lol, switched

[kc3]

Yes yes, I have installed a distro other than Ubuntu, why? Learning really, and omg I've already learned more from using it and I really must say, I miss how easy Ubuntu was haha *though I am having fun and am hoping to eventualy work up to doing LFS* So yeah, I've installed Slackware, though I hate KDE and am bored with Gnome so I've been using WindowMaker

[Eisenwinter]

Definitely try Arch sometime, I doubt you'll want to try a different distro after using Arch.

[dragos240]

Definitely try Arch sometime, I doubt you'll want to try a different distro after using Arch.

+1 I'm using arch right now ^.^

[monsterstack]

Because politics is banned discussion here, the Ubuntu Forums equivalent of Godwin's Law is the following,



As an UbuntuForums discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Arch Linux OS approaches 1.

Didn't take long, this time!

[Tipped OuT]

+1 I'm using arch right now ^.^

I always hear "Arch", "Arch's real good", and "You should try Arch".

May I ask, what's so good about it, and what am I missing? I'm using Kubuntu.

[RiceMonster]

Because politics is banned discussion here, the Ubuntu Forums equivalent of Godwin's Law is the following,



Didn't take long, this time!

Yup. Even as an Arch user, I sometimes think its unecessary. There's often situations like this:

"Hi I'm looking for a distro. I want somethign with GNOME, thats easy to use and has codecs preinstalled"

"Try arch!"

yeah, ok.


May I ask, what's so good about it, and what am I missing? I'm using Kubuntu.
BSD init/ports system, minimal install, very good package manager, rolling release (its always up to date).

[dragos240]

I always hear "Arch", "Arch's real good", and "You should try Arch".

May I ask, what's so good about it, and what am I missing? I'm using Kubuntu.

It's a lightweight distro that you install everything yourself, no bloat, everything you want, nothing you don't, it's very very configurable, easy, and hassle free, I still use ubuntu sometimes too.

[ghindo]

As an Ubuntu Forums discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Arch Linux approaches 1.So true, so true. :popcorn:

[Greg]

Because politics is banned discussion here, the Ubuntu Forums equivalent of Godwin's Law is the following,


As an UbuntuForums discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Arch Linux OS approaches 1.

Didn't take long, this time!

You should have used the word asymptotically. It always makes everything sound smarter.

[Tipped OuT]

BSD init/ports system, minimal install, very good package manager, rolling release (its always up to date).


It's a lightweight distro that you install everything yourself, no bloat, everything you want, nothing you don't, it's very very configurable, easy, and hassle free, I still use ubuntu sometimes too.

Okay, thanks for the information guys. Looks like Ubuntu is more of my thing.

[RiceMonster]

Okay, thanks for the information guys. Looks like Ubuntu is more of my thing.

Yep, that's cool. Ubuntu is great if you're new, or want a Linux distro that's widely supported, has large repos, and just works.

[days_of_ruin]

because politics is banned discussion here, the ubuntu forums equivalent of godwin's law is the following,



didn't take long, this time!

qft!:p

[Skripka]

qft!:p

That my friend is a QFT FAIL.

[kc3]

Oh definitely guys, I'm gonna try Slackware a bit longer but I would love to try Arch, I'll probably give it a month or two before trying it out, check it out in a Virtual machine etc first than when I get a bit of the hang of it, go further into it, I'd imagine it'd be even faster than Slackware (and yes my slackware is fast), maybe even try Gentoo but I do eventually want to go to LFS to learn the ins and outs of Linux, afterwards, well I guess we'll see :D

[days_of_ruin]

That my friend is a QFT FAIL.

lolwut? It's this forums fault that "qft" was not capitalized.

[itreius]

lolwut? It's this forums fault that "qft" was not capitalized.
I honestly doubt he was referring to your spelling of "qft". It probably had more to do with the fact that your quotation failed.

[nmccrina]

but I do eventually want to go to LFS to learn the ins and outs of Linux, afterwards, well I guess we'll see :D

I don't think it's necessary to gradually work your way up to LFS. Just jump in! The guide is extremely simple to follow (you can literally copy and paste everything if you want to). As long as you are comfortable setting up an empty partition to start with, you're good. I got a bootable system, and I was a n00b (I still am, pretty much :P). Just be warned that actually making it useful after installing the basics is a long, painful process (glance over the BLFS section on X to see what I mean :) ). It's a good learning tool, though, if you pay attention to what's going on. The agony also makes you appreciate Ubuntu that much more! ;)

[Pogeymanz]

Ha. That comment about Arch is pretty funny! I have also noticed that people suggest Arch when it is clearly NOT what someone is looking for.

On the other hand, it really is a wonderful distro, so I'm glad to hear it pop up often.

Slackware and Arch are both VERY fast distros. I doubt you'll notice any speed difference between them unless you are on some pretty old machines. I enjoy Arch more than Slackware because I like the installation better and the package manager is perfect in my eyes.

[CJ Master]

Yup. Even as an Arch user, I sometimes think its unecessary. There's often situations like this:

"Hi I'm looking for a distro. I want somethign with GNOME, thats easy to use and has codecs preinstalled"

"Try arch!"

yeah, ok.

I know, I'm an arch user also, and I hate when people come, put a topic in Absolute Beginners, asking what distro to switch too and people all say "Arch." It's an awesome distro, yes, but it's not for beginners.

[koshatnik]

It's a lightweight distro that you install everything yourself, no bloat, everything you want, nothing you don't, it's very very configurable, easy, and hassle free, I still use ubuntu sometimes too.

Sounds like alot of linux distros.

[JordyD]

Sounds like alot of linux distros.

