Arch Users - Satisfied?

[samjh]

I installed Arch two days ago. I was very sceptical at first, because I don't trust rolling-release distros. :) But the installation process was quite smooth and system stability has been flawless so far, even with proprietary NVidia drivers, etc.

If you are an Arch user, are you satisfied with the Arch experience? If not an existing user, are you willing to give it a try in the near future?

[SuperSonic4]

I am very satisfied with Arch. Although I don't see how
pacman -S nvidia can be that hard :p

Arch + KDEmod blows away Kubuntu, I'm pretty much in love with pacman and the rolling release means I'm on the near cutting edge. I've even put arch on the craptop and it runs KDE 4.3 without much slowdown

[RiceMonster]

Very satisfied. It's pretty much exactly what I want. It feels a little cliche because it's so popular around here, but it's really the ideal distro for me.

[samjh]

LOL, Nvidia wasn't "hard". But I was expecting trouble, like X crashing, etc. I've had it happen on Ubuntu years ago.

[m_duck]

Likewise. I keep messing around with other distros but always end up back on Arch - nice and speedy, even on me eee.

[SuperSonic4]

Likewise. I keep messing around with other distros but always end up back on Arch - nice and speedy, even on me eee.

Yeah, I always end up installing arch then getting bored in a couple of weeks so trying something else but then always ending up back in arch because I can pick pretty much anything

[keiichidono]

I'm not sure what the hype around Arch is, is it really that nice? What's different between it and Ubuntu? (Besides being harder to config/install)

[RiceMonster]

I'm not sure what the hype around Arch is, is it really that nice? What's different between it and Ubuntu? (Besides being harder to config/install)

Different release model (rolling release), different package manager (better IMO), minimal install by default, BSD style init system and ports system, etc, etc

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

Anyway, sounds like you haven't tried it.

[Neheb]

Been thinking of trying it out, and probably will give it a shot in a few days when I am finished with most of the homework and exams. Kind of stupid to potentially make my work/school computer useless when I got a ton of stuff I need it for.

[Icehuck]

I'm using Arch and loving it. I like that I can make it minimal and ABS makes compiling and installing packages great.

[Polygon]

besides my printing not working, compiz not working, wireless not working, no graphical interface to pacman, and no easy way to search for a package in pacman (that does not require regex which i do not know), sure i'm satisfied.

and yes i've tried the wiki things for all of those.

[SuperSonic4]

Arch is less bloated, you can choose which DE, WM to have - or you can choose not to have any. Less programs are installed by default and I'm not sure about other DEs but KDEmod is very modular so you pick only what you like. I also found that using arch increased my knowledge of linux in general and now I feel comfortable editing fstab and other system files.

Plus I found arch to be faster and lower maintenance once installed. Be careful about what you upgrade and pacman -Syu every few days.

The AUR is fantastic, I hardly have to compile anything now - the AUR grabs dependencies and installs it for me - it's made plasmoids a lot easier

"different package manager (better IMO)" - couldn't agree more. Pacman is the best package manager I've used and shaman is an excellent front-end.

[samjh]

What's different between it and Ubuntu? (Besides being harder to config/install)

More resource efficient (right now, my system is on 409MB; Ubuntu would have exceeded 500MB).
User-configuration during installation means the user knows exactly what is running and how to configure it or fix it (if something goes wrong).
Rolling-release with very up-to-date packages (but not so up-to-date that it bleeds), along with roll-back ability. No need for regular distro upgrades every 6 to 12 months to stay abreast of new developments.


besides my printing not working, compiz not working, wireless not working, no graphical interface to pacman, and no easy way to search for a package in pacman (that does not require regex which i do not know), sure i'm satisfied.Have you tried the forums?

I'm running Gnome with Compiz at the moment. No worries here. Printing was a problem, but I managed to get it working after consulting the wiki, and I run a notoriously bad printer for Linux (Brother HL-1440). I don't use regex for Pacman searches... haven't needed to so far (just pacman -Ss whatever); but yes, a graphical interface would be handy.

