PDA

View Full Version : Arch Linux User Retention Rate



aaaantoine
September 22nd, 2008, 04:30 PM
The poll is for anyone who has ever tried Arch. Are you still using it?

If not, please explain:
1. Why not?
2. What distro are you currently using instead?

If you have not used Arch Linux at all, please do not submit a poll response. Thank you.

miggols99
September 22nd, 2008, 04:34 PM
I used to love Arch, but now I don't like it because of the instability. I got hard lockups with it which are completely unacceptable. Whether I'm running KDE or Openbox, they just always seemed to happen. Right now I leaning towards Ubuntu/Debian.

cookieofdoom
September 22nd, 2008, 04:46 PM
The poll is for anyone who has ever tried Arch. Are you still using it?

If not, please explain:
1. Why not?
2. What distro are you currently using instead?

If you have not used Arch Linux at all, please do not submit a poll response. Thank you.

I've used Arch, and I love it. Unfortunately there are a couple of things that keep me from using it. One is the size of the repositories, there are quite a few apps that I use frequently that are not in the repos. I'm really entirely too lazy to compile them myself. The other is that Standby support seems a bit broken on my laptop, I fiddled with it for a bit. I think it was an ACPI thing.

I went back to Ubuntu because it's almost impossible to find a piece of software that is not already in the Ubuntu repos (except really, really new stuff... and even then you can probably find a repo that will add it), and because everything just works.

I find I miss how fast Arch was/is, and I will likely continue to try it every once and a while when I get bored with Ubuntu.

Alasdair
September 22nd, 2008, 04:47 PM
I used Arch for a while, but it was too unstable. I got kernel panics at least once a day. I think it was caused by the hwdetect script choosing really buggy drivers.

If it was more stable I would use it over Ubuntu though.

Dr Small
September 22nd, 2008, 04:48 PM
I have used Arch for a few months, and love it. I only ever had one problem when upgrading, but that wasn't enough to make me switch! I find Arch very stable, and I have all the latest software right at my fingertips :)

ukripper
September 22nd, 2008, 04:50 PM
Was trying Arch but went sidux!

kevinmchapman
September 22nd, 2008, 04:52 PM
Just to give the other side, I still love Arch after 6 months. For me it has been utterly stable. I have had only two real problems with updates - one because I did not follow the instructions properly, and the other a dependency problem, solved by reverting to a previous version.

I have just updated one machine after 6 months of not being connected to the internet, running XFCE, Openbox and E17. 400MB, 319 packages (including a kernel and all the WMs/DEs) and 6 .conf.new config files to change. After the update replaced almost everything, I only needed to reset one volume channel, reapply the Entrance theme and make sure the RT73USB wireless module was loaded.

I don't count that as unstable. Wait until Intrepid comes out and keep an eye on the forums....

mips
September 22nd, 2008, 06:30 PM
Been using it for nine months now and have not used another distro since.

will1911a1
September 22nd, 2008, 06:30 PM
Been using Arch for quite a while now and I love it. It's weird for me to read about people have stability problems with it. Ubuntu was locking up once or twice a day on me which was a big part of the reason that I switched to Arch in the first place.

Arch has only ever locked up on me once and it's because I did something stupid.

Barrucadu
September 22nd, 2008, 06:51 PM
I've been using it exclusively since February and don't expect to change, ever. For me it's been completely stable, with the only problems that have occurred caused by me.

bonzodog
September 22nd, 2008, 06:55 PM
Confirmed Arch/Openbox user here. I love this distro, and its so fast and feels really light.
I am also of the personal opinion that pacman has surpassed apt as the most powerful package manager in any given distro. And like an earlier poster says, you try say, upgrading straight from dapper to hardy. Its an almost certain guarantee that the machine will be nigh unbootable, and would need a clean reinstall. Do an upgrade of the same time period in Arch, and it will barely notice it.

Arch is though, a considerable number of rungs up the Linux Experience ladder than ubuntu. A lot of its core users firmly believe that all your help exists in man pages and on the wiki, and if you ask for help, you are most likely going to get pointed to the appropriate wiki page or told to type "man <command>" in the terminal. You need to know your basics of the unix/linux file tree, and be very confident in the no-X console environment.

The beginners installation guide, for example, printed onto A4, is 49 pages long.

Not for those that want to click and go.

andrek
September 22nd, 2008, 06:57 PM
Using Arch since August and I'm in love with it. It just does everything I need.

regomodo
September 22nd, 2008, 07:03 PM
#

CJ56
September 22nd, 2008, 07:22 PM
I did use Arch for a while and liked it - the reasons I switched back to Ubuntu weren't really very pressing but they were, in no particular order

- pacman -Syu was downloading large quantities of stuff on an almost daily basis; as well as stuff I didn't immediately recognise. Well, okay, I guess it knows what it's doing, but I started to get nervous that one day in the latest 120Mb download would be something that would tank my system & I would then have to spend a good deal of time sorting it out

- It made me realise that interesting though it would be to explore GNU/Linux as a hobby, and Arch in particular, I really need it to just get on and work and not be a kind of chess challenge

- I was spending most of my time setting up Arch so that it looked pretty much like Ubuntu, so what was the point of trying to be different?

