PDA

View Full Version : Arch rant



iamah
September 30th, 2008, 02:39 PM
EDIT: This rant is solved(?) :) thanks to fwojciec, I understand better now what Arch is.


So I jumped in the hype over this Arch distro and tried installing it. I knew it was a tricky distro. But I used Linux before Ubuntu, now I'm a lazy linux user, amen!

Let me organize this rant by alledged Arch advantages I've heard about.

1. Size. I went to the basic: xorg, xfce, firefox, mplayer, vlc and some wifi tools. Well, df tells me theres 2.1GB used. I really dont see the size advantage here. Even Xubuntu can deliver that with more ready to go features like Openoffice, skype, IM, working wifi and battery apps... Maybe they refereed to the core installed. Yeah, thats nice, but nothing to get excited over, I remember using Debian floppy disks and still getting small size... Now the only distros that impressed me with size were oldies Kurumin and Vector... they're probably dead now

2. Pacman. Its a nice tool, but I really don't see whats the greatness, apt also is nice, with some nice frontends, lots of packages... maybe the package format, they say it take less time to process the package but nowadays I think processing packages is not a big deal, to some people downloading is more of a problem...

3. New versions. Well, I didn't go out checking versions to see if they're really up to date, but I'm typing this in Arch using Firefox Gran Paradiso 3.0.1, even after updating pacman -Su which gave me 120MB of stuff, but no Firefox 3.0.2 which I already have on Ubuntu for more than a week.

So yeah, I don't take fun in assembling my distro anymore, I did that once. I was just a little disappointed at what other experienced users praised about Arch. Things there were here long before, others that just weren't so.

lukjad
September 30th, 2008, 02:46 PM
Out of curiosity, are you writing this here because they would skin you alive if you posted this on the Arch Forums? :D

fwojciec
September 30th, 2008, 02:51 PM
I think you're missing the point entirely. The good thing about Arch is, above all, that it is simply linux with an excellent package manager -- and nothing beyond that. No customized packages, no auto-configuration scripts, no periodic releases that force you to do a big upgrade, no second-guessing what the user wants... Basically -- a simple, transparent, vanilla system that gives the user full control.

It seems you were looking for something else, and thus you're disappointed.

mips
September 30th, 2008, 02:53 PM
1. I suspect you never cleared out your cache.

The rest I'm not going to bother with.

iamah
September 30th, 2008, 02:58 PM
Out of curiosity, are you writing this here because they would skin you alive if you posted this on the Arch Forums? :D

I actually don't know, but maybe you're right. I didn't registered there yet, and I'm already used to this forum. But also, I don't wanna flame their place. I think the discussion may run more loose here. :)

I appreciate the enthusiasm over new stuff but after I tried it all seems very hyped.

iamah
September 30th, 2008, 03:04 PM
1. I suspect you never cleared out your cache.

The rest I'm not going to bother with.

Thanks, pacman -Scc, now I have an impressive 1.9GB used... :confused:

I really don't see the reason for the Arch hype all over the 'geekosphere'.

iamah
September 30th, 2008, 03:14 PM
I think you're missing the point entirely. The good thing about Arch is, above all, that it is simply linux with an excellent package manager -- and nothing beyond that. No customized packages, no auto-configuration scripts, no periodic releases that force you to do a big upgrade, no second-guessing what the user wants... Basically -- a simple, transparent, vanilla system that gives the user full control.

It seems you were looking for something else, and thus you're disappointed.

That makes much more sense... but how do you compare that with debian, for example?

mips
September 30th, 2008, 03:22 PM
I really don't see the reason for the Arch hype all over the 'geekosphere'.

You don't have to use it. If you like something like Ubuntu then use that instead. Your perceptions & needs will not always corrospond with those of others.

iamah
September 30th, 2008, 03:30 PM
You don't have to use it. If you like something like Ubuntu then use that instead. Your perceptions & needs will not always corrospond with those of others.

Yes, but my objective was also to understand why Arch is so praised by advanced users. I think fwojciec clarified my ideas. I've been reading stuff like small size, new versions and after I tried it was not all that...

smartboyathome
September 30th, 2008, 03:39 PM
I like Arch simply because of ABS, and the ease of creating packages for Arch.

Sealbhach
September 30th, 2008, 03:45 PM
I've just installed Arch on another drive because I heard it's a good distro if you want to learn a bit more about Linux - but it's not so difficult that you burst into tears.

That's the way I find it - difficult, makes me think about how to find solutions, but also not so hard that it breaks my spirit.

And I think pacman is really impressive - but not any more so than apt.



.