Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

jonathas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 284 posts

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#61

Post by KozmoNau7 »

erikbye wrote: post #50
Majestic121 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to configure and set up everything yourself, it can not really be called 'just works'. I'm definitely a fan of setting things up and diving into config myself, but let's be honest : Arch is not a 'Just works' distribution. Ubuntu could be considered one, maybe elementary as well

This "configure and set up everything yourself" bit is overstated. It's not like Ubuntu, or similar batteries-included distros, doesn't require configuration and tweaking to get it your personal liking, anyway. And it's not like you cannot make choices during installation that affect the final state of your system. The difference between the Arch manual installation process and Ubuntu's is simply that you use a CLI a…

"Yes, it's a rolling release, so you have to update your system now and then, but this is a good thing--install once and run an up-to-date system for years on end."

In my experience, this also lets the system collect all kinds of cruft over time, which can definitely impact stability and predictability when it comes to updates, unless you're extremely vigilant about housekeeping.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#62

Post by giancarlostoro »

mac01021 wrote: post #40
jcelerier wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In arch the compile flags are set in /etc/makepkg.conf. Got my system compiled with CFLAGS="-march=native -O3 -flto -pipe -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4" CXXFLAGS="-march=native -O3 -flto -pipe -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4" LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O3,--sort-common,--as-needed,-z,relro,-flto" MAKEFLAGS="-j16"

Interesting. So how does this set of options tend to differ from those used by the guys who build the normal binary packages?

They probably compile it with generic flags to support x86 or x64 for having more than a handful of package repositories for different architectures, as opposed to having hundreds / thousands of package repositories for every processor released out there. When a package is compiled down to your specific processor it is not guaranteed at all to run on another system. This is also done by people who use Gentoo as well as other source based distributions.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#63

Post by exDM69 »

mariusmg wrote: post #3

So why exactly is Arch a better Linux distro compared with the rest ? There's no "sellingpoint" in the article except this "dig" at the other distros : "apt-get dist-upgrade or something similar every 6 months or so (and risk breaking everything)"

Less "downstream" patches to packages than most other distros. This is consequence and a prerequisite of rolling release.

Debian-based distros can have quite a lot of downstream modifications, the OpenSSL random bug being the most infamous. A lot of this is due to having long term releases which causes the need to have new software work with old dependency libraries and vice versa.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#64

Post by AsyncAwait »

mariusmg wrote: post #3

So why exactly is Arch a better Linux distro compared with the rest ? There's no "sellingpoint" in the article except this "dig" at the other distros : "apt-get dist-upgrade or something similar every 6 months or so (and risk breaking everything)"

It's a system where you don't have a bunch of preinstalled bloatware you don't need, giving you a better idea of what is actually on your system, meaning also a better idea of how to tweak it or have an idea of what's going on if something unexpected happens.

The package manager is much simpler and more transparent than apt, i.e. it apt always felt like a more obfuscated package manager, it writes to files I don't know about on its own, processes various triggers etc. paceman can also do this, but it's PKGBUILD format is really straightforward text description on how to build and configure a package, giving you greater visibility as to what's going on.

Then there's the rolling release model, not having to reinstall is extremely nice.

Overall, it is just a very clean distort, where the tools are intuitive and transparent and you can administer the system as fast as you can type in just a few days.

Plus, the Arch Wiki is by far the best source on all things Linux.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#65

Post by giancarlostoro »

mariusmg wrote: post #3

So why exactly is Arch a better Linux distro compared with the rest ? There's no "sellingpoint" in the article except this "dig" at the other distros : "apt-get dist-upgrade or something similar every 6 months or so (and risk breaking everything)"

Not really sure, I think the best Linux distort is whichever one you're the most comfortable and productive using. No need in forcing yourself to use a distro that gets in your way.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#66

Post by a3n »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #59

I fell in love with Arch, after having used Gentoo for years, and Debian before that. The straightforwardness appealed to me, it's a binary distribution with a rolling release cycle and no custom-finagled packages. But after a while, I got tired of manually configuring everything , doing all kinds of weird house-keeping and having to randomly boot from a USB stick to rescue my system from some update with untested co…

Similar Mint fan. I used Arch for awhile, and enjoyed learning how FDE and other things work (because I had to), but it's nice not to have to.