- And when I gave Ubuntu 8.04.1 a spin, it was really polished, did everything I wanted & I could install it almost with my eyes shut - whereas, installing Arch, you have to keep on the ball & if you have a slowish broadband connection (as I do) there's a lot of sitting around while packages download...which is a bit irksome. I also find that Ubuntu works almost as fast on my system as Arch did, so I don't miss the performance benefits

Er

I think that's it. Hope it makes sense...

Dr Small
September 22nd, 2008, 08:16 PM
- It made me realise that interesting though it would be to explore GNU/Linux as a hobby, and Arch in particular, I really need it to just get on and work and not be a kind of chess challenge

I love a good chess challenge :)

SomeGuyDude
September 22nd, 2008, 08:38 PM
I love a good chess challenge :)

Many do!

But a lot of us want to work and use Linux, not work ON Linux, you know? There's only so much of my day I want to spend editing this or that text file in order to get this and that working.

Dr Small
September 22nd, 2008, 08:45 PM
Many do!

But a lot of us want to work and use Linux, not work ON Linux, you know? There's only so much of my day I want to spend editing this or that text file in order to get this and that working.
Well, I rarely have to do this. Except from the initial setup where it may take me 2 hours of setting things up, tweaking it the way I want. After that, I seem to find bordom and want to work on Linux :D

L815
September 22nd, 2008, 08:47 PM
I have tried it, and like it very much BUT I don't use it anymore.

I just don't have the time to sit there and manually configure everything. When it comes to hardware, majority of people use the same drivers anyway, so I don't understand why they can't automate this a bit more.
Linux in general gives you the power to configure things, so those who can configure things in Ubuntu can easily do the same in Arch without having everything manually done.

Anyway these are just personal opinions. I am not trying to bring down Arch, I think it's a wonderful distro, I just wish it wasn't all manual so that I can actually get other things done instead of having to worry about why X isn't working because Y was configured improperly etc...

enlightenment now
September 22nd, 2008, 08:51 PM
Tried it, liked it but I am currently using OzOS.

I am very happy with OzOS don't have much desire to use anything else, except PC-BSD which I also use.

rsambuca
September 22nd, 2008, 09:03 PM
I installed it just over 2 months ago, and it is all I use now. I can't see myself switching to another distro any time soon, although I will continute to keep testing distros on spare partitions.

Why do I use it? Probably because I like to set things up myself. Pacman works well, no stability problems for me, and everything I could imagine is either in the repos or in the AUR.

Ub1476
September 22nd, 2008, 09:16 PM
Yes, I've used it, but not now. I got a new comp and just haven't had time to play geek yet. :)

Twitch6000
September 22nd, 2008, 09:26 PM
If not, please explain:
1. Why not?
2. What distro are you currently using instead?

1. I could never get internet nor a DE on it :(.
2. Look at my signature :p.

Tom--d
September 22nd, 2008, 09:26 PM
I've been using it for a few weeks and I love it!
Its been very stable for me.

And I can have all the lastest software :D
True, the repos are not as big but the AUR is just brilliant! I love PKGBUILD's :D

But one thing I've been meaning to ask. It takes up more room on my hard drive (not a problem) but I was wondering why, since Ubuntu took less with way more packages installed (like 500 more).

Thanks.

rsambuca
September 22nd, 2008, 09:34 PM
But one thing I've been meaning to ask. It takes up more room on my hard drive (not a problem) but I was wondering why, since Ubuntu took less with way more packages installed (like 500 more).

Thanks.

It should be smaller than ubuntu. My guess is you have a bunch of the old pkg files stored up. If your system is running well, then you can get rid of all of the old packages by running "pacman -Scc"

Tom--d
September 22nd, 2008, 09:35 PM
It should be smaller than ubuntu. My guess is you have a bunch of the old pkg files stored up. If your system is running well, then you can get rid of all of the old packages by running "pacman -Scc"

No, its not that. I run that everyday.
locales takes up a large amount tho.

ghindo
September 22nd, 2008, 09:56 PM
I tried Arch on my laptop very briefly. It ran a lot cooler and lighter on my laptop than Ubuntu did, but I couldn't get my wireless to work. I'm using Ubuntu Intrepid right now.

RiceMonster
September 22nd, 2008, 09:58 PM
I love arch because it's up to date (which is great because I'm really impatient), has a really good package manager, good repos, and once installed, it's only got what I want on it. I can see what people are talking about with stability, but I don't experience such problems. I found that Ubuntu was thousands more times unstable. Maybe that's because arch uses vanilla packages?


I've used Arch, and I love it. Unfortunately there are a couple of things that keep me from using it. One is the size of the repositories, there are quite a few apps that I use frequently that are not in the repos. I'm really entirely too lazy to compile them myself.

Like what? I've found everything I need in the repos. There were a couple (unimportant) packages that weren't in the repos, but they were in the aur.

Heinzelotto
September 22nd, 2008, 10:02 PM
using it since 5 months and and no intentions to switch to another distribution (why should i? :))

Toffeeapple
September 22nd, 2008, 10:24 PM
I started linux through Ubuntu.

