found in the Arch User Repository (AUR).

See: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ATI

[jukingeo]

I have an ati card that I use with the open source drivers perfectly fine in arch with 3D support. The proprietary ati driver is also available through the AUR and works great from what I hear.

As C!oud said, yes, ATI cards also work. Arch officially supports only the open-source driver for ATI cards. ATI's proprietary Catalyst driver can be found in the Arch User Repository (AUR).

See: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ATI

I am using the open source driver as well. The driver IS set for accelerated graphics and for the longest time I thought I had 3D support. But I am finding that for applications that request 3D accelerated graphics, the OpenGL tab is NOT available. So It would appear that I don't have 3D support.

Normally in the past I heard that the proprietary drivers for ATI leave much to be desired. I will check that one out through AUR (what is that anyway). IF and ONLY IF it will not screw up my system.

Thanx,
Geo

[SomeGuyDude]

It bears repeating:

1) I don't want GNOME/KDE/whatever by default. I want to decide what goes on my system. Having to download/burn a new ISO if I want to just go straight XFCE on a new install is a PITA.

2) Rolling release is nice. No worry about "will everything break in the next version?"

3) The AUR is godly.

4) Seriously, I haven't had to fix anything since an Xorg break almost a year ago.

[Tibuda]

It bears repeating:

1) I don't want GNOME/KDE/whatever by default. I want to decide what goes on my system. Having to download/burn a new ISO if I want to just go straight XFCE on a new install is a PITA.

2) Rolling release is nice. No worry about "will everything break in the next version?"

3) The AUR is godly.

4) Seriously, I haven't had to fix anything since an Xorg break almost a year ago.

All your points are valid, except the first. There's a Ubuntu minimal CD that only install a terminal system. I think the only app in Ubuntu minimal not installed by default in Arch is sudo, as Ubuntu don't have a root account. EDIT: and apt-get instead of pacman.

[jukingeo]

Ok, next question,

In terms of repositories, what does Arch have access to? In other words could I run Jack, Ardour, Cinelerra, Audacity...etc?

Thanx,

Geo

[Dharmachakra]

Ok, next question,

In terms of repositories, what does Arch have access to? In other words could I run Jack, Ardour, Cinelerra, Audacity...etc?

Thanx,

Geo

Cinelerra is in the 'Community' repository, the others are in 'Extra'. You can search the repositories from the Arch website in case you're wondering about other packages.

[snowpine]

Ok, next question,

In terms of repositories, what does Arch have access to? In other words could I run Jack, Ardour, Cinelerra, Audacity...etc?

Thanx,

Geo

No, those packages are not part of Arch; you would have to compile from source (which you can download from the app's home page). Arch is very "minimalistic" and provides only the basic command line interface.

[C!oud]

No, those packages are not part of Arch; you would have to compile from source (which you can download from the app's home page). Arch is very "minimalistic" and provides only the basic command line interface.

Where are you getting that from?! That's totally not true. I suggest you have a look at http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q= :roll:

[snowpine]

Where are you getting that from?! That's totally not true. I suggest you have a look at http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q= :roll:

Woah, cool! Last time I tried to install Arch, all I got was a command line prompt; I couldn't even see the wobbly windows. Glad they fixed that problem since last time... I will have to give it another try. ;)

[SomeGuyDude]

All your points are valid, except the first. There's a Ubuntu minimal CD that only install a terminal system. I think the only app in Ubuntu minimal not installed by default in Arch is sudo, as Ubuntu don't have a root account. EDIT: and apt-get instead of pacman.

Ah yes, I forgot about the minimal install. I don't know a lot about it, but is it as thorough as Arch? Does it give you as much control?

[snowpine]

Ah yes, I forgot about the minimal install. I don't know a lot about it, but is it as thorough as Arch? Does it give you as much control?

It "just works" in the same way a regular Ubuntu install just works. You don't have to mess around with the config files in /etc like you do in Arch. I am a big fan of both, for different reasons. :)

[SomeGuyDude]

It "just works" in the same way a regular Ubuntu install just works. You don't have to mess around with the config files in /etc like you do in Arch. I am a big fan of both, for different reasons. :)

Well that ain't bad either. My main point there was that you can put in whatever YOU want, and nothing else. So I suppose the minimal install works as well.