Gentoo and Slackware would be those lots.

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

Slackware is a great distro, which was the very first distro i ever used. frankly it is silly to ask someone using a distro like Slack to change to Arch. there is absolutely no necessity.

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

LFS is a great thing. I run a custom distro that i built with LFS on a very old special machine, that works absolutely fine to this day. Just one word of advice, spend more than a week to set things up, since there will be some instances that would definitely go amiss. But this happened just because i wanted to do the whole build as quickly as possible.

[Mehall]

Gentoo and Slackware would be those lots.

And, to a certain degree, minimal install of any popular distro.

(Ubuntu included. The mini.iso lets you have JUST what you want, while still being Ubuntu.)

[Greg]

Gentoo and Slackware would be those lots.

I don't think Gentoo is easy. I mean, once you set it up, it's not bad, but it's a pretty complicated install.

But there are definitely others. Crux, and from what I've heard, Lunar are amongst them.

[JordyD]

Slackware is a great distro, which was the very first distro i ever used. frankly it is silly to ask someone using a distro like Slack to change to Arch. there is absolutely no necessity.

Arch is bleeding-edge, Slackware is not. I like bleeding edge. If I was a Slackware user I think I'd have reason to switch to Arch.

[JordyD]

I don't think Gentoo is easy. I mean, once you set it up, it's not bad, but it's a pretty complicated install.

But there are definitely others. Crux, and from what I've heard, Lunar are amongst them.

Well, this is just from hearsay, so don't trust any of it.

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

I don't think Gentoo is easy. I mean, once you set it up, it's not bad, but it's a pretty complicated install.

But there are definitely others. Crux, and from what I've heard, Lunar are amongst them.


Gentoo will be intimidating in the beginning, but after that it should be not so difficult.

But i prefer Crux and Lunar, which power most of my machines, since they don't have so many distro specific tools like Gentoo has, and if i want something to be done, a simple bach script will do the trick.

[koshatnik]

Gentoo and Slackware would be those lots.

I can think of at least 30 others that have minimal installs that allow the user to control what is installed. Nothing special about Arch.

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

Arch is bleeding-edge, Slackware is not. I like bleeding edge. If I was a Slackware user I think I'd have reason to switch to Arch.

You are right, but as you mentioned, its just you. I would take Slack's stability anyday compared to many other distros, excluding a couple of source based distros.

[kc3]

Yeah, I picked slack mostly from what I hear about stability and liked that it'd be something to learn. I may go ahead and try LFS but being as I'm not yet comfortable enough I'll probably try it in a virtual machine because I try it on my main PC. However, Arch was high on my list of what to use, I heard it doesn't even have X Windows preinstalled, I would love that, I really don't like KDE and love WindowMaker so I'd like to never even have KDE installed in the first place

[Greg]

Yeah, I picked slack mostly from what I hear about stability and liked that it'd be something to learn. I may go ahead and try LFS but being as I'm not yet comfortable enough I'll probably try it in a virtual machine because I try it on my main PC. However, Arch was high on my list of what to use, I heard it doesn't even have X Windows preinstalled, I would love that, I really don't like KDE and love WindowMaker so I'd like to never even have KDE installed in the first place

You are correct, Arch does not have X installed by default. But Slackware doesn't have to either, just don't install the KDE or X software sets.

[Pogeymanz]

I can think of at least 30 others that have minimal installs that allow the user to control what is installed. Nothing special about Arch.

Yes, but Arch is truly designed to be installed that way. You get exposed to every important config file during the installation and they are simple and easy to read and understand. Once you install Arch and configure your daemons and modules, then try to do the same in Ubuntu or Fedora, you will see why tweakers love Arch.

Arch is very special.

[JordyD]

You are right, but as you mentioned, its just you. I would take Slack's stability anyday compared to many other distros, excluding a couple of source based distros.

If I had a server, I would use Slackware for it's stability, but for my desktop I like the newest versions of software. I guess it's just preference.

[Bigtime_Scrub]

Yes yes, I have installed a distro other than Ubuntu, why? Learning really, and omg I've already learned more from using it and I really must say, I miss how easy Ubuntu was haha *though I am having fun and am hoping to eventualy work up to doing LFS* So yeah, I've installed Slackware, though I hate KDE and am bored with Gnome so I've been using WindowMaker

Don't sweat it man I distro hopped too. I fell in love with Fedora...yes Fedora.

I dual boot Ubuntu 9.04 with Fedora 11 Leonidas.

There I said it and I don't care I love Fedora and Ubuntu.

[Polaris96]

Distro flipping is FUN! you should definitely install Debian (It's like running a marathon - everyone wants to say they run Debian. The actual Linux part of Debian freakin' FLIES. The stoopit "open source or nothing" web browsers, etc .. well ... notsomuch) and Gentoo (which is really elegant because every package is custom compiled for your platform) Both are geekware not super user friendly like Arch or Ubuntu. But distro flipping becomes fun for the challenge .. you'll see.

If you don't like gnome or kde, btw, try running the e17 enlightenment desktop. it's nice. One last question for anyone: is it still considered distro flipping if you run different distros as VMs on a Xen core?

[monsterstack]

Distro flipping is FUN! you should definitely install Debian (It's like running a marathon - everyone wants to say they run Debian. The actual Linux part of Debian freakin' FLIES. The stoopit "open source or nothing" web browsers, etc .. well ... notsomuch) and Gentoo (which is really elegant because every package is custom compiled for your platform) Both are geekware not super user friendly like Arch or Ubuntu. But distro flipping becomes fun for the challenge .. you'll see.