There are three PC's in my house, front room that's now on arch my pc that's on arch and my kids room which is still on ubuntu, soon to change to arch when I upgrade it this weekend, reason being I feel that I have more control over what is happening with arch over Ubuntu.

I've not had any stability issues with either ubuntu or arch on any of my pc's, all home built, I love it, Linux that is : ) but Ubuntu is where it started for me : )

billgoldberg
September 22nd, 2008, 10:27 PM
Well, I used Arch in Virtual Box and didn't see any advantages for me.

My hardware is more than capable to handle Ubuntu so I don't need the speed advantages Arch has.

Plus the Ubuntu community and repo's are much bigger.

billgoldberg
September 22nd, 2008, 10:28 PM
I love arch because it's up to date (which is great because I'm really impatient), has a really good package manager, good repos, and once installed, it's only got what I want on it. I can see what people are talking about with stability, but I don't experience such problems. I found that Ubuntu was thousands more times unstable. Maybe that's because arch uses vanilla packages?



Like what? I've found everything I need in the repos. There were a couple (unimportant) packages that weren't in the repos, but they were in the aur.

The Ubuntu repos are a lot bigger. So pick on of those thousands of packages.

InfinityCircuit
September 22nd, 2008, 11:03 PM
I don't honestly understand how you could EVER prefer Arch over Debian. If you are going to go through the trouble of setting up your own system, you might as well use one that has a much larger package base, user base, and developer base, along with security support.

Also, Debian's infrastructure has clear advantages over Arch from the standpoint of the advanced user:
1.) Aptitude's smarter dependency resolution (multiple possible solutions are presented to the user).
2.) Aptitude's advanced search globbing (aptitude search ~nqt4~wlib~i, for instance), along with the full power of grep-dctrl, which can search through everything aptitude does and more.
3.) Triggers in newest dpkg
4.) equivs framework makes it simple to compile certain parts of your system from scratch and still use apt to install the rest.
5.) approx/apt-proxy/apt-cacher/apt-cacher-ng: all these programs let you maintain multiple machines off of one local server if you have low bandwidth.
6.) debbugs and bts.turmzimmer.net are far far far more advanced in terms of bts manipulation and tagging than Arch's setup.
7.) db.debian.org, alioth.debian.org: chroots of all supported architectures and releases available to all developers, along with vcs systems.
8.) cdbs, debhelper 7, traditions debhelper calls: all of these introduce tremendous flexibility into packaging.

Whiffle
September 22nd, 2008, 11:05 PM
Been using arch for a while now...I guess since May :-P

I like it because it runs great on my very much not new hardware, and I like having control. I switched my laptop back from Ubuntu to Arch last week, and it took me a grand total of about 2 hours from putting the CD in to having a working openbox desktop. Its not difficult and extremely straightforward once you learn how Arch works. All the packages I need can be found in the AUR or the repo, and I really like the rolling release idea. I have never had much luck with Ubuntu dist-upgrades, something always seems to screw up for me. Since its rolling release, I shouldn't have to deal with that. The arch wiki is top notch as well ( i don't even have an account on arch forums...haven't needed it ...)

zmjjmz
September 22nd, 2008, 11:09 PM
I still have it on the computer I installed it on.

gn2
September 22nd, 2008, 11:10 PM
Tried Arch out when looking for a replacement for Xubuntu 7.04 on an old laptop.
Stopped using Arch after three days of trying to get wireless working on the same wireless adapter that "just worked" in Ubuntu.
Replaced Arch on that laptop with Zenwalk.
Have new Core 2 Duo laptop, Ubuntu 8.04 "just works" and works fast enough for me, so no need to mess around with Arch.

rsambuca
September 22nd, 2008, 11:52 PM
I don't honestly understand how you could EVER prefer Arch over Debian. If you are going to go through the trouble of setting up your own system, you might as well use one that has a much larger package base, user base, and developer base, along with security support.

Also, Debian's infrastructure has clear advantages over Arch from the standpoint of the advanced user:
1.) Aptitude's smarter dependency resolution (multiple possible solutions are presented to the user).
2.) Aptitude's advanced search globbing (aptitude search ~nqt4~wlib~i, for instance), along with the full power of grep-dctrl, which can search through everything aptitude does and more.
3.) Triggers in newest dpkg
4.) equivs framework makes it simple to compile certain parts of your system from scratch and still use apt to install the rest.
5.) approx/apt-proxy/apt-cacher/apt-cacher-ng: all these programs let you maintain multiple machines off of one local server if you have low bandwidth.
6.) debbugs and bts.turmzimmer.net are far far far more advanced in terms of bts manipulation and tagging than Arch's setup.
7.) db.debian.org, alioth.debian.org: chroots of all supported architectures and releases available to all developers, along with vcs systems.
8.) cdbs, debhelper 7, traditions debhelper calls: all of these introduce tremendous flexibility into packaging.

I don't think I understood anything you really said here! :) Maybe if I did, I would prefer debian. In the end, though, if I don't require any of those features (I will assume you are correct for the sake of argument), then it doesn't really matter for my particular needs.

At the end of the day, we use what we choose, for our own reasons. For you to have such condescension and disdain for arch and its users seems more like trolling than anything else.

