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

71–80 of 174 posts

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#71

Post by agentultra »

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.

Why would you want to be a minimalist?

Less is more.

My Arch system doesn't inundate me with pop-ups to update my system with out-of-date libraries. It doesn't integrate "the social web" into my "desktop." In fact it doesn't do anything unless I specifically want it to.

Some people are happy with everything and the kitchen sink. I don't need all of that, so why have it? It takes up resources, clutters my space, requires maintenance, and often just gets in the way for no good reason. I don't need that and Arch serves me well.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#72

Post by shaurz »

mcrittenden wrote: post #5
Ideka wrote: post #2

First 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…

For wifi it's much easier to install networkmanager, add it to DAEMONS (after dbus) and then configure your network with one of the KDE/GNOME networkmanager applets. It pretty much just works after that. For example I plugged in a USB wifi adaptor and it automatically appeared in the applet and found various SSIDs.

For sound, the best solution that worked for me was ALSA + esd. I could never get PulseAudio to work properly.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#74

Post by filam »

pnathan wrote: post #63
swasheck wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just because a system gives you the freedom to customize your environment, it doesn't mean you required to "retool [it] to no end." I have used a simple Arch Linux installation for years and it has never interrupted my work flow.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#75

Post by koko775 »

Those downsides were upsides for me. I love that everything must be configured on Arch, because I know that I am doing all the configuring. I've tried to customize Ubuntu's motd, change services to start backgrounded, and install packages from source in a way that integrates with the packaging system. Ubuntu likes to get in the way of this in the name of simplicity and for a casual or even intermediate user, sure, this works. For advanced users too, depending on your priorities.

Arch is awesome because it's basically FreeBSD-like packaging and something not unlike FreeBSD's service configuration on a Linux box. Things are in a predictable place, rather than in /usr/local OR /usr/, and installing source packages is something that is very customizable and very easy. It yields the responsibility to be careful about your versions to you, but in doing so gives you an immense amount of power to be the master of your system.

For minimal systems, where you know what you're doing, it's fantastic. Running Xorg is a bit of a pain, but I hardly blame Arch, and if something that "just works" were what I was going for, I wouldn't run Arch. I wouldn't use it on my MBP, but it's been running great on my home server for quite some time.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#76

Post by loungin »

heyrhett wrote: post #73

"First of all, nothing works out of the box. You will have to manually set up the driver for your video card, ...Xorg, " I stopped there http://xkcd.com/963/

All too true. Both my work and home computers run Arch. At work, dual monitors on a single ati video card with xinerama was a HUGE pain in the ass. I ended up just running without xinerama and the Driver/Screen/Monitor/Server sections, let X choose its defaults, and then use xrandr to get the monitors working proper, although they still don't share the same background image, I can live with it.

In Archs defense though, setting up xorg is simply installing the packages which is trivially easy with pacman. I love it to death.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#77

Post by cullenking »

agentultra wrote: post #71
astrodust wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would you want to be a minimalist? Less is more. My Arch system doesn't inundate me with pop-ups to update my system with out-of-date libraries. It doesn't integrate "the social web" into my "desktop." In fact it doesn't do anything unless I specifically want it to. Some people are happy with everything and the kitchen sink. I don't need all of that, so why have it? It takes up resources, clutters my space, requi…

My mint installation (and all previous ubuntu ones) with awesomewm replacing the gnome desktop doesn't have any of that either....

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#78

Post by timdot »

pnathan wrote: post #63
swasheck wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"But when you're trying to crank stuff out, having to stop and tweak/fix your system simply gets in the way."

That's exactly the reason to customise it yourself rather than using a default "one-size-fits-all" OS like Windows/OSX/Ubuntu. You spend a weekend configuring your computer, then you automate everything you did and then you never have to do anything again. Or at least that's the goal.

Still, it gives you control over your computer and that's enough for me. OSX telling me that I wasn't allowed to uninstall certain programs (has been a while since I got rid of my Mac but I think iTunes was one of them) - that bothers the hell out of me.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#79

Post by MatthewPhillips »

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!

Mac has major package management issues. Homebrew is fine (not as good as the linux counterparts, but fine), but if you make the mistake of installing Ruby with RVM Homebrew won't work, and you will spend a lot of time fixing it. With Arch you just have to get your basics set up and any development related item you need, there are precompiled packages you will install in seconds.

Re: On switching to Arch Linux

#80

Post by fam »

victork2 wrote: post #14

I 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…

Agreed. Back when I had Arch installed as my main OS I'd run updates every now and then only to find out after that FireFox or some other program broke. Of course, it's nice to know how your OS works and how to fix things, but considering all the other OSs out there, it's nice to have something that "just works" with as little downtime as possible.

In hindsight, the learning phase of having to set everything up taught me a lot about using Linux, bash, etc. Switching to a tiling WM (dwm rocked) was a great experience when I had been using Windows all my life.

Post reply on HN