If you don't like gnome or kde, btw, try running the e17 enlightenment desktop. it's nice. One last question for anyone: is it still considered distro flipping if you run different distros as VMs on a Xen core?

Arch is more user-friendly than Debian?

[PurposeOfReason]

I can think of at least 30 others that have minimal installs that allow the user to control what is installed. Nothing special about Arch.
A minimal install \= a minimal distro.

[Polaris96]

monsterstack: Yup, double yup. Triple Yup! One thousand times YYYUUUUUUPPPPPP!!.

Anyone who installed debian hitch free on the first try fits one of the following categories:

1. Already knew Linux (I spent years on a BSD workstation - didn't help)
2. Had an older machine (neither Debian (sarge back then) or their porting of Gnome, Kde, or X11 could handle new hardware in the stable release)
2a. NO! it's NOT fair to expect newbies to be able to access backports, testing, unstable, or anything in cafelinux. Also, how about that headache where you couldn't directly add a repository to sources.list. remember that one? they seem to have fixed it in Lenny, I will say.
3. Had a machine with no unusual bits attached to it (unusual meaning things like SATA and USB drives in 2005)

So I think Debian is much harder than Arch to run. I'm not an Arch poweruser (I think it's very similar to ubuntu and I already use ubuntu so why keep it?) but, when I tried it, it loaded and worked pretty well out of the box for me.

Opensolaris, on the other hand...

[sertse]

Because politics is banned discussion here, the Ubuntu Forums equivalent of Godwin's Law is the following,



Didn't take long, this time!

Sigged.

The way Arch gets hijacked into discussions that initially have nothing to do with it sometimes gets ridiculous. Particularly cases where Arch user promote that it isn't "hard" (it's not, but it's no Ubuntu), there's often an implication therefore it is a failing on the user, if they don't like it.

[monsterstack]

monsterstack: Yup, double yup. Triple Yup! One thousand times YYYUUUUUUPPPPPP!!.

Anyone who installed debian hitch free on the first try fits one of the following categories:

1. Already knew Linux (I spent years on a BSD workstation - didn't help)
2. Had an older machine (neither Debian (sarge back then) or their porting of Gnome, Kde, or X11 could handle new hardware in the stable release)
2a. NO! it's NOT fair to expect newbies to be able to access backports, testing, unstable, or anything in cafelinux. Also, how about that headache where you couldn't directly add a repository to sources.list. remember that one? they seem to have fixed it in Lenny, I will say.
3. Had a machine with no unusual bits attached to it (unusual meaning things like SATA and USB drives in 2005)

So I think Debian is much harder than Arch to run. I'm not an Arch poweruser (I think it's very similar to ubuntu and I already use ubuntu so why keep it?) but, when I tried it, it loaded and worked pretty well out of the box for me.

Opensolaris, on the other hand...

That's interesting. Debian Etch was my very first Linux distro, and I had a great time using it. I still use Debian Squeeze on one of my other computers regularly because I like it so much. SATA wasn't a problem by the time I started using it, and I've never encountered any sort of error that makes my sources.list un-editable, so maybe that's an older problem. The only difficulty I had was installing the nVidia drivers, which wasn't really very hard at all.

[MikeTheC]

So...

Can someone on here who's an Arch user please give a top ten list for why someone would NOT want to run Arch? (Like, for instance, they're looking for extra bloat on their HDD...)

[~sHyLoCk~]

Definitely try Arch sometime, I doubt you'll want to try a different distro after using Arch.

Wow! There are so many Archers here! Makes me happy. I've switched to arch permanently after trying out so many distros.

[CJ Master]

Sigged.

The way Arch gets hijacked into discussions that initially have nothing to do with it sometimes gets ridiculous. Particularly cases where Arch user promote that it isn't "hard" (it's not, but it's no Ubuntu), there's often an implication therefore it is a failing on the user, if they don't like it.

Don't judge us all because 2% of our users hijack all the conversations with Arch. If I see a place where Arch should be mentioned, I'm not afraid to mention it.

[monsterstack]

It's just 99% of Arch-users on this forum are making the rest look bad.

[nothingspecial]

Arch is really really boring to set up.

And when I finally finished getting it how I liked it,

I realised I`d set it up just like my Ubuntu install.

So what was the point of that?

If you want minimal just do this

[chucky chuckaluck]

So...

Can someone on here who's an Arch user please give a top ten list for why someone would NOT want to run Arch? (Like, for instance, they're looking for extra bloat on their HDD...)

1. if you're looking for a distro with an embarrassingly stupid name, arch will disappoint.

2. on the arch forums, people talk about all that boring computer crap. try starting a "which celebs would you like most to see meet their maker" thread and you'll get a "and this has what to do with /etc/rc.conf" style response.

3. too fast. i feel like my laptop is tapping its foot while it waits for me to figure out something to do with it.

4. what's with all the damn blue?

5. their logo is now an arrowhead, not an arch.

6. bleeding edge gives one nothing to look forward to.

7. if you want bloat, kdemod is NOT the way to go. you have to install all the bloat yourself. again, no nice little surprises. "wow! kopete, huh? if i had any friends, this would be soooooo awesome."

8. automated choices during installation kills the cool wood.

9. screenshot thread is filled with desktops that look like they're from early science fiction movies.

10. pacman, but no ms. pacman (i guess that should surprise no one).

[JordyD]

"wow! kopete, huh? if i had any friends, this would be soooooo awesome."

:lolflag:

Somebody needs to take that out of context and throw it in their sig.

[RiceMonster]

So...

Can someone on here who's an Arch user please give a top ten list for why someone would NOT want to run Arch? (Like, for instance, they're looking for extra bloat on their HDD...)