InfinityCircuit
September 22nd, 2008, 11:57 PM
At the end of the day, we use what we choose, for our own reasons. For you to have such condescension and disdain for arch and its users seems more like trolling than anything else.

I was only poking fun at those who categorically declare pacman to be superior to apt. I said "advanced users" before the list for a reason, since I understand that 99% of users have no use for most of the tools I just discussed.

:popcorn:

rsambuca
September 23rd, 2008, 12:14 AM
I was only poking fun at those who categorically declare pacman to be superior to apt. I said "advanced users" before the list for a reason, since I understand that 99% of users have no use for most of the tools I just discussed.

Then you probably should have said that in the first place. "Poking fun" in forums is too often just seen as trolling by others.

Dr Small
September 23rd, 2008, 12:47 AM
I was only poking fun at those who categorically declare pacman to be superior to apt. I said "advanced users" before the list for a reason, since I understand that 99% of users have no use for most of the tools I just discussed.

:popcorn:
pacman is far superior than apt, though...

K.Mandla
September 23rd, 2008, 01:36 AM
Tried it, loved it, use it daily or in spaces between Crux and Ubuntu.

Personally I find it a huge improvement over Ubuntu for anyone who wants to build a system of their own design. It's faster, cleaner and pacman wipes the floor with aptitude.

On the other hand, if you just want to pop in a CD and install, Ubuntu is probably a better choice. Arch is some-assembly-required, Ubuntu is an entire kit in a box.

Crux is two toothpicks and a pack of chewing gum. :D

cardinals_fan
September 23rd, 2008, 01:49 AM
I left. I don't like bleeding edge software - ever.

fwojciec
September 23rd, 2008, 01:54 AM
I've been using Arch for something like 1,5 years now. I've never had any problems with it.

ODF
September 23rd, 2008, 02:02 AM
I left. I don't like bleeding edge software - ever.

I use my computer from 8pm to 9h30pm, and like 3 hours for the whole weekend. Stability isn't important.

In my case arch is fine, challenging while learning. Computers aren't important in construction, so its only a hobby.

But I like better the Ubuntu community.

Dr Small
September 23rd, 2008, 02:18 AM
I left. I don't like bleeding edge software - ever.
Bleeding edge is your choice. I choose not to have the bleeding edge of things, and still run Arch.

Kingsley
September 23rd, 2008, 02:32 AM
I had Arch Linux installed for 2 weeks before I wiped it off my hard drive.

The concept of building your distribution up to suit your needs is cool, but it sucks when you can't figure out what your needs/wants are. So you end up with a distribution that feels like it's missing a lot of things under the hood that you can't put your finger on. I'm not sure if that'll make sense to anybody besides me...

Dr Small
September 23rd, 2008, 02:35 AM
I had Arch Linux installed for 2 weeks before I wiped it off my hard drive.

The concept of building your distribution up to suit your needs is cool, but it sucks when you can't figure out what your needs/wants are. So you end up with a distribution that feels like it's missing a lot of things under the hood that you can't put your finger on. I'm not sure if that'll make sense to anybody besides me...
Perhaps you should have read the very well documented Beginners Guide...
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide

cardinals_fan
September 23rd, 2008, 03:23 AM
Bleeding edge is your choice. I choose not to have the bleeding edge of things, and still run Arch.
I do like security updates.

Dr Small
September 23rd, 2008, 03:28 AM
I do like security updates.
And what are you insinuating by that comment?

cardinals_fan
September 23rd, 2008, 03:33 AM
And what are you insinuating by that comment?
In my experience with Arch, you can either:

a) download the latest upgrades with pacman, and use bleeding edge software

or

b) not download any updates, and receive no security patches or bug fixes

If there are other options, I'm happy to hear them.

Dr Small
September 23rd, 2008, 03:37 AM
In my experience with Arch, you can either:

a) download the latest upgrades with pacman, and use bleeding edge software

or

b) not download any updates, and receive no security patches or bug fixes

If there are other options, I'm happy to hear them.
Due to my bandwidth restrictions, and kernel26-2.6.16, I can't upgrade, so I don't. But if I hear of a security threat in let's say, OpenSSH or OpenSSL, the upgrade will be in the repository within days, and then I can run:

sudo pacman -S openssl

This will upgrade it.
Although this is probably not your idea of a 'security update', it gets the job done for me. Just because you don't upgrade doesn't mean you can't install software, or upgrade pre-existing software. This is my method, this is what I must use, and I still prefer it over any other bloated distro, just because this one is 'bleeding edge'.

For the most part, bleeding edge generally don't cause any problems. Besides, removing the [testing] repository, and you eliminate all of your 'bleeding edge'.

Dr Small

cardinals_fan
September 23rd, 2008, 03:39 AM
Due to my bandwidth restrictions, and kernel26-2.6.16, I can't upgrade, so I don't. But if I hear of a security threat in let's say, OpenSSH or OpenSSL, the upgrade will be in the repository within days, and then I can run:

sudo pacman -S openssl

This will upgrade it.
Although this is probably not your idea of a 'security update', it gets the job done for me. Just because you don't upgrade doesn't mean you can't install software, or upgrade pre-existing software. This is my method, this is what I must use, and I still prefer it over any other bloated distro, just because this one is 'bleeding edge'.

