131–140 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what I was trying to install. I just couldn't get it to work. No doubt some simple step I had overlooked, but not being able to install the installer was extremely frustrating.
Download tarball, unpack, run `makepkg`, run `pacman -U .tar.gz`. It's all here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR#Installing_packages
#> vim /etc/pacman.conf [archlinuxfr] Server = http://repo.archlinux.fr/$arch #> pacman -Sy yaourt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once ago, I spent a few hours during the night installing Arch, painfully managed to set most of stuff working and then... formatted it the hell out. Just as you say, my computer and my OS are my tools too, and tools only. I need to get my shit done, not spend all days long quircking every basic detail just to make it work. Even if my disk crashes I can set up a fully configured and working Debian with all most neede…
Even if my disk crashes I can set up a fully configured and working Debian with all most needed software, repos downloaded and ready to do real work in one hour flat. I can do this with Arch Linux. I can't imagine what you could've had so much trouble with.
Sounds like a less stable/predictable version of FreeBSD.
The main thing Arch has over FreeBSD is you get easy access to lots of shiny toys. Pacman repos update much more frequently and the process of updating packages is much faster. If your favorite text editor drops a new version, it will be available in Arch repos in minutes/hours; it may be months before it makes it to FreeBSD ports. And things like audio, video drivers, wireless are pretty painless in Arch compared to FreeBSD.
The biggest downside of Arch is that it sits on the complete opposite side of the security spectrum. FreeBSD makes sure you start with a secure machine and anything you do to cheapen the security is your bag; most of the time it'll try to let you know you when you're doing it wrong. The BSDs in general have a really healthy culture of security paranoia. You don't get that with Arch. Signed packages have only recently made their way into pacman and I'm not sure if they're even required yet. So a lot of the time, it feels like you just have to cross your fingers and trust that the repos you're hitting haven't been compromised. And you're constantly installing software from them.
Also, occasionally you'll need to spend 5 or 10 minutes recovering from a wonky upgrade (upgrading often is better than not).
Arch is an excellent, if not secure, desktop/laptop environment and you'd be crazy to run a production server on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what you mean by "community package installer"? If you're referring to Yaourt, that is an unofficial, third-party wrapper script that is unsupported by the Arch Linux developers and isn't required by any means. It does add some convenience for building packages from the AUR (Arch User Repository), but it's much safer to actually examine those PKGBUILDs to make sure they're sane. You also shouldn't need it…
Just a note, yaourt asks you if you want to examine and edit PKGBUILDs builds every time it builds a package, I really fail to see what the advantage of doing all the steps manually is.
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!
Now I just want something that works, gets updates and gets out of my way so I can build stuff. Ubuntu FTW.
I tried Mac, but nothing, and I do mean nothing, beats apt. Lenovo X220 running Ubuntu 12.04 seems about perfect to me at the moment.
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.
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…
From Wikipedia: "In the book, the Narrator describes the "Romantic" approach to life of his friend John Sutherland, who chooses not to learn how to maintain his expensive new motorcycle. John simply hopes for the best with his bike, and when problems do occur he often becomes frustrated, and is forced to rely on professional mechanics to repair it. In contrast, the "classical" Narrator has an older motorcycle which he is usually able to diagnose and repair himself through the use of rational problem solving skills."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_M...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if my disk crashes I can set up a fully configured and working Debian with all most needed software, repos downloaded and ready to do real work in one hour flat. I can do this with Arch Linux. I can't imagine what you could've had so much trouble with.
You're trying to say Arch doesn't take more work to get up and running? Even OP says otherwise, so please...
That said, I won't argue that it's still a good bit more work than setting up other distros.
If you want to learn the entire Linux ecosystem, I can't recommend Arch enough. From personal experience, don't try to install Arch on your machine unless you have another internet-capable device in hand. You're going to reach for ArchWiki several times. Of course, ArchWiki is an incredible resource with great examples, so as long as you have it, the process is mostly painless. Arch is kind of an intermediate Linux i…
http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/any/arch-wiki-do...
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…