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

61–70 of 174 posts

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#61

Post by ff0066mote »

I've been using Arch on my HP Mini since May 2010. I haven't had any serious stability issues. Once in awhile I have to resolve differences between old and new system configuration files.

Arch is easy to set up with the installer. You get a minimal shell system which is good for focusing on code. Most things work out of the box if you just pacman -S the-package-you-need.

The hard stuff (wireless) is very well documented on http://wiki.archlinux.org/. Failing that, community on #archlinux is very helpful.

I'm sure it's not for everybody, but I like to spend my time creating things in code, and not arguing about what's the best environment to create things in.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#62

Post by nwj »

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?

astrodust, do you really honestly believe that people mostly use arch because they want to stroke their (neckbeard) egos and lord it over everybody else?

Maybe it is more likely that they use arch because it's the tool that meets their needs and that they enjoy using...

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#63

Post by pnathan »

swasheck wrote: post #56
pnathan wrote: post #27

I read the article and groaned. My days of "tweak it until it works, just for fun" are pretty much past me (I'm typing this on a Mac, for instance). I like to spend my energy creating things these days. But Arch seems really cool if you want to rebuild Linux systems for fun & knowledge!

I find your definitation of "creating things" narrow and shallow. There's a tremendous amount of creativity that goes into customizing an OS to meet every need you have --- and ONLY those needs.

Sure. But unless you're deploying custom Linux builds, what does that get you, exactly? I have a number of packages on my computer I don't use, and I am not being hindered by their existence. I instead use my brain cycles for creating new software & systems, not retooling the existing one to no end.

edit: Please understand that I'm not saying a fully customizable Linux doesn't have its place. It absolutely does. But when you're trying to crank stuff out, having to stop and tweak/fix your system simply gets in the way. Well, it gets in my way, at least. :-)

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#64

Post by shaurz »

pnathan wrote: post #27

I read the article and groaned. My days of "tweak it until it works, just for fun" are pretty much past me (I'm typing this on a Mac, for instance). I like to spend my energy creating things these days. But Arch seems really cool if you want to rebuild Linux systems for fun & knowledge!

Once you have Arch set up, there is very little tweaking that needs to be done. It "just works", well unless you have an AMD or NVIDIA graphics card and a new kernel or xorg comes out which isn't supported yet...

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#65

Post by shaurz »

acgourley wrote: post #54
pandeiro wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"generally knowing where stuff is" has been my favorite part of using Arch. I started out on redhat systems back in the day, and kinda figured out where the really important stuff was, but never wrapped my head around everything. Adding things piece by piece as I need them to Arch is much more instructive.

Indeed. Arch is an education on the Linux software stack.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#66

Post by agentultra »

oinksoft wrote: post #38
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?

Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, and a few others I'm sure.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#67

Post by jaymzcd »

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.

I use arch at both work and home. It's not really that bad to configure and setup although I guess my usual setup isn't really "a normal user" in terms of 99% of PC users. If you are familiar with linux itself then it's straightforward to get running. I actually prefer it over the likes of ubuntu.

I'm a developer though that's been using Linux as my main OS since the days of red hat 4 in 1996 so I'm quite used to it. Arch focuses more towards seasoned users that want to do their configuration this way. The rolling release schedule can introduce some issues for me but they typically are fixed within hours to a few days as new packages come in.

All in all I'm very happy with it as my primary OS for both work (within a creative agency) and at home. Certainly as a developer I've found it far easier to get things to work on it than other linux flavours.

Different strokes for different folks really. I still continue to recommend Ubuntu and Fedora to friends looking a more friendly and "out of the box" experience. Arch is not there to fill that niche.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#68

Post by timdot »

chrishenn wrote: post #20

Arch is great, but my favorite thing about it is that it stays out of the way. It led me to using new tools like XMonad and MPD. I could be perfectly happy with using the same setup on debian-unstable, but never would have got there without Arch. The package manager Arch uses, pacman, recently introduced package signing (albeit with a few bugs to iron out.) I wonder if more people will start to use Arch as a server O…

Note that package signing is turned off by default so not strictly introduced.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#69

Post by sivers »

tammer wrote: post #50
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?

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 c…

Thanks for this comparison. I hadn't noticed the similarities, but I'm the same way.

VERY happy Arch user for 2 years now. And also planning on building my own bicycle from scratch for the same reasons you named.

I wonder if this is one of those spectrums like Introvert ←→ Extrovert.

People who study the roots ←→ People who just pick the fruit.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#70

Post by VMG »

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.

I am using Arch with gnome3 on 5 different machines and still think of arch being minimalist in the sense that you only need to know a handful of commands and config files and you are ready to go.
Post reply on HN