The three biggest reasons for me are if you:

1) don't want to go through a logn install and setup that requires reading a lot of documentation
2) want an extremely stable system. Some arch users will try and argue against it, but you WILL get breakage at some point.
3) want your system to automatically do a lot of things. A lot of things in arch are manual. For example, you have to specify which daemons will start on bootup in /etc/rc.conf

[medic2000]

I am using Debian 5.01 Lenny now. Very stable and minimalistic and fast as Arch.

[chucky chuckaluck]

I am using Debian 5.01 Lenny now. Very stable and minimalistic and fast as Arch.

[arch]you must have misconfigured your /etc/rc.conf file.[/zealot]

[Pogeymanz]

I'll basically just say the same things that have already been said...

To really enjoy Arch, you have to get a little excited by the idea of squeezing a tiny bit more speed out of your machine. You also have to be a little bit interested by the boot-up process (this is where the /etc/rc.conf is important).

If you don't feel that way, then it will just be boring, like someone already mentioned. If you install Ubuntu and then just change the themes, you probably wont like Arch. But, I kept trying to find ways to make Ubuntu faster by trimming modules, configuring preload and prelink, using more up-to-date packages, etc. That is why Arch was good for me- I love speed.

My top ten reasons not to use Arch:
1 ) You don't want to learn about setting up a Linux environment AT ALL.
2 ) You want your machine up and running and fully functional in 20-30 minutes.
3 ) You don't like upgrading packages often.
4 ) You think that all Arch users are self-righteous zealots
5 ) You think that Debian minimal == Arch (it doesn't)
6 ) You don't want to check the Arch website before you do your daily/weekly/monthly update.
7 ) You have a processor that is older than Penitum 2/ K6-2
8 ) You like that so many Ubuntu packages have Gnome dependencies when they don't need to.
9 ) You don't like the super well documented Arch wiki. (You should search that wiki even if you have problems in a different distro, IMO)
10 ) You hate tacos.

[kc3]

My top ten reasons not to use Arch:
1 ) You don't want to learn about setting up a Linux environment AT ALL.
2 ) You want your machine up and running and fully functional in 20-30 minutes.
3 ) You don't like upgrading packages often.
4 ) You think that all Arch users are self-righteous zealots
5 ) You think that Debian minimal == Arch (it doesn't)
6 ) You don't want to check the Arch website before you do your daily/weekly/monthly update.
7 ) You have a processor that is older than Penitum 2/ K6-2
8 ) You like that so many Ubuntu packages have Gnome dependencies when they don't need to.
9 ) You don't like the super well documented Arch wiki. (You should search that wiki even if you have problems in a different distro, IMO)
10 ) You hate tacos.

haha, I LOVE the idea of squeezing as much speed out of my computer as I can :D And with those ten reasons, I HAVE to try Arch, I especially love Tacos lol

[JordyD]

2 ) You want your machine up and running and fully functional in 20-30 minutes.

This is how it was for me with Arch.

'pacman -Syu'

'pacman -S nvidia gdm gnome gnome-extra'

Add gdm to your /etc/rc.conf and you're done.

... on the other hand, my laptop was a mess to set up ...

[Pogeymanz]

haha, I LOVE the idea of squeezing as much speed out of my computer as I can :D And with those ten reasons, I HAVE to try Arch, I especially love Tacos lol

Once you use Arch, you'll never be able to leave... *evil laugh*

[RiceMonster]

10 ) You hate tacos.

Yes, forgot about that one. It is abolsolutely essential that you like tachoes to use Arch.

[HappyFeet]

The way Arch gets hijacked into discussions that initially have nothing to do with it sometimes gets ridiculous.

I think it's fine that people use and like arch, but it does get ridiculous sometimes that every discussion turns into an arch-fest.

I have a very fast computer, (quad core, 4gb ram) and everything runs fast on it. Running arch to me, makes no sense. I just don't understand why every thread has to be injected with the usual "try arch" shout out.

Arch is not going to change my life, make me rich, find love, or make me a better person. Ubuntu does everything I need and more. Besides, if I did install arch, I would still wind up using my computer in the same fashion as I do now. What's the point? More work? Like I said, speed is not an issue with me. If you feel you need to spend days getting arch set up so you can save 5 milliseconds opening an app, then go for it. But it does get to be too much when someone asks for an easy to use distro, and every arch user in the world has to chime in. I have nothing against arch per se, just the zealousness of it's users.

[chucky chuckaluck]

More work? Like I said, speed is not an issue with me. If you feel you need to spend days getting arch set up

the last time i reinstalled arch, it took 25 minutes. you must be thinking of gentoo.

[PurposeOfReason]

the last time i reinstalled arch, it took 25 minutes. you must be thinking of gentoo.
I get gentoo going with a light wm in under 12 hours, most not even spent at the computer.

[RiceMonster]

Arch is not going to change my life, make me rich, find love, or make me a better person. Ubuntu does everything I need and more. Besides, if I did install arch, I would still wind up using my computer in the same fashion as I do now. What's the point? More work? Like I said, speed is not an issue with me. If you feel you need to spend days getting arch set up so you can save 5 milliseconds opening an app, then go for it.

I also have a very fast computer. Speed isn't an issue for me either. I don't use arch for speed alone. I like pacman, rolling release, and setting up my system as I want from the ground up. Also, that didn't take days. It took me 2 hours to install the base system and then everything else I wanted. Sure 2 hours is not a small amount of time, but it's not like I invested a ridiculous amount of time either.

If you'd end up with a system like Ubuntu anyway, then you're right, you may as well use Ubuntu. However, I don't like how you say people invest days into installing it to "save 5 milliseconds opening an app".