For the most part, bleeding edge generally don't cause any problems. Besides, removing the [testing] repository, and you eliminate all of your 'bleeding edge'.

Dr Small
I'm currently running Ubuntu Dapper Drake (6.06). Get the picture?

Thanks for the info anyway. If that's what works for you, enjoy.

Dr Small
September 23rd, 2008, 03:47 AM
I'm currently running Ubuntu Dapper Drake (6.06). Get the picture?

No. Not really. But I won't bother to pursue asking.

myusername
September 23rd, 2008, 03:49 AM
i have used it for about a month now. the only problem i ever had was with xorg after an update. and to this day i still don't know what happened

SomeGuyDude
September 23rd, 2008, 03:50 AM
I noticed a lot of people unable to get their Wireless working. Seems to be the big thing. I read the beginner's guide front to back, followed every step and read every word. No go. I also found myself in the odd position of not being able to make nm-applet even START. Supposedly installed, the damn thing wouldn't start. I know I could have gone without, but I like the thing, so don't tell me I should accept an application not functioning because there's a workaround.

Dr Small
September 23rd, 2008, 04:04 AM
I noticed a lot of people unable to get their Wireless working. Seems to be the big thing. I read the beginner's guide front to back, followed every step and read every word. No go. I also found myself in the odd position of not being able to make nm-applet even START. Supposedly installed, the damn thing wouldn't start. I know I could have gone without, but I like the thing, so don't tell me I should accept an application not functioning because there's a workaround.
Well, in my experience, I have found that dlink cards work very well with any distro. Mine worked well with every version of Ubuntu, and worked out of the box on Arch, once I configured it. I have only had one bad card, and it was a broadcom. Figures. It wouldn't even work on Ubuntu properly :S

RiceMonster
September 23rd, 2008, 04:10 AM
The first time I tried arch, my wireless would not work. The reason was I had to agree to the license for the intel drivers and either type "arch intel-wireless" when I booted the cd, or the intel wireless option could be added to /boot/grub/menu.lst (I did the first one). After that, wireless worked with no configuring. It's kind of odd that I had to do that, but that's fine.

Whiffle
September 23rd, 2008, 04:10 AM
Wireless works dandy for me on Arch right now, using *gasp* networkmanager + nm-applet+openbox. I do have an ipw2200 though, so I have it relatively easy. Just had to download the firmware really, the rest is pretty much automagic.

RiceMonster
September 23rd, 2008, 04:11 AM
I use wicd in openbox. Wicd >>> nm-applet IMO.

Whiffle
September 23rd, 2008, 04:12 AM
I used WICD for a while when nm-applet was not working with LEAP. It worked well, but right now nm-applet is working great and doesn't take as much fiddling around.

smartboyathome
September 23rd, 2008, 06:34 AM
I did use Arch, but then it broke and had to move my desktop due to my sister starting school, and I just haven't gotten back to installing it. Instead I have to use Windows for now. :(

namegame
September 23rd, 2008, 06:41 AM
I love the ideology behind Arch. I have installed it successfully and had a stable system. However, that was towards the end of my summer break from College and I needed something that I knew would work with absolutely no issues for an entire semester so I went back to Ubuntu. I really couldn't be bothered with installing everything I needed while school was going on.

My project for summer break this year is to get an Arch install to where I am completely satisfied with it, before school starts again.

regomodo
September 23rd, 2008, 06:49 AM
#

rsambuca
September 23rd, 2008, 07:03 AM
I couldn't see anything wrong with his post. Perfectly fair and (possibly) valid points. I'm guessing you're an arch user?

His shouting the word EVER was excessive and unnecessary. I use arch, ubuntu, gentoo, debian...

karellen
September 23rd, 2008, 07:36 AM
I've tried Arch but it wasn't my cup of tea. I don't have the patience anymore to lose my precious spare time tinkering and fiddling with an OS as I see no useful purpose in this (except learning how to edit configuration files). I'd rather fire an Ubuntu or Mandriva Live CD, install it and after 20 minutes I have a fully functional system ready to use

SupaSonic
September 23rd, 2008, 07:37 AM
Arch was ok, KDEMod was nice. But it was way too much trouble to set it up nicely. Then again, once set up it's probably a solid distro.

But I'll stick to Ubuntu.

kpkeerthi
September 23rd, 2008, 07:47 AM
I've been using it for about a year. It been solid, stable and fast and never required reinstallation.

Yes, the initial setup is time consuming but thats the fun part and you only have to do it once.

Kingsley
September 23rd, 2008, 10:51 PM
Perhaps you should have read the very well documented Beginners Guide...
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide
The things I had problems with were beyond the well documented beginners guide...

powerpleb
September 23rd, 2008, 11:20 PM
I use Arch. I find it a good way of learning GNU/Linux in general and it offers more control than most other distros.

Before it I was doing barebones installs of Debian then building on that, but I found the Arch process much simpler (when it comes to manually setting things up) and pacman is almost as good as apt.



