kpkeerthi
November 6th, 2007, 04:29 AM
UBUNTU - This wonderful beginner friendly distro helped me get started with Linux and I've been using it for about 18 months. Though I wanted to switch to Linux back in 2004, I couldn't stick to it (SUSE) until I discovered Ubuntu. Thanks to Ubuntu and the community. I heard good things about Arch in the forums and blogs and last week was perfect to get my hands dirty with it as I had a bit of leisure time.
The basic Arch's philosophy is to keep things simple. That does not mean things would be easy with Arch which became clear as I began the installation process :)
I downloaded and burned the iso (~150 MB), freed up 30 GB on my hard disk and fired the installer. Though command line based, I found the installer to be fairly intuitive. I chose to install from CD rather than FTP as I wanted to get up and running fast. The CD contains 'core' packages, sufficient enough to get a basic linux system running.
Unlike ubuntu's installer, there is no 'Use largest contiguous free space' option to automatically install onto available free space. Partitioning should be done manually in Arch. I created root and swap partitions and filesystems using the 'cfdisk' utility supplied with the installer. At the end of the installation I chose to install GRUB to my boot partition (and not MBR). Then booted into Vista and used EasyBCD to set-up dual boot using Vista's Boot loader. I rebooted and kept my fingers crossed. Arch booted fine - A sign of relief for me.
One thing that I immediately noticed was that Arch booted quickly. I did not time it but it was apparently faster. The base system has no desktop environment. I added an user account for me and then as a root changed timezone, locale and host information in /etc/rc.conf. Most of the system-wide configuration like locale, hostname, IP, kernel modules, startup daemons, etc. is centrally stored in this file. Simple and elegant.
The installer automatically configured static IP for my interface. Though I didn't have to do this, I changed the config to use DHCP. Internet was quirky until I disabled IPv6.
Arch uses pacman for package management. I find pacman to be flexible, robust, fast, simple and takes care of managing dependencies well. Its command-line based (there is also an optional GUI to it) and is similar to aptitude/apt-get in ubuntu. Here is a comparison of the most commonly used commands:
aptitude update => pacman -Sy
aptitude dist-upgrade => pacman -Syu
aptitude (re)install <package> => pacman -S <package>
aptitude remove <package> => pacman -Rs <package>
aptitude purge <package> => pacman -Rsn <package>
aptitude search <keyword> => pacman -Ss <keyword>
aptitude clean => pacman -Scc
'pacman -Syu' (full system upgrade) was not responding at all. But I could ping to the repository server. pacman started working now, found a few updates and installed without a hitch. I still had to ping to the repository server every time I wanted to use pacman. Strange. I found that DNS was incorrectly configured in /etc/resolv.conf. It had my router's IP instead of my ISP provided DNS. I changed the file with proper nameserver values and configured dhcpcd not to overwrite resolv.conf on subsequent reboots. Ah.. fixed my pacman issue. The best part of pacman is that it can be configured to use download managers (like aria2, for example) to download packages from multiple mirrors simultaneously for faster downloads. Impressive. You can also prioritize your mirrors by editing the files in /etc/pacman.d/ folder.
Arch has Arch Build System (ABS). If you are familiar with Gentoo's portage, its similar to that. But for now I decided to stick with the binary repositores.
Now that I have a basic working system I also enabled 'community' repository and installed gnome, gdm, alsa, networkmanager, nvidia binary driver, compiz(-fusion), open office, firefox & plugins, brasero, mplayer, f-spot, banshee, conky, cpufreq-utils, bluetooth and a couple of packages to optimize font rendering on LCD - pretty much everything for my 'desktop' use. Unlike ubuntu, I had to configure most of the packages manually but thats how Arch has been designed to work. It took me a good 4 hours to get everything customized and configured to my liking. It was a good learning experience. It was fun to setup an Operating System starting off with just a kernel and then add only the packages that I need and use (much less bloat). I often referred to Gentoo's wiki wherever I needed help configuring a package. Arch's wiki was also useful but I advice beginners to exercise a little more care as they could be out-dated.
Things I like about Arch:
- Lean setup.
- i686 optimized and fast.
I know this is subjective. But Arch is definitely faster on my hardware compared to Ubuntu. Apps load faster and feel snappier. Firefox, Openoffice and Acrobat have never been as snappier and light as they are in Arch for me. These were the most sluggiest in Ubuntu for me.
- Rolling release cycle. 'pacman -Syu' keeps me up-to-date with the new releases of the packages. I do not have to download and burn another iso to upgrade.
- Rich official repositories.
While Arch is fast, customizable and lean, it probably will not appeal to you if you are a linux beginner. If you are willing to learn and have time, I suggest you give Arch a try. Every distribution is unique in its own way and what works for me may not for you. You are your best judge.
Have I completely switched over to Arch?
Not yet. So far I'm happy with Arch and I was successful in my first install. Arch tends to be more 'bleeding edge' as newer versions of packages are continuously added to the main repository as they are released. I'm not sure if that would ever break my setup. I think I'll wait for another few weeks and take a decision. So far its been stable for me.