[kerry_s]

i'm using arch on my laptop, but i'm thinking of moving it back to debian.
it runs fine and all, but debian just feels better, can't explain it.
also the repos are far better in debian, without extra work or worry about if it's going to work or not when you install something.

i'm currently doing a base expert install+xfce4 on my desktop, once thats working fine i'll probably do my laptop.

[PurposeOfReason]

I liked arch for what it was, easy and customizable. I just wanted something that was more customizable so along came gentoo.

[kk0sse54]

I love the Arch approach (well most of the time) but I'm pretty dissatisfied, as soon as school is out it's back to Gentoo for me

[albinootje]

no graphical interface to pacman,

There's at least one GUI for pacman, called shaman, I liked it when I used Arch Linux.

Finding the homepage of Shaman is a little hard, but here's more information with a screenshot :
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=46600

[SomeGuyDude]

If you don't want to use GNOME or KDE and prefer not using a graphical login, Arch is a godsend.

Also, the AUR is just amazing. Better than anything I've seen in any other distros. I remember having to hunt down the PPAs for every other repo I wanted for Ubuntu stuff, meanwhile in Arch I just need to install yaourt and I'm good to go.

[SuperSonic4]

There's at least one GUI for pacman, called shaman, I liked it when I used Arch Linux.

Finding the homepage of Shaman is a little hard, but here's more information with a screenshot :
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=46600

Shaman is part of the KDEmod repos and is developed by the Chakra team, it's homepage is here: http://chakra-project.org/tools-shaman.html

although it's not much of a homepage

[SuperSonic4]

If you don't want to use GNOME or KDE and prefer not using a graphical login, Arch is a godsend.

Also, the AUR is just amazing. Better than anything I've seen in any other distros. I remember having to hunt down the PPAs for every other repo I wanted for Ubuntu stuff, meanwhile in Arch I just need to install yaourt and I'm good to go.

Especially when you edit bashrc to make an alias so that yaourt becomes y :popcorn:

[ghindo]

I really disliked the 2008 Ubuntu releases, so I tried Arch for a month or so before moving onto 9.04. I definitely understand the appeal of Arch - high degree of customization, rolling release, strong documentation, good community. However, I really missed all of the automation which Ubuntu provided, and consequently moved back. 9.04 has proven to be a very strong release and as such, I'll probably stick with Ubuntu for a while longer.

[Xbehave]

had too many problems with arch and didn't see the atvantage over just customising debian to suit my needs.

p.s what makes ABS better than apt-get build-dep & PPA? i never really got that.

[SomeGuyDude]

It's simpler, for one.

Arch's AUR has made it so manually downloading source files is a thing of the past, not to mention it keeps track of everything for ya (updates and such). It becomes a snap.

[Xbehave]

It's simpler, for one.

Arch's AUR has made it so manually downloading source files is a thing of the past, not to mention it keeps track of everything for ya (updates and such). It becomes a snap.
but isn't that what build-dep does? AUR has a much nicer interface and is more widely used but isn't it essentially a way for users to upload sources for you to download and compile (which is the same as PPA only you can upload binaries to PPA's too)?

I'm not being funny or belittling AUR/arch its a powerful system but people keep talking about AUR like you cant do that on other distros :s

[jeffreyldavidson]

I ran Arch for a couple of months and enjoyed it somewhat but never saw that much of a speed difference. I ran Gnome and had no problem with my Nvidia graphics. I did get a little tired of always having to search out solutions to get things to work...ie Avant Navigator verses Ubuntu. Wireless was a bear to set up but finally got it going on my laptop...Dell 1420N. The biggest draw is the rolling release instead of the six month cycle. It is fun but also frustrating at times. So, I am back with Ubuntu for the time being but as they say will probable be back with Arch on day.

[chucky chuckaluck]

yup.i hate extra poo.

[Kareeser]

I tried it once. I followed the beginner's guide to the letter, but for some reason, I could never get GNOME to start up properly. Heck, I couldn't even get a basic X session with TWM working, and that's the basic test. I tried again on a VM, and ran into the same wall.

So I shrugged, assumed it was beyond me, and went back to 'buntu. Perhaps I'll try it again another time :)

[Skripka]

but isn't that what build-dep does? AUR has a much nicer interface and is more widely used but isn't it essentially a way for users to upload sources for you to download and compile (which is the same as PPA only you can upload binaries to PPA's too)?