Yes, the initial setup is time consuming but thats the fun part and you only have to do it once.
This is the case for me too. Once I spent an afternoon installing and tweaking it there was no need to do any more setting up really. It has worked fine ever since. I guess I may be lucky.

The one thing that does bug me about Arch is the unbranded version of Firefox it comes with. When I visit some sites they tell me my browser is not supported then provides a link to the Firefox page.

I could install the branded version but I am too lazy.

SomeGuyDude
September 24th, 2008, 12:03 AM
Well, in my experience, I have found that dlink cards work very well with any distro. Mine worked well with every version of Ubuntu, and worked out of the box on Arch, once I configured it. I have only had one bad card, and it was a broadcom. Figures. It wouldn't even work on Ubuntu properly :S

I use my internal card, forget what kind it is. All I know is on Ubuntu's LiveCD I can connect fine but after 2-3 days of pissing around in Arch I just couldn't get the thing to work. It'd ping fine, browser didn't register.

To me, wireless is THE thing to make sure your distro can do. I can forgive most things, because as long as I have my internet connection I can take my time and work through issues. But that's a dealbreaker.

Skorzen
September 24th, 2008, 12:51 AM
If you have not used Arch Linux at all, please do not submit a poll response. Thank you.

I won't.
Once upon a time, I tried to install it, but find it someway difficult.
Maybe someday I'll try it in a virtual machine with some books around.

gn2
September 24th, 2008, 12:57 AM
Well, in my experience, I have found that dlink cards work very well with any distro.

Mine was a D-Link DWL-650+ B4 which worked out of the box in Ubuntu 5.10, Xubuntu 6.06, 7.04 and 8.04 and Elive Gem, needed ndiswrapper in Zenwalk, but refused to play in Arch.

darweth
September 24th, 2008, 01:28 AM
Used Arch Linux for an 8 month period last year. (Never tried Feisty Fawn because of it). I generally loved Arch, but would frequently have problems with updates of crap. Okay... maybe not frequently, BUT the problem was with GNOME itself and there were many associated quirks, thus it seemed like it was pretty frequent. KDEMod ran smoothly the whole time I was with Arch, but I was never a regular KDE user.

I eventually decided that have supreme control over the box in an easy manner is not my cup of tea. I am pretty much a surfer, emailer, internet freak. Quick, simple, and convenient is more suited to my computing habits, and thus I went back to Ubuntu. Installs like a snap and requires little-to-no configuration for what I do. Beyond adding some PPAs and the like for updating software, everything is automatic. No configuring GROUPS or the like. Why do I need to be bothered with that?

RiceMonster
September 24th, 2008, 01:33 AM
Using GNOME on Arch seems odd to me, but that's just me. One of the ideas of it is to be lightweight. GNOME is not really the best example of it, but of course, it's not up to me to decide what someone else wants to do with Arch.

cardinals_fan
September 24th, 2008, 01:35 AM
Using GNOME on Arch seems odd to me, but that's just me.
Using GNOME seems odd to me, but that's just me.

Dr Small
September 24th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Using GNOME seems odd to me, but that's just me.
+1
GNOME is nothing but useless bloat that I don't need.

darweth
September 24th, 2008, 03:02 AM
Well, I also sampled OpenBox, but could never get along with it. The fact of the matter is anything else requires configuration and also more keyboard usage. I switched to Linux mainly for political reasons and openness, not efficiency. A mouse + GUI and GNOME (or KDE) like environment is what I want and I have no desire to change that. Surfing the web and alt-tabbing between Pidgin, IRC and Firefox seemed no more efficient or memorable on a lightweight window manager.

RiceMonster
September 24th, 2008, 03:29 AM
Using GNOME seems odd to me, but that's just me.

I don't like GNOME either :).

sujoy
September 24th, 2008, 03:39 AM
My exprience with Arch has been nothing but great. I am not hopping distros again anytime soon, it has been almost a year now.

openbox, awesome, xmonad, stumpwm, KDE4 ... everything works great

powerpleb
September 24th, 2008, 04:02 AM
Using GNOME on Arch seems odd to me, but that's just me. One of the ideas of it is to be lightweight. GNOME is not really the best example of it, but of course, it's not up to me to decide what someone else wants to do with Arch.

From my experience, ie on my laptop. GNOME/Arch runs about the equivalent speed of Xubuntu, which is fine by me... It's a new laptop, it can cope. I have Fluxbox available too, but never find myself using it.

zachtib
September 24th, 2008, 04:07 AM
The poll is for anyone who has ever tried Arch. Are you still using it?

If not, please explain:
1. Why not?
2. What distro are you currently using instead?

If you have not used Arch Linux at all, please do not submit a poll response. Thank you.

I've played with it in the past, but at this point, I need my Linux to work OOTB as much as possible, so I stick with Ubuntu.

DoktorSeven
September 24th, 2008, 06:34 AM
I am loving Arch and have used it for a while now. Definitely not something you'd want to use if you were new or inexperienced with GNU/Linux, but it's certainly nice when you know what's going on.

kagashe
September 24th, 2008, 07:09 AM
Yes and No.

I have installed it just two days ago. Installed LXDE used it for two days. Found it too light. Installed Gnome.

