Reading Linux

May 17, 2010 11:13 # 46762

oKtosiTe * wants to know...

What about Arch?

64% | 3

In my never-ending quest to find a shiny new Linux distribution to play with, I finally decided to give Arch a go.

In the past Iíve enjoyed running Slackware, Debian and Gentoo. Now, like many, Iím fairly stuck on Ubuntu, which, although it generally gets the job done, doesnít give me a strong learning experience, at times deviates pretty far from upstream, and for my taste releases a bit too often.

So I installed Arch in VMware yesterday, and so far it seems fast and vanilla, and brings me back to a more basic way of doing things. Itís rolling release, like Gentoo without all the compiling.

Does anyone here use Arch? I have a few questions:

How bad is the buildup of cruft? It was something that really bothered me in Gentoo.
Is it suitable for a server environment? Do incompatibilities appear often?
What's your current favorite?

Or is it?

May 20, 2010 00:04 # 46765

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: What about Arch?

?% | 1

Well, I don't know Arch. What is it all about? Same thing as Gentoo? Like compiling everything you need by yourself? Or something more into the direction I'd like to see - kind of a cross-over of Debian and Gentoo, that is, ie. stability throu proper package repository and mechanisms, customizable and flexible thanks to compiling selected stuff explicitely for your system structure (eg. PGO-based compiling, like it's done with Swiftweasel)?

So, basically, THAT is the direction I'm going to head to for my next system. My current one is being driven by Ubuntu 8.04 LTS and a lot of custom builds of programs, compiled specifically for my system only. Ubuntu 8.04 LTS is being supported at least till April 2011, so I've got still a lot of time, but at some points I'm rather disappointed seeing in what direction Ubuntu is being developed.
Eg. there's this fucking annoying piece of shit called ubuntu-notifier, which you seem not to be able to get rid of in later Ubuntu versions (eg. 8.10, which is the base of Eeebuntu 2.0 and currently installed on my Netbook), and in 8,.04 only with difficulties, like de-installing the Ubuntu desktop-package, which in itself is just a bunch of artwork and boot-up screens, but still: WTF??

I'm probably going to use either GNU/Debian unstable / sid, Linux Mint or Kanotix as the base for my next hardware platform. I'm yet undecided, cause I need a proper working and stable system - that is, not having to fiddle around with it to get the basic components to work. That is reserved for individualization efforts, NOT for simple groundwork stuff.

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

May 20, 2010 09:36 # 46766

oKtosiTe * replies...

Re: What about Arch?

69% | 2

Well, I don't know Arch. What is it all about? Same thing as Gentoo? Like compiling everything you need by yourself? Or something more into the direction I'd like to see - kind of a cross-over of Debian and Gentoo, [...]

Since I got quite bored with Ubuntu, I decided to just give it a go on my main desktop. I have to say that that sounds pretty close.
No compiling was needed to get my system up and running, since Arch uses precompiled packages by default, but source packages with dependency checking are available if needed.

Eg. there's this fucking annoying piece of shit called ubuntu-notifier, which you seem not to be able to get rid of in later Ubuntu versions (eg. 8.10, which is the base of Eeebuntu 2.0 and currently installed on my Netbook), and in 8,.04 only with difficulties, like de-installing the Ubuntu desktop-package, which in itself is just a bunch of artwork and boot-up screens, but still: WTF??

If I recall correctly, the last Ubuntu I had on my Eee 701 was 9.10. It was originally the regular GNOME based Ubuntu, but because of the limited space on that thing I had to transform it into a Xfce environment.
Lately I've had to run Windows on it, but since I'm quite pleased with it so far, Arch might replace it soon.

I'm probably going to use either GNU/Debian unstable / sid, Linux Mint or Kanotix as the base for my next hardware platform. I'm yet undecided, cause I need a proper working and stable system - that is, not having to fiddle around with it to get the basic components to work. That is reserved for individualization efforts, NOT for simple groundwork stuff.

I think Arch might be a little bit more work than Debian, although I can't be sure how much, since I haven't installed a recent Debian on anything for ages. You might compare it with doing a basic desktopless install of Debian, and then adding packages to it.
Compared to Gentoo, Arch is definitely easy to install. It's not for everyone and their grandmother though.

Or is it?

Jun 02, 2010 13:54 # 46772

yoshi314 * replies...

Re: What about Arch?

?% | 1

Arch can be installed in a very rapid way. it takes ~20minutes with an average connection to do a networked install that gets you to average system with basic tools.

also installing on EXISTING encrypted lvm is not a big problem here (which can't be said with various "user friendly" distros).

the best thing is the package manager, pacman, which is really swift, and comes with almost no dependencies. you can drop it (and a 2 or 3 extra libraries it needs) into your linux system or live environment and use it to create an arch installation. 95% of the time will be spent on downloading packages.

arch hits the sweet spot between usable and minimal. you still have standard package manager that has dependency resolution, but the system has low overhead, when it comes to configuration tools or various wrapper scripts. you have easy to maintain system that boots fast and works fast.

i recommend anybody to take a look through arch boot scripts (or any other arch scripts, for that matter). it's really simple and nice to look at. they shine in comparison to opensuse ones ;)

peronally i'll stick to gentoo, because that's what sits best with me. when i break something on it i use arch as a fallback system to recover from the mess i might have caused.

what's really awesome about arch is that i've been running it at work for 3 years now. and i had only one failure with it since - when intel xorg devs pushed a buggy 2.9 driver it caused X lockups at X startup ;)

now i'm getting a liking to fedora recently. mostly because it's a distribution that is an early adopter of many cutting-edge linux technologies and manages to keep all that new stuff under control ;)

even the kernel it ships is very different from mainline and has e.g. more recent DRM/KMS code (which is my actual point of interest).

"Life is a queue. You come in, hang around for a bit, get some service, then depart."

Aug 27, 2010 05:26 # 46781

majic *** smiles...

Re: What about Arch?

?% | 1

Does anyone here use Arch? I have a few questions:

How bad is the buildup of cruft? It was something that really bothered me in Gentoo.
Is it suitable for a server environment? Do incompatibilities appear often?
What's your current favorite?

I am a long time Arch Linux user. There is no build up of cruft. Arch has always been the Gentoo I always wanted but Gentoo never gave me. That distro in my opinion is the best one there is. I've been using Linux since 1997 and have jumped around throughout the years looking for the *killer* distro and I found it in Arch!!! I don't think you'll be disappointed.


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)