I'm not being funny or belittling AUR/arch its a powerful system but people keep talking about AUR like you cant do that on other distros :s

Is there another linux distro that has source code available via repository, easily and quickly compiled into a package and installed by the user-as the user wants, that is further easily tracked for updates as a repository? I honestly don't know of another linux distro that does this short of all out compile-from-source only, or very off-the-beaten-path distros with small repositories.

All the source code I've grabbed off AUR can be checked for updates with a simple:


yaourt -Syu --aur


No surfing necessary to check for updates. Yaourt will also manage and dependency check, as Pacman would.

It is also all easily understood and transparent....unlike Apt.


Regarding the differences between Arch and Ubuntu. Arch is easily built and fixed via config file-because Arch strives for simplicity, elegance, and transparency. Troubleshooting Ubuntu can be hard, because Ubuntu tries to hide things from the end-user.

Arch also is very pragmatic about codec dependencies, as we have discussed recently elsewhere.

[Skripka]

I tried it once. I followed the beginner's guide to the letter, but for some reason, I could never get GNOME to start up properly. Heck, I couldn't even get a basic X session with TWM working, and that's the basic test. I tried again on a VM, and ran into the same wall.

So I shrugged, assumed it was beyond me, and went back to 'buntu. Perhaps I'll try it again another time :)

Did you remember to add HAL to the daemons array in rc.conf? This is a somewhat common oopsy-daisy.

[dspari1]

I've used Arch, but I found that their repository isn't large enough to meet my needs. Sometimes I feel that the Arch users on these forums overdo it when trying to convert people; they're almost as bad as Mac users.

I personally prefer Gentoo since it's really customizable and has a very mature repository that meets my needs. If I can't find something, I can easily get an ebuild and install directly from the tar.gz source file.

The only problem with Gentoo that I have messed up my system too much with bad overlays and general tinkering screw ups. I can hold my own, but I'm by no means an expert, so I end up formating and reinstalling my system often.

Since I don't have time to spend days reinstalling Gentoo every time something goes wrong, I settled with Sabayon instead. It has its own binary package manager called Entropy that is compatible with Gentoo's Portage.

I keep my system up to date with Entropy, and access anything I need extra with Portage. If I don't like the default settings on a package, I can recompile the package and select the use flag that I want it to use.

Finally, I have to point out that it's the prettiest distro that I've ever used, and it comes with all my codecs, flash, java, compiz and everything I need working out of the box.

Even though Sabayon does have its warts, I feel that it is a very powerful system that I wouldn't change for anything else.

):P

[Xbehave]

Is there another linux distro that has source code available via repository, easily and quickly compiled into a package and installed by the user-as the user wants, that is further easily tracked for updates as a repository? I honestly don't know of another linux distro that does this short of all out compile-from-source only, or very off-the-beaten-path distros with small repositories.
All debian based distros (ubuntu included) can get dependencies using apt-get build-dep and sources using apt-get source. Id guess all rpm based distros have srpms for a reason too.


All the source code I've grabbed off AUR can be checked for updates with a simple:


yaourt -Syu --aur


That is true AFAIK apt will not maintain your sources for you (the build deps will ofc still be there but the compiled sources wont)

No surfing necessary to check for updates.Does it actually track if there are updates to compiled programs (e.g if you download the firefox and compile it, when the next version is released will you be notified that you need to recompile it OR will it just update the sources?(including firefox source?)


It is also all easily understood and transparent....unlike Apt.Apt is harder to understand?

[Kareeser]

Did you remember to add HAL to the daemons array in rc.conf? This is a somewhat common oopsy-daisy.

Indeed, that was my first mistake, but adding HAL and FAM to the daemons list didn't help. Thanks for wondering, though :)

[Skripka]

That is true AFAIK apt will not maintain your sources for you (the build deps will ofc still be there but the compiled sources wont)
Does it actually track if there are updates to compiled programs (e.g if you download the firefox and compile it, when the next version is released will you be notified that you need to recompile it OR will it just update the sources?(including firefox source?)


