Ubuntu? No more.

[fwojciec]

Meh...sounds like a sticky mess of a pain in the *** really. If I wanted to do that I would just install an Ubuntu server and add on x + blackbox or something. That's fast too.

If you're looking for something that's easy "just works"-style and gui-oriented then Arch is definitely not a good choice. As far as performance and customizability are concerned, however, Ubuntu server installation is merely a half measure compared to what Arch brings to the table. Also, once it is set up, Arch requires next to no maintenance and since it is a rolling release distro it has no upgrades every 6 months -- so in a way it is distros like *buntu that can seem like "a pain in the ***" for those who have become accustomed to the Arch way of doing things

It all depends on what you prefer, in the end...

K.Mandla has written an nice post discussing the relative virtues of Arch and Ubuntu on his blog -- have a look if you're interested.

[Ripfox]

Like I said, thanks for the info but, yeah Hardy is for me.

[Rumor]

Pardon the ignorance...what is Arch built on?

It isn't. Arch is an independently developed Linux distro.

[jseiser]

ubuntu server + blackbox would be as slow as arch with kdemod.

[Rumor]

Meh...sounds like a sticky mess of a pain in the *** really.

Not really. It sounds like the Arch Way of doing things

If I wanted to do that I would just install an Ubuntu server and add on x + blackbox or something. That's fast too.

That wouldn't really be the same. An Ubuntu Server install will have given you some packages that a base install of Arch will not have given you. Since it is a server install, it assumes you want the server packages. Arch does not make any assumptions of what you want to do with your system. It lets you choose what you want to install, what you want to run at start-up and so on.

Arch is what you make it.

[steveneddy]

Besides package management, what are the main advantages of arch over a distro like Ubuntu?

I would like to run OPENSuse or Fedora, but the community lacks something that I have here.

I finally have things running well on Ubuntu and have stopped upgrading so nothing breaks.

Relaibility, stability and everything working, every time, is my bottom line.

I don't have time for constant tweaks and repairing something that "broke" in an "upgrade".

Would arch make any of these issues better, or is it a "tweakers" OS?

[fwojciec]

I finally have things running well on Ubuntu and have stopped upgrading so nothing breaks.

I think it's unlikely that you would enjoy Arch -- Arch could not be used the way you choose to use Ubuntu, it pretty much requires that you update it on regular (as in daily) basis.

[deepclutch]

Anyone using pulseaudio server on Archlinux?especially on kdemod?
Howz it?any outstanding bugs-with flashplugin etc?
//offtopic-sry!

[mips]

Would arch make any of these issues better, or is it a "tweakers" OS?

Weird thing is when I had ubuntu I was always tweaking it, with arch I have not done ANY tweaking since initial setup. It is actually the distro with the least tweaking I have come across so far.

Being a 'build your own distro' I though it would be the other way round and one would be constantly tweaking stuff.

[Rumor]

Besides package management, what are the main advantages of arch over a distro like Ubuntu?

I would like to run OPENSuse or Fedora, but the community lacks something that I have here.

I finally have things running well on Ubuntu and have stopped upgrading so nothing breaks.

Relaibility, stability and everything working, every time, is my bottom line.

I don't have time for constant tweaks and repairing something that "broke" in an "upgrade".

Would arch make any of these issues better, or is it a "tweakers" OS?

While Arch is a tweaker's OS, I can echo Mips' comment that I have not tweaked it beyond the initial install. Once it is set up the way I want, there is no need.

The reason I emphasized a part of your post is that this was one of the reasons I left Ubuntu. Every time there was an update to the restricted headers, my nVidia drivers would not work and X broke for me. It was frustrating to the point that I decided to try something else.

I know there have been X issues with Arch for some users, but for me, pacman has not let a conflict between my nvidia package and the Arch kernel break my system. Each time there has been a conflict where pacman has said nothing was upgraded because it would have caused a problem, I've been able to upgrade just the kernel and my nvidia drivers from the command line and then go on without any issues.

For me, Arch updates have been seamless. For me, nothing has broken. I've found it more stable than Ubuntu, though it may very well be that I now know more about how Linux and its related bits and pieces work than I did when I was running Ubuntu.