What makes Arch stand out?

Yarui · 2010-06-30 18:31:05

I have heard people talk about Arch a lot, but have never been able to figure out what makes it different from other distros. I am interested in trying it out but I would like to learn a bit more about it first. People talk a lot about how great the Pacman package manager is, but I haven't been able to figure out what is really unique about Pacman based on the things I have read about it? What are the similarities and differences that make it stand out from other package managers?

I have been using Ubuntu for quite some time but I would like to find something I like a bit better. I have used Gentoo for a little while and I like it, but compiling everything from source is time consuming. I would really like something that gives the user a similar level of control but without having to compile everything. I generally find myself using default options for compiling anyway, so I don't feel like it's really worth it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I want to use something that's more for advanced users than Ubuntu is, but doesn't require you to wait for packages to compile every time you want to make a change to the system. Am I right to think that Arch may be what I'm looking for? Does anyone have any opinions on what makes Arch really stand out aside from Pacman?

jasonwryan · 2010-06-30 18:35:45

One of Arch's big differences is it's excellent wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … tributions

Welcome to the boards.

Yarui · 2010-06-30 18:46:02

That is a really good perk. I think Gentoo has a great wiki and if the Arch wiki is as good or better that would be awesome. One of the reasons I got started with Ubuntu back when it was fairly new is because there was a really good wiki for it at the time. I have been reading more about Pacman and I am unsure if I am understanding this right. Are the packages binaries, but Pacman also makes it easy to compile the packages from source with cusom flags? Everything I read about it makes it sound like it's a binary package manager, but I occassionally find something talking about compiling with Pacman.

Edit: I suppose I should have read your link before asking, I didn't realize it was a comparison to other distros.

Last edited by Yarui (2010-06-30 18:48:06)

anonymous_user · 2010-06-30 19:02:22

Yes the main packages are binaries. If you want to custom compile a package already in the repos, take a look at ABS:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ABS_FAQ

Yarui · 2010-06-30 19:20:10

Yeah, I have been reading through the wiki and found this ABS page while reading the last link that was posted. It sounds like Arch is the kind of OS I have been looking for. I'm not sure why it took so long for me to decide I want to try it out.

Shazzam6999 · 2010-06-30 20:56:38

One thing I love about Arch is the simplicity, which at first sounds odd because of the installation process, but really makes sense when you think about it. You build your own system, install only the packages you want to install and set them up how you want them set up. Config files can be intimidating and confusing at first but once you get used to editing them it actually becomes much simpler than editing something that requires you to have to navigate through fifteen cryptic windows just to find the one setting you want, in fact I'm a little intimidated by changing settings without a config file, although you can take that route too in Arch. At least for me Arch is the perfect combination of simplicity, usability, and customization. I had a similar experience with Gentoo but I switched to Arch after I botched up my Gentoo install and didn't want to go through the effort to rebuild my Gentoo install, and I'm really very happy with Arch.

I didn't mind Gentoo and I always just compiled things in the background anyways, Arch for me is a lot like Gentoo but without forcing my poor pentium 4 to die during the installation. I don't really put that much effort into looking at the package managers but as far as I know Portage offers a bit more customization than Pacman, unless your a useflag fanatic you probably won't even notice the differences.

Last edited by Shazzam6999 (2010-06-30 21:02:59)

Acecero · 2010-06-30 21:04:13

The wiki is what really makes Arch stand out. Adding the knowledge base of the community with the ease of reference, makes it a good combination for any user to take on this distro. I even heard from users of different distros look at the wiki here. As far as quality goes, it is top-notch and it keeps improving everyday. As far as being better goes, well, that's matter of opinion.

By using Arch, you have the flexibility of installing whatever. For example, instead of having to distro hop to different distros for different environments, you can DE/WM hop inside of Arch or have many. You can build your own packages from source with makepkg via custom PKGBUILD, ABS, and the AUR. It is rolling release, you never have to reformat again unless you want to. The average community IQ is very high, you will get plenty of information here.

Trent · 2010-06-30 22:04:49

I've noticed that when Googling solutions to technical problems, often the Arch forums are at or near the top of the list. This is a great community, and (without maligning other distros) I think of it as Arch's greatest strength.

xenobrain · 2010-06-30 22:43:45

My requirements for a distro are

-rolling release, because I always want the latest packages
-binary packages, so I don't have to compile them
-lots of packages available since I like everything properly managed, not make installed
-a nice, working KDE

The first requirement gives me Gentoo, Sabayon, Sidux, Foresight, PCLinuxOS and Arch.

The Second requirement narrows down to Sabayon, Sidux, Foresight, PCLinuxOS and Arch.

The third narrows down to Sidux and Arch. (In order to fufill this requirement Sabayon needs to dip into Gentoo ebuilds which it doesn't handle that elegantly, and requires compiling from source). PCLinuxOS doesn't have a lot of packages I want, and I haven't found a lot of user repositories that fill that gap, and there's no AUR like Arch to help.

The fourth keeps Sidux and Arch as candidates and would've tossed Foresight had it not been already DQ'd for low package count.

Between Arch and Sidux I chose Arch because of it's simpler and more straightforward configuration (thanks to the BSD-style init system), and easier and more straightforward package manager. And AUR. And the documentation. And KDEMod, which used to be a primary consideration though I've switched to Arch KDE now.

And that's what sets Arch Linux apart. It fills a niche that AFAIK is only otherwise filled by Sidux, and has some nice advantages over that excellent distro.