[snowpine]

Well that ain't bad either. My main point there was that you can put in whatever YOU want, and nothing else. So I suppose the minimal install works as well.

Give it a try in VirtualBox if you're at all curious. :) I've made some fun Ubuntu minimal + lightweight windows manager experiments in the past.

ps if you've ever done a minimal Debian install, it's pretty much the same.

[SomeGuyDude]

Oh I can't give up my precious Arch. I'm too much of an AUR/ABS addict. I don't think I could ever go back to having to add repos and all that stuff again.

[Barrucadu]

Woah, cool! Last time I tried to install Arch, all I got was a command line prompt; I couldn't even see the wobbly windows. Glad they fixed that problem since last time... I will have to give it another try. ;)

It's meant to be like that :P

[jukingeo]

Where are you getting that from?! That's totally not true. I suggest you have a look at http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q= :roll:

NICE! Looks like it has quite a bit! It looks like the well known stuff is there, Jack, Ardour, Cinelerra, Gimp, but some stuff I use such as VLC (VideoLAN Player), is not there. I guess something like this would have to be compiled then.

I will say though overall, this is interesting me.

Now there was mention that Arch is mostly a terminal based interface, so you run everything from the terminal. Does Arch also have a 'slimline' gui interface as well?

Thanx,
Geo

[SomeGuyDude]

NICE! Looks like it has quite a bit! It looks like the well known stuff is there, Jack, Ardour, Cinelerra, Gimp, but some stuff I use such as VLC (VideoLAN Player), is not there. I guess something like this would have to be compiled then.

Um. You mean THIS VLC?

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&arch=&repo=&q=vlc&last_update=&limit=50

All you had to do was punch in "vlc" in the search box and it showed up. I dunno what you did. :confused:

Plus, anything you can't find, hit up the AUR: http://aur.archlinux.org/

[RiceMonster]

Now there was mention that Arch is mostly a terminal based interface, so you run everything from the terminal. Does Arch also have a 'slimline' gui interface as well?

It starts off with just a terminal interface, but then you can add GNOME, KDE, Xfce or whatever you want. Remember, you have to set everything up yourself. If that's not what you want to do, then Arch won't suit you.

[Tibuda]

Ah yes, I forgot about the minimal install. I don't know a lot about it, but is it as thorough as Arch? Does it give you as much control?

Apt installs recommended (not required) packages by default, but if you use the -R (or --without-recommends) option you have more control over what is installed.

[kelvin spratt]

Originally Posted by jukingeo http://ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8055636#post8055636)
Now there was mention that Arch is mostly a terminal based interface, so you run everything from the terminal. Does Arch also have a 'slimline' gui interface as well?

Yes it does if thats what you want t Shamam, is the gui package manager,
To do updates you should always use, # pacman -Syu. most other things its your choice if you want to install a gui if available or use command line.

[jukingeo]

It starts off with just a terminal interface, but then you can add GNOME, KDE, Xfce or whatever you want. Remember, you have to set everything up yourself. If that's not what you want to do, then Arch won't suit you.


Oh, Ok, sounds good.

I don't mind working at something to get it going PROVIDED that clear instructions are given. What I can't stand is when I take the time to read an installation procedure and then it doesn't work right. For example last night I tried to load up qjoypad (a joystick to keypress utility) and I followed the the installation instructions to the letter and it didn't work. I got an error right away. In another prior instance I wanted to set up a 'proven' ALSA sound device and I followed the procedure on the ALSA site to install the item and low and behold, it didn't work. I bought the item off Ebay especially because it was said to work. The instructions were very poor and so was the support by the driver's creator. So that is one thing that does tick me off with Linux, is that for some things, there is a lack of straightforward instructions.

If Arch has excellent documentation and support, then yeah, I don't mind doing the work. However, I just DONT want to sit for weeks on end trying to get a sound card to work with Jack to no avail, if you know what I mean.

Thanx,
Geo