Is Arch Linux for you?

[Linuxisfast]

Unlike in Ubuntu where Samba is a breeze, a matter of simple right click and tick share, for all my best efforts I can't get Samba work in Arch or its variants Chakra and Manjaro.

[lykwydchykyn]

No, I am just lazy, I have better things to do then hardcode in hexidecimal just to install just a basic windowed interface.

I don't remember having to hardcode in hexadecimal to do anything in arch. Mostly it was just running some pacman commands.

Arch is interesting, I give it a spin every year or so to remind myself why I never switched to it. I guess I never saw that much compelling about it, and I eventually messed up the system to where it couldn't be updated.

[mips]

I reckon Arch is awesome, if you are new to it you are probably gonna struggle a bit and take some time to setup a system. Once you know it setting up a system is pretty fast (well relatively speaking). Their wiki documentation is second to none and I even use it when using other distros (same goes for gentoo).

I no longer use Arch though reason being the frequent updates which eat into my limited data plan.

So along came Manjaro which is Arch but with more stable repos and less frequent updates. They take the Arch stable repos and move them to Manjaro testing repos, only after a while of testing etc do they move their testing to stable. I still however do a netinstall with Manjaro as I prefer building my own system but for those that don't you can download their full distro iso images. Their main focus is on XFCE but they also have Gnome, KDE & LXDE versions.

Arch, Slackware, Gentoo etc is not for everybody, use what works for you and what you are comfortable with

[Metallion]

I use Arch both at home and at work. I need the beginner's guide when installing it but then it's a breeze to use. I did put Mint back on my old computer recently but it just bothers me that there's so much on there that I don't want.

I just like installing my system from scratch and having nothing in there that I didn't explicitly get. I really like the rolling release thing too. It's much easier to fix things if updates come in bite size and I don't like reinstalling every 6 months.

Actually I have a much easier time finding drivers etc. in Arch than I did in Ubuntu or Mint. Pretty much everything is either in the repos or in AUR.

[Aaron Christianson]

If you can read, you can use Arch. It does take more time to set up than Ubuntu, but generally seems to be more flexible afterwards, especially if you need weird drivers or something.

[Chdslv]

If you can read, you can use Arch. It does take more time to set up than Ubuntu, but generally seems to be more flexible afterwards, especially if you need weird drivers or something.

Yes, of course!
If you can read, you'd use that time to read a book.

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. Well, if you are an Arch user, you'd know how I found that out. When you are installing Arch from scratch, there is a point, when you might want to change the host name, and that's the place the Bridge Linux guy had forgotten to remove the Archbang name. I have that iso.

So, not even the distro makers want to build Arch from scratch, when there are some ready-made ones.

You want a sure Arch installation? Install Archbang and go for it. Time and nerves saved. Even better, you can install Bridge Linux and go from there. Manjaro is forking out, because the Manjaro devs don't want to be at the mercy of Arch top guys. The same was with Chakra.

Good luck, fight it out.
Take care!

[hadrons123]

There is a reason why you guys don't use Arch, gentoo or for that matter Debian.
There is a list why you wont want arch.

You may not want to use Arch, if:

• after reading The Arch Way, you disagree with the philosophy.
• you do not have the ability/time/desire for a 'do-it-yourself' GNU/Linux distribution.
• you require support for an architecture other than x86_64 or i686.
• you take a strong stand on using a distribution which only provides free software as defined by GNU.
• 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 do not want a bleeding edge, rolling release GNU/Linux distribution.
• you are happy with your current OS.
• you want an OS that targets a different userbase.

The best thing about Arch is the wiki. This above quotes are from wiki too!

[COMECON]

It took you a year to decide whether or not to install Arch on VM Ware? It sounds like your new to Linux.

It took a year to install Arch on my real hardware, mainly because I didn't want to mess it all up... But I think it'll took a week to uninstall it

[nothingspecial]

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.

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 ?

[kevinmchapman]

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

You have been told before that you clearly don't understand the iso release system, and you repeat your error. This is why reading is so important.