Arch worth the time?

[snowpine]

I'm reading through the documentation at the moment and I agree, it seems every base is covered. I've also have a friend recommend Crunchbang. Comments on #! ? I'm not meaning to ask for one over the other, just personal experiences with these two distros.

CrunchBang and Arch are very different distros in almost every way. I like them both very much. I personally have chosen CrunchBang because everything works perfectly out-of-the-box for my needs (the exact opposite of The Arch Way) and I get a working system in a fraction of the time required to get Arch up and running. Obviously however, for many users, that time spent installing and configuring Arch is an enjoyable process, in fact one of the main reasons for choosing Arch.

There is also a project called ArchBang that combines the two.

[dragos240]

I can set up arch within a few hours. It does take a bit longer, but you still end up with a fairly stable system. I say fairly because you still have to know what to install.

[Paqman]

If the time it takes to get your machine configured gives you a better machine than a more ready-built distro, then there's probably some value in it. If all you end up with is something like what you'd have starting with Ubuntu, then you're probably wasting your time.

Unless of course you find all that tweaking and setup interesting, in which case you've got nothing to lose.

[del_diablo]

They way people talk about arch, you would think it's some kind of magical experience that will enhance your life beyond your wildest dreams. Please.

Advantages:
*Rolling
*KISS
*Proper updated package repos
*Good documentation
*Minimal installation, build from scratch

How can it not be worth it? Just avoiding bloat and getting **** done makes it worth it.

[Henry Flower]

I moved largely to Arch after 6 months of Karmic (though I still keep Xubuntu Lucid for when I've broken Arch), and love it. I used Archbang, which looks very Crunchbangish (I much prefer Openbox to Gnome/KDE).

I found that using Ubuntu, I don't really learn about how the computer works as much as I would have expected; finding solutions to problems was a matter of searching the forum and (fairly blindly) following instructions; doing it in Arch is more about reading the documentation and working it out yourself. If you'd find that rewarding, go for it.

[Dark Aspect]

Doesn't take long to setup once you get used to the process, first install might be a few hours. Definitely worth it, you can remove the hal just like Ubuntu 10.04 by compiling Xorg 18 or installing this from the AUR:

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=32428

[fela]

"No. Bad. Bad idea. Awful. Don't do it."

[Achetar]

Yup, it's worth it. It takes longer to install but you're much closer to the bleeding edge, which makes it completely worth it IMO

[WinterRain]

Yup, it's worth it. It takes longer to install but you're much closer to the bleeding edge, which makes it completely worth it IMO

So is fedora. And I can have it set up much quicker. I know you're going to say arch is faster, but on my quad core, 6gb ram pc, everything is quick, so that's a moot point.

And as far being minimal and building it up, I can do the same with ubuntu/debian, and have a more familiar package system.

[WinterRain]

Advantages:
*Rolling
*KISS
*Proper updated package repos
*Good documentation
*Minimal installation, build from scratch

How can it not be worth it? Just avoiding bloat and getting **** done makes it worth it.

But if ubuntu works perfectly for me, arch has no advantage. That's OK if you like it, but please don't make it out to be right for everyone, and that it cures diseases and promotes world peace. It's an OS, nothing more, nothing less.