[HappyFeet]

the last time i reinstalled arch, it took 25 minutes. you must be thinking of gentoo.

25 minutes to install it, get a destop environment, download all apps, codecs, tweak it, get your personal settings just right. OK. Are you sure you don't have magical powers?

[Greg]

25 minutes to install it, get a destop environment, download all apps, codecs, tweak it, get your personal settings just right. OK. Are you sure you don't have magical powers?

Depends on your internet connection, what apps you use, what WM you use, and if you have some old config files.

[Pogeymanz]

I think it's fine that people use and like arch, but it does get ridiculous sometimes that every discussion turns into an arch-fest.

I have a very fast computer, (quad core, 4gb ram) and everything runs fast on it. Running arch to me, makes no sense. I just don't understand why every thread has to be injected with the usual "try arch" shout out.

[...]
But it does get to be too much when someone asks for an easy to use distro, and every arch user in the world has to chime in. I have nothing against arch per se, just the zealousness of it's users.

Hey, I agree that it isn't appropriate to bring up Arch everytime someone asks for an easy distro. But watch those confrontational comments. I am an Arch user, and guess what -I don't suggest it to someone who wants an easy distro.

Most of us also aren't zealous. Do we think that it's a better distro than most? Hell yes -that's why we use it.

I also will assume that you have indeed tried Arch, but from your comment about speed it would really seem like you haven't. Arch is a totally different paradigm from Ubuntu and it is likely that you would not be using your computer exactly the same way, just by virtue of being rolling release and not having to be reinstalled every 6 months.

[WatchingThePain]

Ahm comin atcha from Arch Linux.
Very rare to get a problem on this.
That's just how the Cookie crumbles.
Pacman is a little Ninja.

[HappyFeet]

it is likely that you would not be using your computer exactly the same way, just by virtue of being rolling release and not having to be reinstalled every 6 months.

Why would the way I use my computer change? I would use the same apps, and do the same things. And I don't mind reinstalling every 6 months, as it is like Christmas day to me. And because I install ubuntu for other people, I need to know about how the new release works.

[WatchingThePain]

On a broadband 20mb connection Arch installs in 25 minutes (for me), that's the ftp install.
That's command line and fully functional.
Whatever you put on after that is up to you.
I don't think you would get Gnome and other stuff on within that time unless from a cloned image or something.

[chucky chuckaluck]

25 minutes to install it, get a destop environment, download all apps, codecs, tweak it, get your personal settings just right. OK. Are you sure you don't have magical powers?

i use openbox, which takes a second to install and not much longer to setup (the menu is about it). i'm always adding and dumping stuff and changing things, so i guess you could argue i'm never done with my installation. i take just about all the automated choices when i install arch and i guess that saves me some time.

[ghindo]

Wow, I thought this was supposed to be a Slackware thread.

[JordyD]

Wow, I thought this was supposed to be a Slackware thread.

Was it? I barely remember the OP.

[~sHyLoCk~]

True arch doen't take much time to setup, tweaking is a different issue, that you do with every distro. But the setup of Arch or Debian totally depends on your bandwidth.

[medic2000]

Arch users do not forget that you have to check the arch website and forums before updating. And even they check it they could face the problems. Because of its rolling release nature latest packages usually is not stable and can cause problems.
It shows when you use a lot of application. The chance of you get caught increases.
Now dont say me the broken packages is a problem, some Arch users trying to get over this problem by building a system to return back.(look at June 2009 arch newsletter)

Just not my way...

And every distro has its adv. and disadv. As i said before Arch could be broken time to time but gives you the latest packages with a fast package manager and AUR(also yaourt is great small add-on to this) and ABS and vice versa...

With Debian you get ultra stability but with old packages. You can backport the ones you like though.

And a note:

I can"t believe you say it takes little time to setup arch. And with openbox :D It is just funny..

And i see arch user are losing some of their objective look because of their love with ArchLinux..

[unknownPoster]

Arch + dwm + firefox, takes me about 25-30 minutes.

It's really not that difficult.

[RiceMonster]

And i see arch user are losing some of their objective look because of their love with ArchLinux..

What?

[medic2000]

What?

objectiveness...

[RiceMonster]

objectiveness...

I don't understand, what "objective look" are they losing, and what does it have to do with Arch?

[medic2000]

Look at this thread...

[RiceMonster]

You're very good at explaining yourself.

[kc3]

Don't sweat it man I distro hopped too. I fell in love with Fedora...yes Fedora.

I dual boot Ubuntu 9.04 with Fedora 11 Leonidas.

There I said it and I don't care I love Fedora and Ubuntu.

Hey man, I see your San Antonio Linux icon, I've seen that before and ironically be moving to San Antonio on July 1st, I totally have to hit you guys up :D I did use Fedora last night to boot up from because my Slackware kept halting at startup and I went in and fixed it, I was surprised to see that the Fedora LiveCD didn't have vim on it :o

Oh and a note, since I don't like KDE and I'm bored with Gnome I've been using WindowMaker on my Slackware, my specs are in my signature (not the best but still pretty good) and my Linux box is running very fast :D

[medic2000]

You're very good at explaining yourself.

And you are very good at not understanding what i meant. It is simple...
But never mind... It will not matter.

[CJ Master]

And you are very good at not understanding what i meant. It is simple...
But never mind... It will not matter.

Whoa! I understand everything you said now! Thanks for the explanation.

He's "very good at not understanding what you meant" because you made no sense, obviously even you don't know what it was saying. (By looking at the quoted post.)

[~sHyLoCk~]

And you are very good at not understanding what i meant. It is simple...
But never mind... It will not matter.