My only concern with Mint is, what happens when Ubuntu goes away or becomes nonviable as a distro base?

Canonical seems intent on making Ubuntu cool in some area, and even more intent on monetizing Ubuntu, and there's a risk that their pivots, and forward and back steps, could cripple Ubuntu.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#67

Post by KozmoNau7 »

jiggunjer wrote: post #44
crocowhile wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been an arch user for more than 10 years now and three things make the difference for me: - a very mature community of users. The arch docs and forums are really good. If you ever have a problem, you'll find a solution in no more than a few clicks - an extremely tidy package manager. The choice of packages is huge and - more importantly - creating and maintaining a package is extremely easy. Way easier than ma…

I hate the "it just works" marketing bs. Sounds exactly like Apple. It didn't work when I tried to update after being away for 3 months. It wouldn't even boot because they changed to systemd in the meantime. So it only works if you sink in significant time.

It really does require you to be subscribed to the Arch news feed, in case any packages require special manual procedures to install correctly.

And don't wait too long between updates, because apparently some newer versions of packages don't know how to properly upgrade from older versions.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#68

Post by KozmoNau7 »

bananicorn wrote: post #13
mariusmg wrote: post #3

So why exactly is Arch a better Linux distro compared with the rest ? There's no "sellingpoint" in the article except this "dig" at the other distros : "apt-get dist-upgrade or something similar every 6 months or so (and risk breaking everything)"

It's something you kinda have to try to actually feel the difference. I can tell you a few things I noticed after a few months of use: -Pacman (their package manager) is amazing - and if you want to install community packages from the AUR[0], you can use yaourt (if they've got dependencies on other AUR packages), or just git clone the package and run makepkg -si I've never had any problems with it, and I've messed ar…

"No bloat at all"

Is this really, honestly a problem anymore?

I'm running Linux Mint 18.2 on my 2011-vintage refurbed T420 (4GB RAM, 320GB old-fashioned hard drive) and it feels every bit as speedy as Arch on the same machine.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#69

Post by AsyncAwait »

jiggunjer wrote: post #44
crocowhile wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been an arch user for more than 10 years now and three things make the difference for me: - a very mature community of users. The arch docs and forums are really good. If you ever have a problem, you'll find a solution in no more than a few clicks - an extremely tidy package manager. The choice of packages is huge and - more importantly - creating and maintaining a package is extremely easy. Way easier than ma…

I hate the "it just works" marketing bs. Sounds exactly like Apple. It didn't work when I tried to update after being away for 3 months. It wouldn't even boot because they changed to systemd in the meantime. So it only works if you sink in significant time.

> I hate the "it just works" marketing bs. Sounds exactly like Apple. It didn't work when I tried to update after being away for 3 months

It does indeed 'just work', it only doesn't if you fail to understand what rolling release means. There is usually a painless way to upgrade even after a long time, you just have to use pacdiff and read archlinux.org a bit more carefully than if you update daily/weekly.

Also, how does Apple not 'just work'?*

* 'just works' refers to a general idea of it being in good working condition and not behaving unexpectedly, if you use it in a reasonable manner, it doesn't mean that every cranky misconfiguration of a tool you just came up with will somehow read you mind and deduce how you intend it to behave.

Re: Why I Fell in Love with Arch Linux (2015)

#70

Post by striking »

CJefferson wrote: post #2

I like arch Linux, I just wish they had a simple installer -- these days I tend to have lots of vms hanging around, and I haven't found a super simple way of making a quick arch VM. There doesn't seem to be any official vagrant boxes for example. I can believe the lack of a simple installer is what has kept the quality up -- it is a way of signalling users should be prepared to use the terminal.

You can install it once and turn it into a snapshot. I don't see why you'd need an external tool for that.
Post reply on HN