Now I am going back to Ubuntu and Debian Lenny just to see why and where Arch is so light.

Being rolling distribution I am going to keep it anyway.

kagashe

aaaantoine
September 24th, 2008, 01:57 PM
Thank you, everyone, for your responses. I think I have a good feel for whether or not I should try Arch myself.

The short answer: No, because my laptop has Broadcom wifi. :(

The slightly clarified answer: It sounds like I'm going to need a few days to set it up, and I need to keep my laptop ready to work at any time. Also, I don't particularly miss the dance I had to do with fwcutter in Feisty. I'd try it in VirtualBox, but virtualization will only show me some of the hurdles I'll have to handle (and possibly create artificial new ones, as I think it did with Gentoo).

If I ever get a desktop computer again I will definitely check it out, though.

Dr Small
September 24th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Thank you, everyone, for your responses. I think I have a good feel for whether or not I should try Arch myself.

The short answer: No, because my laptop has Broadcom wifi. :(

The slightly clarified answer: It sounds like I'm going to need a few days to set it up, and I need to keep my laptop ready to work at any time. Also, I don't particularly miss the dance I had to do with fwcutter in Feisty. I'd try it in VirtualBox, but virtualization will only show me some of the hurdles I'll have to handle (and possibly create artificial new ones, as I think it did with Gentoo).

If I ever get a desktop computer again I will definitely check it out, though.
My suggestion to you is, buy a Dlink card ('tis what I did for our laptop that had a broadcom card and didn't work well with Ubuntu). The first time you setup ArchLinux, it may take a day to completely get things where you want it, tweaked how you like it, and totally have the thing working. But the second and third time after that, it will only take you an hour to do all that took you a day before, because you will be breezing around, like it's second nature.

You can istall it in VirtualBox, get to know the installer, and play with it. Don't just install it and let it set at the command line. Read the Beginners Guide, and tackle on making it a usable system (if you have the time/bandwidth to do so) by your standards.

Arch is one of the simplest distros I have ever used. KISS philosophy, Keep It Simple, Stupid. In the end, you will have one of the fastest boot/shutdown times, fastest operable system. Unless Arch breaks and I can never fix it (which doesn't look likely), I will never be moving back to the likes of Debian based.

odiseo77
September 24th, 2008, 04:11 PM
The poll is for anyone who has ever tried Arch. Are you still using it?

If not, please explain:
1. Why not?
2. What distro are you currently using instead?

If you have not used Arch Linux at all, please do not submit a poll response. Thank you.

I "discovered" it and installed it some months ago (maybe last year, I'm not sure). I liked it a lot (and I still like it); all the flexibility and customization, and the fun I had when installing it and setting it up the way I liked. I still have it installed in my HDD, but it's been a long while since I don't boot it. Some upgrades made it behave weird (eg. I had to configure my keyboard every time I booted it, and other annoying things). I could have put some little effort on solving these issues, but I was lazy and busy with other stuff. Also, I probably did something wrong too, I'm not sure.

I'm still interested in Arch and I'm planning of reinstalling it and continue to learning it, but at the moment, I'm using Debian Lenny because it works fine for me most of the time, and because I'm kind of tired of installing lots of distros on my PC, booting a different one every new day, etc. So, I will probably reinstall Arch and only keep Arch and Debian on my PC (among all the distros I've tried, these are the ones I've liked the most).

antiloop
September 24th, 2008, 05:58 PM
I use Slackware now because it just works.

Pacman screwed up my system last time I used Arch and I don't want to start over again.

notwen
September 24th, 2008, 06:02 PM
I installed it(dontpanic) on my tinker box and used it actively for a month or two, having no problems. Alas, I'm a apt-addict and have re-installed Lenny. Arch is a solid & speedy distro, but I guess I'm so used to Debian/Ubuntu I don't ever see myself using much else other than for plain tinkering. I'm sure I'll try it every major release. =]

aaaantoine
September 24th, 2008, 06:10 PM
My suggestion to you is, buy a Dlink card.I'm not quite ready to spend money in this fashion. And if I do, I'll see if I can replace the internal module first.


You can install it in VirtualBox, get to know the installer, and play with it. Don't just install it and let it set at the command line. Read the Beginners Guide, and tackle on making it a usable system (if you have the time/bandwidth to do so) by your standards.You're right. Trying this will at least give me an idea as to how the Arch installation process goes. When I have some time I'll try it out.

chucky chuckaluck
September 24th, 2008, 07:29 PM
after installing arch the first time, i came back to ubuntu for about three days. too slow, too much junk, etc. went back to arch. arch suits me. i don't like extra crap. i'm thinking about reinstalling and customizing the file system a little more (whatever tf that means). i used xfs the first time and am using reiser now. it's wicked fast in some things and oddly slow in others, so i need to fix that. in between, i'm thinking about trying slackware and one of the bsd's.



I'm currently running Ubuntu Dapper Drake (6.06). Get the picture?

i still have a couple of copies of hardy. pm me your address if you want one.

Rumor
September 24th, 2008, 09:30 PM
I've been using Arch for a little over two years. It has been rock solid for me. I will likely stay with it for a good long time to come.

