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

ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

standardsandfreedom.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#41

Post by Nic0 »

Tichy wrote: post #38
Nic0 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nano is easier than vim to use, so why everyone bother to learn vim then ? Ease to use is not the only thing mater for everyone, and having something powerful, more customizable, more understandable, those kind of things mater to some persons.

You know, my question was serious. There are several reasons for using vim, like maybe you can edit faster if you know the commands, there are more plugins and so on. So if my question had been "why use vim instead of nano", there would have been possible reasonable answers. But what is the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu? They are both Linux... My question was serious, I really don't know why I should prefer Arch.

My answer was almost serious as well, and was answering the question "why not use Ubuntu if it's easier" and not "what is the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu?". They are two different questions.

Your question, now, is a much more open one, then more difficult to answer. This page try to explain the Arch Way https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

I wrote something that tried to explain why AUR is an important part of Arch Linux http://www.nicosphere.net/why-aur-is-part-of-the-arch-linux-...

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#42

Post by oso96_2000 »

RexRollman wrote: post #12
Nic0 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried this? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Font_Configuration Fonts needs some setups indeed before to get something good.

I generally use the Ubuntu patched LCD packages via AUR and this page was very helpful in helping me get it set up. I've heard the Infinality patchset is really good too but I haven't tried it yet. Personally speaking, since I am so xterm oriented, the best thing I did was install the bitmap font Tamsyn, which I just adore. Easy to read and use. It is available from AUR, but I just download it to a directory in my ho…

You should try the Infinality patches, they are really nice. I've tried them a few months ago and they are great.

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#44

Post by Tichy »

Nic0 wrote: post #41
Tichy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, my question was serious. There are several reasons for using vim, like maybe you can edit faster if you know the commands, there are more plugins and so on. So if my question had been "why use vim instead of nano", there would have been possible reasonable answers. But what is the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu? They are both Linux... My question was serious, I really don't know why I should prefer Arch.

My answer was almost serious as well, and was answering the question "why not use Ubuntu if it's easier" and not "what is the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu?". They are two different questions. Your question, now, is a much more open one, then more difficult to answer. This page try to explain the Arch Way https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way I wrote something that tried to explain why AUR is an important…

I thought my question was kind of the same. If there is no advantage of Arch, then it doesn't make sense to use it if it is harder to use. Unless you want to work on improving Arch.

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#45

Post by koenigdavidmj »

Tichy wrote: post #33

"almost as easy than Ubuntu or any other distribution" But if Ubuntu is easier, why not use Ubuntu?

Ubuntu is not easier when they change their init sysyem every other release to get one second faster boot. Or when they make Unity default when it barely runs.

If you are not a power user and Ubuntu likes your hardware then Ubuntu is easier. If you need to mess with things in /etc then you hit its roadblocks quickly.

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#46

Post by taudelta »

lftl wrote: post #35
sirclueless wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, ArchLinux has bitten me before with its rolling releases. They moved the hostname utility to a new package, but pacman (their package manager) didn't prompt or download the new package. This promptly broke my laptop's network stack right before I left for a weekend trip. Now I didn't have internet, and I didn't have internet to find out how to fix my internet. It all worked out fine by writing a bash scr…

I ran Debian unstable on my desktop for a number of years and the experience sounds pretty comparable. For the most part I just got working bleeding edge packages with minor quality control. Occasionally you would get some breakage (which was usually mentioned in apt-listbugs before upgrade anyway), and the nice thing about debian was I could either pin the package to the current more stable version, or if I had alre…

I would argue that yes, debian unstable and arch are both rolling release distros, so the experience will be sort of similar, but I think that's where the similarities end.

Arch on one hand has a large user base (everyone) using the rolling release packages, this means that bugs get quickly found and squashed. There is also a testing repository which is used for the "base packages" so major bugs don't get get past into the "stable" repos. For example, kernel 3.1 is still in testing because of some problems that the testers experienced.

On the other hand, debian unstable has bitten me more than once very hard. So from my experience, it feels like debian does very little if any Q&A on debian unstable. I would compare Arch to Debian testing more since by then, packages have had some time to test and mature.

That said, I've experienced less crashs on arch than on any distro. Mind you I actually read the news. I honestly can't even remember the last time I've had a crash on archlinux.. maybe several years ago with some kernel update.

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#47

Post by Nic0 »

Tichy wrote: post #44
Nic0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My answer was almost serious as well, and was answering the question "why not use Ubuntu if it's easier" and not "what is the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu?". They are two different questions. Your question, now, is a much more open one, then more difficult to answer. This page try to explain the Arch Way https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way I wrote something that tried to explain why AUR is an important…

I thought my question was kind of the same. If there is no advantage of Arch, then it doesn't make sense to use it if it is harder to use. Unless you want to work on improving Arch.

You're right, if Arch would not have some advantages, nobody would use it.

Simplicity of use, packaging, configuration, understanding. No default choices as Unity, it's light and fast, a great distro to learn from, great community and documentation, and much more, that make Arch a great distribution widely used.

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#48

Post by acomar »

Tichy wrote: post #44
Nic0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My answer was almost serious as well, and was answering the question "why not use Ubuntu if it's easier" and not "what is the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu?". They are two different questions. Your question, now, is a much more open one, then more difficult to answer. This page try to explain the Arch Way https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way I wrote something that tried to explain why AUR is an important…

I thought my question was kind of the same. If there is no advantage of Arch, then it doesn't make sense to use it if it is harder to use. Unless you want to work on improving Arch.

Arch's advantage is simplicity. That does not, absolutely does not, mean that it's easier.

Also keep in mind that to a large degree these things are a matter of preference. I like Arch's package manager over Debian's. Things like that have pros and cons, but on some level it breaks down to simple preference.

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#49

Post by Tichy »

Nic0 wrote: post #47
Tichy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought my question was kind of the same. If there is no advantage of Arch, then it doesn't make sense to use it if it is harder to use. Unless you want to work on improving Arch.

You're right, if Arch would not have some advantages, nobody would use it. Simplicity of use, packaging, configuration, understanding. No default choices as Unity, it's light and fast, a great distro to learn from, great community and documentation, and much more, that make Arch a great distribution widely used.

If packaging really is easier, it might be interesting. It seems to be quite complicated to create debian packages.

Re: ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

#50

Post by signa11 »

udp wrote: post #2

It's pretty stupid, but the only problem I have with using something like Arch on my desktop is I can never seem to get the fonts to look nice (ie. like they do in OS X or Ubuntu) when I've installed/configured Xorg myself.

i am running arch-linux (migrated from ubuntu after a botched upgrade removed /bin/mount) and my fonts are looking waay better than ubuntu. fwiw, i am using infinality patches for cairo/fontconfig etc.
Post reply on HN