Yes, you are quite eloquent. And I'm very sarcastic.


Why is this suddenly turning out to be Arch Vs. other distros? I don't think that was the point of this thread. If someone loves his/her distro they have the right to express it. We [arch users] are not criticizing any distros, so why are you ganging up on arch?

[philcamlin]

i prefer ubuntu because its easy to use :popcorn:

[chucky chuckaluck]

We [arch users] are not criticizing any distros, so why are you ganging up on arch?

[W.]they hate our freedom.[/W.]

[hanzomon4]

[w.]they hate our freedom.[/w.]

lol

[Pogeymanz]

Arch users do not forget that you have to check the arch website and forums before updating. And even they check it they could face the problems. Because of its rolling release nature latest packages usually is not stable and can cause problems.
It shows when you use a lot of application. The chance of you get caught increases.
Now dont say me the broken packages is a problem, some Arch users trying to get over this problem by building a system to return back.(look at June 2009 arch newsletter)

And i see arch user are losing some of their objective look because of their love with ArchLinux..

False and False.

The packages in Arch Linux are stable. The only time there are any problems is when the config changes for a certain program. And the ONLY time in two years that I've had problems upgrading is when I didn't check the front page of the Arch Linux website first.

I'm not trying to nit-pick. I think it's very important that people don't think that Arch packages are unstable. They are tested thoroughly in the [testing] repository for as long as is necessary before they are put into the main repos. Yes, there is an inherent risk with a rolling release distro, but it is not because the packages are unstable; it's simply because programs change.

I feel like I'm pretty objective. On the other hand, there are quite a few posters in this very thread that are making claims about a distribution (and its users) that they have CLEARLY not used. That doesn't seem objective to me.

EDIT: I think the OP should want to use Arch now, just because it's so controversial!!

[Eisenwinter]

Why is this suddenly turning out to be Arch Vs. other distros? I don't think that was the point of this thread. If someone loves his/her distro they have the right to express it. We [arch users] are not criticizing any distros, so why are you ganging up on arch?
They know that Arch is the best (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_is_the_best), and their confidence in their distribution of choice (in this case, Ubuntu) is reduced.

So, they have to attack Arch to regain their false sense of confidence.

[nothingspecial]

If you would like to wear a great big chufty badge that says ' i am a geekier geek than you because i had to edit a couple of config files when i installed my linux' then arch is definitely for you . ;-)

[medic2000]

First who is ganging ArchLinux? You are saying interesting things when nothing happens.

They know that Arch is the best, and their confidence in their distribution of choice (in this case, Ubuntu) is reduced.
or
They hate our freedom
or
You are ganging Arch.

What are you paranoid? And stop boasting your distro like this non-objective comments.

Then;

So, they have to attack Arch to regain their false sense of confidence.
__________________


False and False.

The packages in Arch Linux are stable. The only time there are any problems is when the config changes for a certain program. And the ONLY time in two years that I've had problems upgrading is when I didn't check the front page of the Arch Linux website first.

I'm not trying to nit-pick. I think it's very important that people don't think that Arch packages are unstable. They are tested thoroughly in the [testing] repository for as long as is necessary before they are put into the main repos. Yes, there is an inherent risk with a rolling release distro, but it is not because the packages are unstable; it's simply because programs change.

I feel like I'm pretty objective. On the other hand, there are quite a few posters in this very thread that are making claims about a distribution (and its users) that they have CLEARLY not used. That doesn't seem objective to me.

EDIT: I think the OP should want to use Arch now, just because it's so controversial!!

I said the same. I haven't said the packages are unstable in Arch. I said "just like you" because of Archs rolling release nature it can cause problems time to time. And yes the packages of getting tested "as long as necessary" though this time is not enough long. Cause Arch must put the packages in main repo quickly to serve us the latest packages. And you know some of the bugs could be overlooked.

You say it is not causing probles after update.Ok what are saying about that one from ArchLinux Newsletter June2009:

It's happened to everyone. You finish that huge, hour-long upgrade and reboot into your now up-to-date system only to find that something went terribly wrong. One of the fifty packages you upgraded did something it shouldn't have and now your precious system is at best unstable, at worst... you get the point. So what now? The one downside to pacman is the lack of a rollback feature so you might just have to start from scratch! You're not the first Arch user to run into this dilemma, and you won't be the last.


This is not enough? Well then look all the update problems here:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=44

~sHyLoCk~ also a member of ArchLinux forums you are asking if it is safe to update. Well tell me wasn't it already safe? Why are you asking then?

Don't forget that update maybe does not broke your packages that does not mean it is that way for everyone. Some people use a variety of packages. It could effect them. And as we looked to the forums we are seeing this.

If you mention me that i haven't used ArchLinux i have used it. If i haven"t how could i make comments about it. I have used it for 1 years on my 2 laptop(one is P3 and the other one Core2Duo) and my destop(Amd XP 2500). And on top of them Gnome,KdeMod,Xfce and Openbox. Arch taught me a lot things. I love this distro but i don't like facing with these problems.

And i am not comparing Arch with another distros. I suggest everyone to try Arch. But if you are suggesting a distro you have to mention its downsides too.

I also suggest Debian to everyone too. Debian Stable"s biggest advantages is rock solid stableness,installing everything from scratch like ArchLinux. But disadvantage of this distro is finding new packages. But this is not a big deal for me. The packages in the repos are fine for me. For big projects like OpenOffice.org they are backporting. And for some other you can backport yourself.

I ask to Archers on this forum if they had used Debian? And if they did what they like,what they didn't?

