On switching to Arch Linux • Hacker News Board

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#31

Post by riledhel » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:00 PM UTC

pandeiro wrote: post #24

I've been using Arch for the last 7-8 months and I think my love affair with it has already peaked. Everything written here is true re: learning about Linux, having more control, straightforward architecture, bleeding edge software, etc. But the instability factor eventually will bite you in the ass, and per Murphy's Law, often at the worst possible time. It's happened to me twice in this time span. My solution is to…

Isn't this overly complicated? wouldn't you gain more features by using virtual machines instead?

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#32

Post by tibbon » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:00 PM UTC

It feels like he's describing installing Linux (any distribution) around 1997-1998. A bit complex, lots of manual setup, etc. Not terrible, and it has its benefits for sure, but it feels a tad like a step back.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#33

Post by mberning » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:01 PM UTC

Sounds like a less stable/predictable version of FreeBSD.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#34

Post by jterenzio » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

I recently switched from Ubuntu to Arch for my web server and could not be happier. I prefer the bleeding edge packages and the simplicity. I also learned a ton by having to dive into my config files and launch scripts in more detail. I can imagine for a desktop though it could get overwhelming.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#35

Post by bff » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:03 PM UTC

gtaylor wrote: post #23

kahawe wrote: post #3

If you enjoy doing that, there is always Slackware or NetBSD or debian-unstable as well.

Slackware isn't rolling release, though, is it?

You can always use the slackware-current packages to run with software that is newer than the last release.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#36

Post by agentultra » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:03 PM UTC

I've been using Arch for about three years now and can't imagine using another distro.

The install phase is a pain if you want to get a full-blown plug-and-play ready-to-go desktop experience that rivals Ubuntu, OS X, or Windows.

It's actually really easy if you just want a bare-bones system that boots into a shell and doesn't install any packages other than what it needs to do just that.

Switch to Arch if you're a minimalist.

My rig only runs Stumpwm on Xorg. I only use xterm, emacs, and the usual GNU toolchain. A couple of interpreters. I have installed GTK so I can use Firefox (and so I can hack on Firefox), but nothing else. I don't have a crap load of applications running in the background waiting to notify me of crap I don't care about or services that I never use. I know exactly what runs on my system and it does no more than that and no less.

I think Arch fills a very nice niche and I'm so happy it exists.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#37

Post by astrodust » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:06 PM UTC

tibbon wrote: post #32

It feels like he's describing installing Linux (any distribution) around 1997-1998. A bit complex, lots of manual setup, etc. Not terrible, and it has its benefits for sure, but it feels a tad like a step back.

Distributions like this can't be taken seriously. They're for the outcasts of the neckbeard crowd.

Cynically I suppose that the people involved in making this software aren't encouraged to improve ease of use because then they couldn't be "helpful" in the IRC channel used for support.

Is something like this the reason so many open-source projects so vehemently opposed to usability?

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#38

Post by oinksoft » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:07 PM UTC

agentultra wrote: post #36

I've been using Arch for about three years now and can't imagine using another distro. The install phase is a pain if you want to get a full-blown plug-and-play ready-to-go desktop experience that rivals Ubuntu, OS X, or Windows. It's actually really easy if you just want a bare-bones system that boots into a shell and doesn't install any packages other than what it needs to do just that. Switch to Arch if you're a m…

> The install phase is a pain if you want to get a full-blown plug-and-play ready-to-go desktop experience that rivals Ubuntu, OS X, or Windows.

Just about every Linux distribution offers this, because the distro-makers create none of the window managers, etc. Which other distributions have you tried?

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#39

Post by pandeiro » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:07 PM UTC

riledhel wrote: post #31

pandeiro wrote: post #24

I've been using Arch for the last 7-8 months and I think my love affair with it has already peaked. Everything written here is true re: learning about Linux, having more control, straightforward architecture, bleeding edge software, etc. But the instability factor eventually will bite you in the ass, and per Murphy's Law, often at the worst possible time. It's happened to me twice in this time span. My solution is to…

Isn't this overly complicated? wouldn't you gain more features by using virtual machines instead?

Not really. Arch takes about 10 seconds less to boot up than Mint on my machine. Then there would be the question of having to wait for both the host OS and guest (virtual) OS to boot up.

It's a one-time expense, too, in terms of time. And there's the added benefit that you learn how to partition, how to mount, link, etc.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#40

Post by oinksoft » Fri, Jan 27, 2012, 4:09 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #37

tibbon wrote: post #32

It feels like he's describing installing Linux (any distribution) around 1997-1998. A bit complex, lots of manual setup, etc. Not terrible, and it has its benefits for sure, but it feels a tad like a step back.

Distributions like this can't be taken seriously. They're for the outcasts of the neckbeard crowd. Cynically I suppose that the people involved in making this software aren't encouraged to improve ease of use because then they couldn't be "helpful" in the IRC channel used for support. Is something like this the reason so many open-source projects so vehemently opposed to usability?

I disagree with that, certainly there's space for a slackware-like distro with a decent package manager. Debian, RHEL, etc. are excellent, but there's no denying that they do some things in their own special ways, for better or worse. But with most sysadmins used to some combination of FreeBSD, Debian, and RHEL, I doubt very many would spring at the idea of something new with no discernible benefits.

Like you said, most people using Arch are those who want a great deal of control over their desktop machine, but without the compilation and general cruft of Gentoo. And those will be the ones putting Arch on servers, I believe.