Pacman, AUR ABS - I can't think of a package I need that cannot be had with the tools Arch gives you.
Community - The Arch community is a good bunch of folks, Friendly, knowledgeable and helpful.
Rolling release - install once. 'nuff said.

In the end, Arch is what you make it.

tbroderick
September 24th, 2008, 10:12 PM
1. Why not?

Used it a few years back. Left cause of poor console Unicode support. No dedicated security notifications. As well as various packaging issues.


2. What distro are you currently using instead?

Hardy with KDE 4.1.

sub2007
September 24th, 2008, 10:23 PM
I switched just over 2 months ago and have never looked back. I can't see anything ever making me want to leave it, there's too much I love about it! I have to say that I didn't expect that I would love it so much and also how quickly I fell in love with it! Almost from the second I switched I started to love it because you can instantly start to see how good it is.

And I find it no less stable than Ubuntu. In fact if anything I've had less crashes in Arch than I did in Ubuntu.

gabhla
September 24th, 2008, 10:30 PM
I got into Arch about long enough to figure out I didn't want any part of it. Had no intention of spending so much time tinkering about. Instead went with sidux and love it.

derekr44
September 24th, 2008, 10:33 PM
Love Arch. I switched over to it after wanting to run Linux with my own software options and haven't turned back. My only problem was a bad Vesa driver update due to the way my Toshiba Satellite is built, no fault to Arch.

Ubuntu was getting a little too "heavy", so I wanted to make my own.

darweth
September 24th, 2008, 10:39 PM
To conclude:

If you like control over everything (and the effects of quicker boot time due to less processes, slightly faster operation, etc), KISS, care about web design (Arch Linux website is pure perfection in style), perhaps enjoying a rolling system... then Arch is for you.

If you like out of the box universality, can easily ignore bloat (and the side effects like chug chug and so on), don't care that Arch has one of the best looking sites on the net, and could care less about rolling... Ubuntu will do.

I happen to fall into #2!

Dr Small
September 24th, 2008, 10:43 PM
i switched just over 2 months ago and have never looked back. I can't see anything ever making me want to leave it, there's too much i love about it! I have to say that i didn't expect that i would love it so much and also how quickly i fell in love with it! Almost from the second i switched i started to love it because you can instantly start to see how good it is.

And i find it no less stable than ubuntu. In fact if anything i've had less crashes in arch than i did in ubuntu.


love arch. I switched over to it after wanting to run linux with my own software options and haven't turned back. My only problem was a bad vesa driver update due to the way my toshiba satellite is built, no fault to arch.

Ubuntu was getting a little too "heavy", so i wanted to make my own.
++1 :d

derekr44
September 24th, 2008, 10:54 PM
And I find it no less stable than Ubuntu. In fact if anything I've had less crashes in Arch than I did in Ubuntu.

Come to think of it, Arch has never crashed on me and I've never experienced a kernel panic with it.

cardinals_fan
September 25th, 2008, 04:34 AM
Well, I also sampled OpenBox, but could never get along with it. The fact of the matter is anything else requires configuration and also more keyboard usage. I switched to Linux mainly for political reasons and openness, not efficiency. A mouse + GUI and GNOME (or KDE) like environment is what I want and I have no desire to change that. Surfing the web and alt-tabbing between Pidgin, IRC and Firefox seemed no more efficient or memorable on a lightweight window manager.
I consider keyboard control a matter of, well, not exactly life and death. But it's still essential.


i still have a couple of copies of hardy. pm me your address if you want one.
I see your plan, you stalking pervert!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I've done a Hardy minimal install now, but Dapper was still, in my opinion, the best Ubuntu release.

justsomedude
September 25th, 2008, 05:11 AM
Switched to Arch about a year ago, I use it as my only operating system.

I only had one major problem so far, the recent kernel doesn't like my laptop much, so I have to use my own custom kernel. Which is actually easy to compile, because of the excellent build system.

If you're looking for a distro that gives you a fully equipped desktop with two clicks, Arch will not be your cup of tea. On the other hand, setting it up requires an afternoon. If I install Ubuntu, do all the updates, get rid of the software I don't need, install all the software I do need and configure everything the way I want, it takes about the same amount of time.

I like it.

powerpleb
September 25th, 2008, 09:53 AM
Come to think of it, Arch has never crashed on me and I've never experienced a kernel panic with it.

Me neither.

mips
September 25th, 2008, 10:52 AM
but Dapper was still, in my opinion, the best Ubuntu release.

That I have to agree with. Dapper was also the last ubuntu I used before looking elsewhere.

Eisenwinter
May 4th, 2009, 12:36 PM
I have been using Arch for the last 5 months.

itreius
May 4th, 2009, 12:46 PM
I've used Arch in the past, but I'm not using it any more. Still consider it my favourite distribution, though. :lolflag:
Reason why I'm not using it? For convenience's sake.
When I needed a reinstall (was messing around with my partitions, decided to give Mac OS a whirl, etc., reformatted everything in the end) I decided to go for Ubuntu, because I didn't have time to set up an Arch system. The system's working fine as it is, so I have no incentive on using Arch for the time being. :( (Edit: Not sure if the sad smiley was the right one :P)