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

On switching to Arch Linux

mikethecoder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 174 posts

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#41

Post by astrodust »

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…

Why would you want to be a minimalist? Even a Raspberry Pi system, which costs under $50 kitted out with storage, could handle a moderately full install.

The only "minimalist" Linux install I've ever wanted was one so stripped down it would boot off of a 3.5" floppy. It's amazing what you can do with a kernel, a baked in read-only filesystem and a tiny loopback device for storing configuration files.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#42

Post by lnteveryday »

agumonkey wrote: post #25
lnteveryday wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the beautiful thing about arch. While figuring out configurations, tweaks, or problems for yourself may seem daunting Arch has fantastic documentation through the web on tons of issues, ranging from software- to hardware-specific. It is one of the best documented linux distros I've had the pleasure of using.

- the arch wiki and community is really solid for bare naked yet simple linux knowledge. (gentoo wiki is my fallback) - The arch way tends to attract users with strong|alternative ideas, IMHO they're a big part in the revival of tiling wm. - Today I switched to nixos though.

You will be missed.

Absolutely correct on the wm comment. However, I am an organized, messy person and prefer stacking wm. Currently in favor of openbox, but it may be something else tomorrow.(Note: not archbang, but I am not entirely opposed to archbang as some are. Archbang turned out to be really great for my old laptop that I use primarily as a browser, but nothing beats the real deal when it comes to my everyday-everything machine)

That nixos looks interesting, possibly something to consider for one of my personal machines.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#43

Post by shanemhansen »

Arch is fun to play with. A couple years ago the fact that everything was i686 optimized was a big deal. These days just about everyone is using 64bit. It's a good choice for embedded linux systems and servers (Beyond Oblivion used arch for their servers).

Speaking from experience, life is just too short to run arch on a laptop. Heck, I have a hp pavilion dv7 with switching graphics and even that was a pita to get stable on ubuntu.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#44

Post by pandeiro »

astrodust wrote: post #41
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…

Why would you want to be a minimalist? Even a Raspberry Pi system, which costs under $50 kitted out with storage, could handle a moderately full install. The only "minimalist" Linux install I've ever wanted was one so stripped down it would boot off of a 3.5" floppy. It's amazing what you can do with a kernel, a baked in read-only filesystem and a tiny loopback device for storing configuration files.

Minimalism means faster boot time, less cruft in $HOME, generally knowing where stuff is, and more time to comb my enormous neckbeard...

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#45

Post by emil10001 »

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.

Honestly, the install isn't so terrible. The documentation is pretty excellent, and while it does take about 2 hours for the first install, if you need to install it on a different machine (or you really, really screw up your install), it'll probably only take a half hour.

My main issue is that the rolling release thing didn't actually solve the problem that I expected it to - which is that I didn't want to need to install a new release every 6 months to keep up with changes. While Arch makes it so that you don't need to frequently re-install, if you don't update often enough, you can get into situations where upgrading will break your system.

At this point, I'm afraid to do the upgrade on my server for a number of reasons, first is that I might run out of disk space on root part-way through (I should mount something else to /tmp for this). And, the other reason, as mentioned above, is that the upgrade might bork my system, and that's just something that I can't afford on my server.

I realize now that this was a really poor choice as a server distro, but I am happy that Arch does not get in your way with system config stuff and you can find just about anything you want to install in either the base or community repos.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#46

Post by pleaseme01 »

I've been a debian user for about three years now. Lately, I got somewhat settled, since most of the things in my distribution were not new anymore, thus I was not learning that much anymore. Arch seemed a good possibility. I installed it in a virtual machine to code really simple 'hello world' kernel modules, and I liked it very much. It is a barebone installation and gives me the feeling to be in control. I think I'd use arch as a server distribution, since I haven't had any problems with the latest packages. Maybe my opinion will change, and maybe I'd prefer something more stable in a server... Anyway, I respect the opinion of the author, but it sounds a bit overdramatic to me. Tough were the days of winmoden + slackware... tears falling

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#47

Post by lnteveryday »

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 find my system quite usable.

Most arch users attempt to solve their own problems before asking another.

What do you expect to get out of your system? Maybe Arch just isn't tailored for your needs (but you could certainly configure it to meet your needs with a pinch of effort).

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#48

Post by nkassis »

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?

Some people like to know how things work, they like to take things apart and rebuild them. Linux From Scratch (the distro) might be the extreme of this but Arch seems to strike a decent balance.

Also, you do get more vanilla software from these distro. It's a lot less likely that someone modified the software to work with their distro idiosyncrasies. Sometimes that's a big plus.

I used Gentoo around 2002-2005 or so and I learn a great deal of what I know about Linux through the experience. I now run Ubuntu or Debian cause there are other things I want to learn about ;p

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#49

Post by jcurbo »

oinksoft wrote: post #40
astrodust wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, m…

Any distribution is going to form it's own 'way' though. It's a natural side effect of having a packaging system in the first place - you have to start standardizing some things. Take filesystem organization for instance - after many distros fought over this for years we got the FHS. But there are still thousands of open source projects out there that each do things their own way and if you install a bunch of them on one system you're going to have a mess unless there is some standardization. Debian has its own way of doing things but it was developed over time, just like Arch is developing ways of doing things now.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#50

Post by tammer »

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?

Disclaimer: I've been an incredibly happy Arch user for two years now (have it on all my home systems) which may indicate my bias.

Whether I'm an "outcast" or a "neckbeard" is entirely for others to decide. What I can tell you is that based on your comment, you simply have never experienced the joy of building something from scratch.

Rather than defend Arch explicitly, I'd like to use an example.

I like bicycles. I cycle 20 miles daily on my work commute and use my bike as my only form of transportation for running errands and getting around town.

The most "usable" route of transitioning to a car-free lifestyle would have to be going to a bike shop and buying one that fits. Now of course there's nothing wrong with this approach.

However, using this approach, when something goes wrong (as inevitably will happen with all machines, mechanical or digital) my reaction would most likely be be to look down at the problem, scratch my head, then walk my ass to the bike shop.

The approach I prefer is to build my bike from scratch. Acquire the perfect frame, the ideal wheelset, a rack that saves me some extra grams over what comes default on most transpo bikes.

Then all the tools.

When something goes wrong with my bike, I know exactly what's wrong. I know what shortcuts I took, what configuration I chose, and most importantly, I've got all the tools necessary to fix the problem.

Further, I know my bike is as fast and efficient as possible (given all necessary trade offs) because I was able to choose the ideal components.

tl;dr: I use Arch because time spent tinkering is time spent learning and optimizing. For more info I suggest anyone interested read The Arch Way: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

Post reply on HN