- Have a nice day.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Checkout Arch installation screenshots here http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Install-Arch-Linux-59239.shtml
The Arch Philosophy http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
The basic Arch's philosophy is to keep things simple. That does not mean things would be easy with Arch which became clear as I began the installation process :)
I downloaded and burned the iso (~150 MB), freed up 30 GB on my hard disk and fired the installer. Though command line based, I found the installer to be fairly intuitive. I chose to install from CD rather than FTP as I wanted to get up and running fast. The CD contains 'core' packages, sufficient enough to get a basic linux system running.
Unlike ubuntu's installer, there is no 'Use largest contiguous free space' option to automatically install onto available free space. Partitioning should be done manually in Arch. I created root and swap partitions and filesystems using the 'cfdisk' utility supplied with the installer. At the end of the installation I chose to install GRUB to my boot partition (and not MBR). Then booted into Vista and used EasyBCD to set-up dual boot using Vista's Boot loader. I rebooted and kept my fingers crossed. Arch booted fine - A sign of relief for me.
One thing that I immediately noticed was that Arch booted quickly. I did not time it but it was apparently faster. The base system has no desktop environment. I added an user account for me and then as a root changed timezone, locale and host information in /etc/rc.conf. Most of the system-wide configuration like locale, hostname, IP, kernel modules, startup daemons, etc. is centrally stored in this file. Simple and elegant.
The installer automatically configured static IP for my interface. Though I didn't have to do this, I changed the config to use DHCP. Internet was quirky until I disabled IPv6.
Arch uses pacman for package management. I find pacman to be flexible, robust, fast, simple and takes care of managing dependencies well. Its command-line based (there is also an optional GUI to it) and is similar to aptitude/apt-get in ubuntu. Here is a comparison of the most commonly used commands:
aptitude update => pacman -Sy
aptitude dist-upgrade => pacman -Syu
aptitude (re)install <package> => pacman -S <package>
aptitude remove <package> => pacman -Rs <package>
aptitude purge <package> => pacman -Rsn <package>
aptitude search <keyword> => pacman -Ss <keyword>
aptitude clean => pacman -Scc
'pacman -Syu' (full system upgrade) was not responding at all. But I could ping to the repository server. pacman started working now, found a few updates and installed without a hitch. I still had to ping to the repository server every time I wanted to use pacman. Strange. I found that DNS was incorrectly configured in /etc/resolv.conf. It had my router's IP instead of my ISP provided DNS. I changed the file with proper nameserver values and configured dhcpcd not to overwrite resolv.conf on subsequent reboots. Ah.. fixed my pacman issue. The best part of pacman is that it can be configured to use download managers (like aria2, for example) to download packages from multiple mirrors simultaneously for faster downloads. Impressive. You can also prioritize your mirrors by editing the files in /etc/pacman.d/ folder.
Arch has Arch Build System (ABS). If you are familiar with Gentoo's portage, its similar to that. But for now I decided to stick with the binary repositores.
Now that I have a basic working system I also enabled 'community' repository and installed gnome, gdm, alsa, networkmanager, nvidia binary driver, compiz(-fusion), open office, firefox & plugins, brasero, mplayer, f-spot, banshee, conky, cpufreq-utils, bluetooth and a couple of packages to optimize font rendering on LCD - pretty much everything for my 'desktop' use. Unlike ubuntu, I had to configure most of the packages manually but thats how Arch has been designed to work. It took me a good 4 hours to get everything customized and configured to my liking. It was a good learning experience. It was fun to setup an Operating System starting off with just a kernel and then add only the packages that I need and use (much less bloat). I often referred to Gentoo's wiki wherever I needed help configuring a package. Arch's wiki was also useful but I advice beginners to exercise a little more care as they could be out-dated.
Things I like about Arch:
- Lean setup.
- i686 optimized and fast.
I know this is subjective. But Arch is definitely faster on my hardware compared to Ubuntu. Apps load faster and feel snappier. Firefox, Openoffice and Acrobat have never been as snappier and light as they are in Arch for me. These were the most sluggiest in Ubuntu for me.
- Rolling release cycle. 'pacman -Syu' keeps me up-to-date with the new releases of the packages. I do not have to download and burn another iso to upgrade.
- Rich official repositories.
While Arch is fast, customizable and lean, it probably will not appeal to you if you are a linux beginner. If you are willing to learn and have time, I suggest you give Arch a try. Every distribution is unique in its own way and what works for me may not for you. You are your best judge.
Have I completely switched over to Arch?
Not yet. So far I'm happy with Arch and I was successful in my first install. Arch tends to be more 'bleeding edge' as newer versions of packages are continuously added to the main repository as they are released. I'm not sure if that would ever break my setup. I think I'll wait for another few weeks and take a decision. So far its been stable for me.
- Have a nice day.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Checkout Arch installation screenshots here http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Install-Arch-Linux-59239.shtml
The Arch Philosophy http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way