And as i conclude this post i am not saying this one or that one is best. Like everything what suits you is the best. Debian suits me more, Arch suits you more and Ubuntu some of my friends more. Everyone happy with their way.

So..No problem at all...

[~sHyLoCk~]

~sHyLoCk~ also a member of ArchLinux forums you are asking if it is safe to update. Well tell me wasn't it already safe? Why are you asking then?

That was so out of context! You think ubuntu is perfect? You think any distro is perfect? Then why are the forums flooded with "help me plz" "how do i <insert problem here>?"

I will answer your "why are you asking if it's safe to upgrade?" question. Simple.I was simply asking if the kernel upgrade was the right thing to do.Since with Nvidia Driver 185.x.x it was not working properly as many claimed even in this forum! Take a look at a few threads! That was my only concern.

I have nothing to say about debian. It is a good distro, I respect it and have used it in the past.

EDIT: Arch expects it's users to read the documentations provided! Crashes and bugs are inevtiable in any distro! Show me one distro that doesn't have these issues! That isn't a reason to crticize it, instead of running to another distro you could have tried and fixed your problem,(whatever made you turn away from Arch)!

To each his own. no problem at all. :)

Cheers

[RiceMonster]

They know that Arch is the best, and their confidence in their distribution of choice (in this case, Ubuntu) is reduced.
or
They hate our freedom
or
You are ganging Arch.

What are you paranoid? And stop boasting your distro like this non-objective comments.


sudo apt-get install sarcasm-detector

[longtom]

Alright - did the Arch thing - installed it by following the book, got some help from the Arch Forum, installed what I needed to install and left out what I didn't.
Am I now part of the elite? What do I get? A medal?
Come on - it is not as if you need to Einstein. Started with Linux in February only, have a life, a family and am not young anymore. I do not work in and computer related environment nor did I ever had any education in that direction. Sat down one day and did it - with a couple of other things which life throuighs at you when you don't need it.

Did the Debian thing - same as above. Had a go at SliTaz, Puppy, OpenSuse...

Still Ubuntu 8.04 is my base system.

What is the point of Arch users? Look at me - I do Arch?
Can't see any other reason why threads need to be turned that way to make that point.

BTW - somebody mentioned Lunar a couple of pages ago. I was on the website. Anybody has any experience with it?

[XubuRoxMySox]

I think that is exactly the point. On one hand, Linux is "not ready for the desktop" because it's "only for geeks."

The same geeks who look down their long noses at "Linux made easy" for non-geeks.

Arch is for advanced Linux users, not for ordinary desktop users. It's for people who buy a computer just to optimize it so they can boast about how trim and fast and perfect their system is.

But for most of us, the computer is just a tool. We are not to be viewed with contempt just because we choose to use the computer as a tool instead of as a trophy.

And that, to me, sums up the difference between Arch users and the rest of us. If your hobby is tweaking and perfecting your computer, great, have at it. But for those of us who have other hobbies, like blogging or digital art or photography or whatever, for which the computer is just a useful tool rather than an end in itself, there's Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, and the other Linux distros that "just work" so we can get on with doing what we bought a computer for.

-Robin

[philcamlin]

i like ubuntu

[RiceMonster]

But for those of us who have other hobbies, like blogging or digital art or photography or whatever, for which the computer is just a useful tool rather than an end in itself, there's Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, and the other Linux distros that "just work" so we can get on with doing what we bought a computer for.

-Robin

Yeah, I see what you mean, and I'd say I agree. However, it's not like I spend all my time tweaking and tinkering. I like doing that, but I spend much more time using my computer for what I "bought a computer for". I just don't like that people seem to think if you use a geek distro you never actually use your computer. However, I understand that people don't want to spend the time tweaking, etc.

Also, I don't get what people are talking about in terms of being "viewed with contempt". I haven't seen that happen at all. Where are these people who are apparently telling you you're not elite or something because you're using a distro for "ordinary desktop users"?

[kc3]

Yeah I agree with RiceMonster, the only people being viewed with contempt, all contempt I see is for Windows users, this would have to be the worst forum to give crap for what Distro someone chooses, come on it's the official forums for one of the easiest to use distros out there lol, all the same Ubuntu is still a great OS :D

[dspari1]

Arch users remind me of Mac users for some reason. :popcorn:

I run Sabayon, and it's an easy to use distro that also has rolling releases. It gained its reputation by being the very first distro that had Beryl installed with all the bells and whistles turned on by default.

It's based on Gentoo, and it has both a binary (Entropy) and source (Portage) based package manager.

I enjoy the easy install with Java, Flash, and all Codecs working OOTB, and I also enjoy the power that Portage offers (USE flags are your friends).

As for the downsides (see, I'm not biased), you need to practically recompile the whole system to fully switch to Portage. So it's more practical to use Entropy as your main package manager to update your system and use Portage to install something not found in Entropy or to recompile a package with different use flags.

The devs are working very hard to make it easy to fully switch to Portage without having to do anything special like recompile the entire system. When that happens, I'll be in heaven.