AUR is a repository of source code. With most all the expectations thereof.

When you Yaourt -Syu --aur, it will check to see the compiled version installed and built versus what is on AUR, if the local version is out of date, Yaourt will prompt you if you'd like to build/update. Same as an actual package repository....and since you're building the package yourself, you can tweak the build if needed/wanted yourself.

Arch being rolling-release, it is not expected that you always actually will WANT to always have the latest code, remember Arch is bleeding edge-as if something is not broken, why would one risk breakage with new code. And since Arch is KISS, there is no background process that is calling home to check for updates in the background as in say Ubuntu-unless you set it up that way.

I found apt slow and unclear, it has been a long while since I've used it.

[thisllub]

Since I installed Arch 18 months ago I haven't had to play around with anything.

Fast, stable and always up to date.

[Dark Aspect]

I used Arch once in the past and I had a hard time setting up my video driver and getting to a graphic interface was not working very well. My main problem was this; I couldn't download my needed video packages because in order to get my wireless device working, I needed a additional package. So I had a command prompt screen with no Internet and no GUI.....So I gave up rather quickly.

I don't have an ethernet wired connection, that would have probably fixed most of my issues had I had that.

[samjh]

I don't have an ethernet wired connection, that would have probably fixed most of my issues had I had that.

Anyone who uses wireless should have a backup wired setup. It should only involve a long phone cable extension and ethernet cable if you have the appropriate modem and port. If that isn't possible, then at least a spare dial-up modem should be stowed away somewhere for emergencies.


AUR is a repository of source code. With most all the expectations thereof.That's not necessarily true. The Community repository is part of AUR, but they contain binary packages. It's the Unsupported repository which is source-only.

[Barrucadu]

I use Arch, and am definitely satisfied. My reasons have already been explained though: minimal, very customisable, AUR, pacman, ABS...
I also think the installation process is fun :D

[Name change]

I also use Arch. Along with everything else that's good in Arch I would like to add
KDEmod. If you like KDE like me KDEmod is the best KDE experience ever. Not because it's any different than any other KDE, but because of modularity and widgets that in Kubuntu you had to hunt them down through scores of ppa...
And their build system is a dream. I still consider myself more or less a noob and I managed to build a extragear repo for 64bit...
But I can understand why others prefer any other distro over it...

[Dimitriid]

Arch its ok but I discontinued usage after several annoyances: File roller just wouldn't work and always say "Done" and close giving me corrupted, smaller extracted files. The mirrors used to be great but became excessively slow. Updating then going back to arch forums and site to find out how to fix/workaround the latest update was a little bit too common for my taste. Finally I got tired of looking for something that would work with my wireless on arch, don't get me wrong im sure is possible to get it to work but when I tried 8.10 and detected it and worked without hassle I decided to give Ubuntu another chance.

On paper, DIY and KISS looks like a good idea and rolling release should be a very painless incremental upgrade system. On practice however, I have more than 700mb of ram and my next rig will have 2gb and a dualcore processor: I don't need to worry about memory footprints and bloat. Its fun to have an openbox desktop and running on virtually no ram but at this point I just don't have the energy to invest the time, I am lazy and just want a set it and forget it system.

[jowilkin]

I remember having to hunt down the PPAs for every other repo I wanted for Ubuntu stuff, meanwhile in Arch I just need to install yaourt and I'm good to go.

I hate hunting down PPAs as well. The Ubuntu community is vehemently opposed to making them easily aggregated and searchable. So Arch is great for me. I still use Ubuntu on my HTPC, but on my desktop and laptop I've gone to Arch.

[sertse]

I hate hunting down PPAs as well. The Ubuntu community is vehemently opposed to making them easily aggregated and searchable. So Arch is great for me. I still use Ubuntu on my HTPC, but on my desktop and laptop I've gone to Arch.

See this http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5469046, "the community" has already taken the effort to maintain and aggregate a listing of PPA for the most sought for applications:

In that thread there is also link to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas
and http://ppa-search.appspot.com/ the PPA search you're looking for.

As for the topic most of the time, it's not Arch, just the Arch users that grates me. I'll leave it at that.

