I find Archbang to be a good compromise. It presents a minimal Arch install with X+openbox (a la Crunchbang, hence the name) pre-configured. It has a live CD too, so really, it' s just like plain old regular Arch except you don't need a 2nd computer during install ^^
On switching to Arch Linux
11–20 of 174 posts
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#12If you enjoy doing that, there is always Slackware or NetBSD or debian-unstable as well.
Frugalware is also nice. Used it for a while. It was an awesome alternative when Arch got really unstable for a while some time ago. I use Arch again, but for everyone out there who has some problem (or simply needs a more stable approach) use Frugalware. It's also nice for people coming from Slackware or BSD.
Most things are close to Arch Linux, so it's pretty straight forward to switch between them without having to get used to another distribution again.
In short I think it can be a better alternative for people who don't like to hack (so much) on their systems.
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#13My favorite thing about running on an Arch system is I know what's going on all the time. If an Ubuntu system breaks I'm generally dealing with a mass of preinstalled things, it's hard to know what's relevant. Similarly for increasing boot speed, I really like knowing exactly what I need to be running at any one time. I appreciate it's not for everyone, but I imagine most coders around here who run a Linux system wou…
I was running Gentoo before. In Gentoo, you could configure everything up to the smallest details, and you had the system that worked exactly as you want it too. The cost was frequent recompiles and a bunch of time lost playing with the things. After I swithced to Arch, I found it much easier to configure, and it required almost no maintenance. It is a great balance between ease of use and full power.
Have you found a difference in freshness of packages since you switched? I really like how in Arch packages tend to be much more up to date than other distros ( a side effect of the rolling release)
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#14I have an ArchLinux installed at home. Well I am unsure on what to think. It can be used to go on the internet, have the latest software but if you are serious on coding stable things well... you're going to cry.
Since you always have the latest packets ready your code is going to be often broken by changes in the libraries (damn Boost!). Other problem, if you leave your computer untouched for 1 months you'll have 1 Gb of updates to do.
But it's still a very good distribution, just be careful about what to use.
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#15As a developer who has been using Linux as a desktop and enjoys tweaking every little thing: I think Arch is fantastic. It took my understanding of the OS and exactly what is going on to the next level.
However I work with developers who don't want to tweak every little thing they just want their OS to work and let them be passionate about development. They should stick to OSX, or if they are feeling adventurous try Ubuntu. I also would not suggest Arch if you have not used another more friendly Linux distro for a while and had the "opportunity" to troubleshoot some issues and enjoyed it.
To enjoy Arch you really have to be passionate about Linux and tweaking your machine, otherwise you will just be frustrated. For those that are I cannot recommend Arch enough.
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#16First of all, nothing works out of the box. You will have to manually set up the driver for your video card, support for your sound card (which can be a little difficult if you use USB headphones), wifi support, Xorg, your desktop environment and/or window manager of choice, etc. Literally everything mentioned here worked out of the box for me when I installed Arch (except for USB headphones, which I do not own).
Author here. I think we're talking about two different things. By "nothing works out of the box" I mean that you need to set it up yourself. For example, the Beginner's Guide leads you through setup of your video driver [1], ALSA [2], Xorg [3], and wifi [4]. These are all things that require manual work. Maybe there's a more appropriate term for this than "doesn't work out of the box" (?) but it's the first term that…
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.
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#17I'm running arch and home and have a love / hate (mostly love) relationship with it. It's certainly taken up a lot of my time, but I learned more about linux just by installing it than I did in months of using ubuntu. Getting something to work is so satisfying, as it usually involves learning quite a bit about how it works, but there are times when you just want something working and it can be frustrating. Being forc…
It's interesting how relative people's experience can be: for me, it was the opposite, as I feel that Arch has let me save a lot of time. I was using Gentoo at the time I decided to switch to Arch, and the relatively deeper understanding of the internals of the OS that is necessary to keep a stable Gentoo system made Arch feel like a very well-designed Lego toy. I guess that LFS people coming to Gentoo would feel the same :)
TLDR: I love Arch, I feel that I don't lose time on it because I made the switch from Gentoo.
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#18My favorite thing about running on an Arch system is I know what's going on all the time. If an Ubuntu system breaks I'm generally dealing with a mass of preinstalled things, it's hard to know what's relevant. Similarly for increasing boot speed, I really like knowing exactly what I need to be running at any one time. I appreciate it's not for everyone, but I imagine most coders around here who run a Linux system wou…
Getting through the initial hurdles of getting wifi working and daemonized, getting X to start when you boot (if you want to run X), etc. can take a little time because it's not something you normally have to think about with the preinstalled distros. But once you get through those things it's pretty smooth sailing. Pacman is fantastic, and AUR is unmatched. The benefit of knowing exactly what is running is worth the initial pain.
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#19If you enjoy doing that, there is always Slackware or NetBSD or debian-unstable as well.
NetBSD and debian both customize 3rd party software to fit with the project's desired software policies. That is quite different from arch which just packages everything up as-is.
Re: On switching to Arch Linux
#20Arch 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 OS now.