Is Arch Linux for you?

[kevinmchapman]

I did install Arch once a few years back to see what all the fuss was about. After about 3 hours I looked up at my screen and saw that I had set it up to look and behave exactly like I had Ubuntu set up. There was no discernable difference when going about my normal daily stuff.

So what was the point of those 3 hours ?

Take your pick:

"you believe an operating system should configure itself, run out of the box, and include a complete default set of software and desktop environment on the installation media."

"you are happy with your current OS."

"you want an OS that targets a different userbase."

[vasa1]

If you can read, you can use Arch. It does take more time to set up than Ubuntu, but generally seems to ....

allow Arch users plenty time to hang around on the Ubuntu Forums
But many of the Arch wikis are really well put together.

[2F4U]

There were five releases every month, and who knows what they'd come up next.

Why don't you stop posting false claims, if you don't understand the concept behind Archlinux?

Regular ISO snapshots are planned on a monthly basis.

From:
https://www.archlinux.org/news/insta...0715-released/


I am just realizing that this provides you each month with the opportunity to post your wrong assumptions. However, this is probably easier than trying to understand the concept.

Existing Arch Users

If you are an existing Arch user, there is no need to download a new ISO to update your existing system. You may be looking for an updated mirrorlist instead.

From:
https://www.archlinux.org/download/

[COMECON]

Why don't you stop posting false claims, if you don't understand the concept behind Archlinux?



From:
https://www.archlinux.org/news/insta...0715-released/


I am just realizing that this provides you each month with the opportunity to post your wrong assumptions. However, this is probably easier than trying to understand the concept.



From:
https://www.archlinux.org/download/

Yep... ArchLinux ISO's (like 2012.11.02 for example) are just a snapshot of the package repository on this day... So, if you installed Arch with the "2012.12.02" (I don't know if it exists or not) and you do pacman -Syu the 2/11/2012, you'll have exactly the same than a user who has installed with 2012.11.02 ISO... The only point what may change is the installer, but of course it doesn't affect an existing user as he has installed Arch already

[Aaron Christianson]

allow Arch users plenty time to hang around on the Ubuntu Forums
But many of the Arch wikis are really well put together.

I use and enjoy both >8^p. I dual boot between Arch and 12.04 on this laptop.

[Aaron Christianson]

I did install Arch once a few years back to see what all the fuss was about. After about 3 hours I looked up at my screen and saw that I had set it up to look and behave exactly like I had Ubuntu set up. There was no discernable difference when going about my normal daily stuff.

So what was the point of those 3 hours ?

Depends on your situation. Possibilities include:

* you want new software as soon as it is released upstream
* you want access to more obscure software projects via your package manager(if it's out there, it's in the AUR)
* you want no-hassle installation of weird drivers (AUR, again)
* you are interested in optimizing your system and cutting down services you don't use (also possible in Ubuntu, but is the "default behavior" of Arch, though not to the extent that it is in Gentoo)

If you are not interested in any of that, then there was no point to those three hours.

You can learn a lot by installing your Ubuntu from the mini.iso, not just installing that or this desktop. The other thing is that the Ubuntu applications are very sure, while Arch ones might break as the Arch devs might do something "strange" waking up.

There were five releases every month, and who knows what they'd come up next.

Not every distro maker installs Arch from scratch, for example, Bridge Linux was worked off Archbang...

eh... nothing your saying is really making any sense. Arch applications do not break. They only put out release-quality software. Software upgrades may break compatibility with older versions, but that is an upstream issue. If it causes a serious problem, they always post about it on the front page of their website, and the fix usually takes five minutes (the switch to systemd being the exception, but it had to be done, and Arch users can handle it with minimal whining, for the most part; whereas half of ubuntu users scream and cry if you move a button).

[NikTh]

Well, for me , Arch Linux is a learning course. I describe Arch Wiki like the Ultimate Linux Learning resource.
For me it was and it will be a learning course. I've learned recently about systemd , how to write my own services ..etc. Yes , Arch Linux needs reading all the time.

The bleeding edge thing... hmm is a bit dangerous, yes. I use Arch with LXDE and I haven't any particular problems , but when I used gnome.. hah! .. desktop was breaking almost at every update (I'm speaking especially for themes , Gnome 3.6.3).

Ubuntu can be a learning course also , if you install only the core (mini.iso).
You can build the Environment as you want , with the packages you want , but the difference between Arch Linux and Ubuntu is that Arch Linux has not even the packages which on Ubuntu are considered as standard . eg: bash-completion , sudo.

Arch Linux is my alternate distribution
but of course Ubuntu will remain my main OS ( I believe that is more stable)

[sffvba[e0rt]

I have done the Arch thing a few times and as has been stated, the wiki is awesome.

It isn't for me however, but more power to those that choose it


404

[mips]

Seems there's some bashing going on here. If you need a press and click distro to install then go for it but don't bash Arch for what it is because you lack in skills.

Some might say you can do the same install using the ubuntu minimal install iso image but that is simply not true imho. Yes I've tried them all.

[Aaron Christianson]

The bleeding edge thing... hmm is a bit dangerous, yes.

"Dangerous" is quite relative. The worst that usually happens is you might loose the ability to use X until you do something about it (usually something that takes a couple of minutes).

Arch isn't any more likely to cause data loss than any other system. Indeed, if anything, the constant updates to kernel and disk utilities mean your data is always as safe as possible, not to mention that, if you follow the beginners wiki, you have an independent /home partition, which is much better for preserving data than using a single partition (though it is a slightly less efficient use of space).

Arch doesn't shield users from upstream changes like Ubuntu does, but it doesn't hang you out to dry either.