:guitar:

[~sHyLoCk~]

Yeah I agree with RiceMonster, the only people being viewed with contempt, all contempt I see is for Windows users, this would have to be the worst forum to give crap for what Distro someone chooses, come on it's the official forums for one of the easiest to use distros out there lol, all the same Ubuntu is still a great OS :D

Just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCHhk7mM_4A

[chucky chuckaluck]

Arch is for advanced Linux users, not for ordinary desktop users. It's for people who buy a computer just to optimize it so they can boast about how trim and fast and perfect their system is.

not true. some systems, like ubuntu and pclinuxos, come with a lot of stuff on them and with a lot of the setup already done. i think those systems target the type of person who doesn't want to mess with anything and wants a lot of 'just in case i need it' options available. gentoo and other source built distros are for those who want total control over their machines with nothing going on they don't know about. arch is somewhere in between. it can be for the nutjobs who want to constantly tweak, or it can be more automated for those of us who have no idea what they're doing (like me). my reason for going with arch is that i wanted to start with nothing and add only what i want, rather than starting with everything i could possibly ever need. arch's documentation is great and makes it possible for an end user to install it (and thus, deflating the reputation for being difficult to install). for sure, it's a more detailed installation than those of the more automated distros, but i don't think it's harder. in a lot of ways, it's simpler.

the line between enthusiasm and zealotry is a pretty thin one, and, well short of crossing that line, most people around the excited user already want him/her/it to shut up.

[kc3]

Just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCHhk7mM_4A

haha great video, see when I was a Windows user I just didn't care, everything I did was web development related so even though I had an interest in Linux I didn't think much about it, after I got some new hardware and started doing things more technical and also started trying to get the top performance I could is when I switched to Linux :D

haha we should have an Arch vs Ubuntu war :P What we'll all do is lets found our own countries, Ubuntuland vs Archland haha *dorky randomness*

Fedorastan - population 4 :D hahaha

[monsterstack]

Yeah I agree with RiceMonster, the only people being viewed with contempt, all contempt I see is for Windows users, this would have to be the worst forum to give crap for what Distro someone chooses, come on it's the official forums for one of the easiest to use distros out there lol, all the same Ubuntu is still a great OS :D

Are you kidding? From what I've seen around here, half of the users at this forum have, "Linux isn't a religion, there's nothing wrong with using Windows, stop being a fanboy, blah blah blah" in their paste buffer. For all the people who hate on Windows, there are dozens more people ready to defend them.

[kc3]

Are you kidding? From what I've seen around here, half of the users at this forum have, "Linux isn't a religion, there's nothing wrong with using Windows, stop being a fanboy, blah blah blah" in their paste buffer. For all the people who hate on Windows, there are dozens more people ready to defend them.

lol, I didn't say it was big :P I just said that's the only types of contemptment I see lol, even less for what distro someone uses, honestly I haven't seen like any contempt for what distro someone chooses, I do see that for some dumb Linux reviews and comparisons, one person posted that Ubuntu was only for n00bs and that kind of stuff is just stupid lol, nothing wrong with wanting a system that works right away, just depends on what you're going for in an OS. I personaly have been really enjoying Slackware and can't wait to try another distro.

[RiceMonster]

Are you kidding? From what I've seen around here, half of the users at this forum have, "Linux isn't a religion, there's nothing wrong with using Windows, stop being a fanboy, blah blah blah" in their paste buffer. For all the people who hate on Windows, there are dozens more people ready to defend them.

That's a good thing. In the past, every second person was typing "Micro$ux"

[Pogeymanz]

You say it is not causing probles after update.Ok what are saying about that one from ArchLinux Newsletter June2009:

It's happened to everyone. You finish that huge, hour-long upgrade and reboot into your now up-to-date system only to find that something went terribly wrong. One of the fifty packages you upgraded did something it shouldn't have and now your precious system is at best unstable, at worst... you get the point. So what now? The one downside to pacman is the lack of a rollback feature so you might just have to start from scratch! You're not the first Arch user to run into this dilemma, and you won't be the last.


Don't forget that update maybe does not broke your packages that does not mean it is that way for everyone. Some people use a variety of packages. It could effect them. And as we looked to the forums we are seeing this.

If you mention me that i haven't used ArchLinux i have used it. If i haven"t how could i make comments about it. I have used it for 1 years on my 2 laptop(one is P3 and the other one Core2Duo) and my destop(Amd XP 2500). And on top of them Gnome,KdeMod,Xfce and Openbox. Arch taught me a lot things. I love this distro but i don't like facing with these problems.

I ask to Archers on this forum if they had used Debian? And if they did what they like,what they didn't?

And as i conclude this post i am not saying this one or that one is best. Like everything what suits you is the best. Debian suits me more, Arch suits you more and Ubuntu some of my friends more. Everyone happy with their way.

So..No problem at all...

Yes, packages have to move pretty quickly and it is entirely possible for them to contain more bugs than an Ubuntu package that is tested for months before a release. This I can't deny. What I can say, is that I have rarely, if ever, encountered something like this that made my system unstable.

I have also never had an hour-long upgrade. If you upgrade at least once a week, it'll never take an hour unless it's all of Gnome or KDE that you're upgrading.

Most of the problems that are posted on the forums could be fixed by a simple rollback to a previous version of whatever package, which Arch makes very easy to do. None of these have left a system unbootable. Hell, Ubuntu SHIPPED with bugged out intel drivers this release and I had to install a new kernel and new intel drivers in Ubuntu just to get Compiz working reasonably. That's silly from the "just works" distro.

So, I'll admit that Arch is generally a little more troublesome than Ubuntu. But I also have to emphasize that it isn't something that you have to worry about constantly; just little hiccups once in a while.

Medic2000, I wasn't implying that you haven't used Arch. They way you talk about it, I knew you had used it. There were several people claiming things about Arch that were clearly false and I want them to knock it off.

I have used Debian. I had it on a work machine for a long time. I love Debian for its philosophy (that Ubuntu inherited). I also like that it runs faster than Ubuntu on older hardware. I don't like the not-up-to-date packages and it's still not as transparent as Arch. I like knowing what file contains all my modules and daemons and stuff. But I'm glad Debian exists even though it isn't my cup of tea.

So, as you said, medic2000, no problem at all.