[Hells_Dark]

Such a poll on a ubuntu forum… Don't expect other results.

That said, I use Arch on my laptop and I'm fully satisfied.

(and it was really easy to install.)

[hatten]

It's wonderful. Just that I'm too lazy to get a bunch of stuff working, printing, dual-screen etc etc.

[RiceMonster]

If I can't find something, I can easily get an ebuild and install directly from the tar.gz source file.

If I can't find something, I can just get a PKGBUILD and install directly from the tar.gz.

[dragos240]

Wireless on a non-gui barebones system is the issue for me. But if I can get that working, then bye ubuntu, hello arch!

[dspari1]

Wireless on a non-gui barebones system is the issue for me. But if I can get that working, then bye ubuntu, hello arch!


If that's the issue, why don't you just use Chakra?

I'm also very sure that you can watch many arch tutorials on youtube to see how arch works so that you're not lost.

Yes, the livecd is in alpha, but only the livecd portion is alpha. If you successfully do an install, it's a stable Arch install with kdemod. All of the Chakra art customizations can be removed if you don't like them as well.

[RATM_Owns]

I love Arch. :P

[dragos240]

If that's the issue, why don't you just use Chakra?

I'm also very sure that you can watch many arch tutorials on youtube to see how arch works so that you're not lost.

Yes, the livecd is in alpha, but only the livecd portion is alpha. If you successfully do an install, it's a stable Arch install with kdemod. All of the Chakra art customizations can be removed if you don't like them as well.

what's chakra?

[SuperSonic4]

what's chakra?

Arch + KDEmod on a live CD. It's currently at alpha 2 but is stable enough to install. However, there is no 64bit version of alpha 2 and it still uses ext3.

All the kdemod stuff is part of the kdemod-uninstall group so you can run sudo pacman -Rd kdemod-uninstall

[dragos240]

Arch + KDEmod on a live CD. It's currently at alpha 2 but is stable enough to install. However, there is no 64bit version of alpha 2 and it still uses ext3.

All the kdemod stuff is part of the kdemod-uninstall group so you can run sudo pacman -Rd kdemod-uninstall

Sounds great!

[sujoy]

Oh I absolutely love Arch. Its been my only system for over a year and a half, and I am loving it :D

[kelvin spratt]

Arch Has been my main distro for 2 years Is it hard to install I've forgotten as I've only had to install once. I actually find it easier to configure than Debian based systems as its all in the etc files

[Xbehave]

Arch Has been my main distro for 2 years Is it hard to install I've forgotten as I've only had to install once. I actually find it easier to configure than Debian based systems as its all in the etc files
As compared to? Im yet to do any configuration outside of /etc on any distro (ubuntu,debian,arch,gentoo)

[dragos240]

As compared to? Im yet to do any configuration outside of /etc on any distro (ubuntu,debain,arch,genrtoo)

Do you mean gentoo, no r, and debian a and i reversed.

[deepclutch]

I have used Archlinux with Kdemod and it is average Linux distro. :) Roll over release distros like gentoo,tux etc...I may not prefer!

[Sand & Mercury]

I had it running as my main system for about a month and a half and finally dropped it after KDEmod began messing up repeatedly and whether I tried anything to fix the situation or not, booting was basically like a game of roulette. I had about a 1/3 chance of it starting successfully or whether I'd be left at BASH or just a blank screen.

It has some real good things going for it (particularly pacman, badarse system), but it's more for people where their system is their baby and they're willing to change its nappies when it poos itself.

I'm becoming less of a hobbyist and more a user that has stuff to do and just wants to get it done seamlessly, so that's why I ended up ditching it.

[jowilkin]

See this http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5469046, "the community" has already taken the effort to maintain and aggregate a listing of PPA for the most sought for applications:

In that thread there is also link to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas
and http://ppa-search.appspot.com/ the PPA search you're looking for.

As for the topic most of the time, it's not Arch, just the Arch users that grates me. I'll leave it at that.

And searching through all those sites (and google usually) and then constantly modifying and updating my sources.list is somehow similar in ease of use to typing "yaourt -Ss app_name" from the command line in Arch?

Perhaps I should have been more precise and said they are opposed to the idea of including easy aggregation or searchability of ppas into the OS.

I've made friendly suggestions in the past for ways to make it easier to find updated versions of programs on ubuntu and have been met with either "are you crazy, that will will make ubuntu completely unstable", or "are you crazy that will completely compromise security".

Well sorry but I really like the AUR and it hasn't compromised stability or security for Arch. Ubuntu is a different animal as they have commercial aspirations and cater to new users, while Arch specifically says its for power users.

In any case, ease of finding packages is a big plus for me on Arch. Ubuntu doesn't want to adopt a similarly easy model for various reasons. Theres no reason to get upset that some people like the Arch model better and know how to administer their own system without compromising stability and security.

[Xbehave]

Perhaps I should have been more precise and said they are opposed to the idea of including easy aggregation or searchability of ppas into the OS.

Last time i ran arch yaourt wasn't part of the OS but a supported 3rd party app


Well sorry but I really like the AUR and it hasn't compromised stability or security for Arch.
Perhaps not stability, but from a security point of view, it would be much easier to get malicious code into ABS than the standard repos


Theres no reason to get upset that some people like the Arch model better and know how to administer their own system without compromising stability and security.
Thats what i still don't see, the arch community is more geared towards ABS, but the framework isn't as amazing as all the arch fans make out. It is more geared towards community built stuff than ubuntu, but somebody could easily produce something like youart using apt and a couple of bash scripts.

Its stuff like
"in arch everything is configured in /etc" - That goes for ALL distros
"no other distro makes it as easy to compile and maintain code" - ALL package management software does what youart does. youart is slightly better for its specific task but apt isn't slow&complex

Sure its a different distro with different needs but the more i hear arch users make these claims (normally because they don't understand apt/yum/etc) the more i dislike arch!

Arch's strength, like any community distro, is in its community, the sooner users realize that and stop parroting stuff about its build system, the better.

[Tigershell]

One thing that annoys me about Arch is the vagueness of package selection during the initial install. Other than that, Arch all the way baby! :popcorn:

[subdivision]

I am extremely satisfied with Arch.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Arch's strength, like any community distro, is in its community, the sooner users realize that and stop parroting stuff about its build system, the better.

arch's strength, for me, is the documentation. it's a distro for which "rtfm" is actually a helpful suggestion. i've had very few problems that i've needed to ask about and some of them have been non arch issues.

[kpkeerthi]

I used Arch for about a year. But I came back to Ubuntu as I got tired of upgrading the packages to keep up with the rolling releases. My limited bandwidth also played a factor. Also, I figured I do not need bleeding edge packages.

I still consider Arch as the best Linux distro by design.

[super.rad]

Have 2 partitions, Arch is always on one and I test out other distro's on the other (currently ubuntu karmic) but nothing I've tried has come close to replacing arch as my main install

[SomeGuyDude]

arch's strength, for me, is the documentation. it's a distro for which "rtfm" is actually a helpful suggestion. i've had very few problems that i've needed to ask about and some of them have been non arch issues.

The ArchWiki is CRAZY helpful. It's the only Linux distro where over half the time I don't need the forum because the wiki has it covered.

Also, for anyone who's having wireless problems with Arch: WICD http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Wicd

I promise you, with Wicd you won't need to mess with all the various command-line stuff to get the wireless modules loaded and such.

[SomeGuyDude]

I used Arch for about a year. But I came back to Ubuntu as I got tired of upgrading the packages to keep up with the rolling releases. My limited bandwidth also played a factor. Also, I figured I do not need bleeding edge packages.

I still consider Arch as the best Linux distro by design.

To be fair, you don't HAVE to upgrade. That's the real beauty of rolling. You can just chill out for as long as you want and upgrade only what you want.

I'm a bleeding-edge addict though. Testing repo, baby!

[cjazz]

I'm very satisfied with Arch. Everything seems to be working after a short period of tweaking, and maintenance has been a natural breeze. Arch feels right.

That doesn't mean I rule out a return someday to Ubuntu or Debian. Personally, I consider the timing of my move to Arch somewhat ironic, since Jaunty was -- for me -- the best Ubuntu version yet.