Last edited by xenobrain (2010-06-30 22:49:51)

hokasch · 2010-06-30 22:52:58

just discovered the [wiki tag], so here is more wiki praise...

[wiki]Arch Linux[/wiki]
[wiki]The Arch Way[/wiki]
[wiki]Pacman[/wiki]
[wiki]Arch Build System[/wiki]
[wiki]Arch User Repository[/wiki]
[wiki]Beginners' Guide[/wiki]

delerious010 · 2010-06-30 22:59:30

I've had LinuxFromScratch, Slackware, Gentoo and Debian on my personal machines in the past, and at work I've used both Suse and Ubuntu.

When I initially found Arch and gave it a try, I realized it met all of my requirements, which are similar to those posted above :
-rolling release
-binary packages
-lots of packages available

To those I'd also add these :
- AUR and the whole makepkg / PKGBUILD system.
I ABSOLUTELY hate the hoops I have to go through to create debian/ubuntu packages .. ugh. Arch gives you the ease of binary packages and the freedom to compile your own.
- Lightweight
The less cruft, the less chances something will break unexpectedly -_- Besides, it's a helluvalot easier adding new pieces/modules/apps/etc... than it is trying to rip them out.

Yes the wiki is nice, but then again you can use the wiki regardless of which distro your using

Yarui · 2010-07-01 07:05:25

Acecero wrote:

As far as being better goes, well, that's matter of opinion.

When I said better, I just meant better for me. I like Ubuntu and think it is a great distro, there are just a few things about it that don't work well for me. I always feel very restricted, like everything I need to properly configure things is being kept from me. Arch sounds like it has pretty much everything I am looking for so I'm giving it a shot. I remembered that I have an unused hard drive already in my machine with Gentoo half installed, so I just wiped that and installed Arch. I have heard a lot of people talk about how involved installation is, but I felt it was pretty easy. I was at least able to get everything running without having to come to the forums for assistance. It took more time than other distros, but I think that was largely due to the fact that everything had to be downloaded. So far Arch is making a good first impression.

bananaoomarang · 2010-07-01 17:35:30

Arch is brilliant and one of a kind. It's perfectly stable, rolling release and has a GREAT community. I always love to have the latest packages and the pkg.tar.x forma t is brilliant. PAcman is brilliant because it's light and featurefull and manages my system perfect;y. AUR is also another great thing about arch. There is not much that isn't on the AUR.

jdarnold · 2010-07-01 17:48:16

To me, the best thing about Arch is that it is the perfect medium between putting too much in (like Ubuntu or OpenSuse) and not enough (like Damn Small or Linux From Scratch). It just installs the very basic, but yet is extremely easy to customize, unlike my forays with say Gentoo or Slackware. I run my main user machine with it, with full display and Openbox, while my file server also runs it, sans X and installed just what I need.

That, plus a vibrant user community and a great wiki make it the distro for me!

Inxsible · 2010-07-01 18:01:13

-- rolling release
-- great documentation in the form of the Wiki
-- Forces me to learn more about the Linux OS as compared to other distros, especially Ubuntu
-- Doesn't hinder me by making me compile everything even if I am going to use defaults .....a la Gentoo
-- Good community, which prides itself in being dedicated to helping themselves as well as newbies, as long as the newbies have demonstrated the fact that they actually are willing to solve problems rather than just spoon feeding everything.
-- ABS ( although, admittedly I don't use it much )
-- AUR

-- Hell I'll add this as well .............. I like the name better than any other. Close second in terms of this last point - Slackware and Sabayon

Last edited by Inxsible (2010-07-01 18:02:11)

acvar · 2010-07-01 19:22:58

It puts you in control!

lasu1 · 2010-07-02 22:20:59

I like Arch because my computer performs better under it than any other OS I've tried.

(n.b. I have not tried Gentoo...I've always wanted to, but Arch has worked so well for me, that I've not really gotten around to it. One day!)

frigaut · 2010-07-03 03:48:40

All of the above, but the "it puts you in control" is a big part of it for me.

Look, many of us came from Ubuntu. I used Ubuntu for almost 3 years. Initially I was happy with it, but near the end I kept distro-hoping, looking for something else. Somehow, somewhere, I was unsatisfied. I eventually gave a try to Arch, and was immediately seduced. It was all I was looking for. I've stick to it since then (over a year now).

Give it a try. It's gonna take some effort on your part during the first few days/weeks, but it's well worth it.

Yarui · 2010-07-03 04:59:34

frigaut wrote:

All of the above, but the "it puts you in control" is a big part of it for me.
Look, many of us came from Ubuntu. I used Ubuntu for almost 3 years. Initially I was happy with it, but near the end I kept distro-hoping, looking for something else. Somehow, somewhere, I was unsatisfied. I eventually gave a try to Arch, and was immediately seduced. It was all I was looking for. I've stick to it since then (over a year now).
Give it a try. It's gonna take some effort on your part during the first few days/weeks, but it's well worth it.

Sounds pretty similar to what I have been doing lately, over the past year I have tried out 6-7 different distros, I decided for a while to stick with Ubuntu, which I do like for the most part, but there are just a few things about it that bug me. I decided to go ahead and install Arch and so far I like it more than other distros.

I'm actually not finding it very difficult to adjust to at all. After installing Gentoo I feel like the install process for Arch is not very difficult, and I haven't had much trouble getting things set up. I'm very satisfied with the fact that the install process is pretty straight forward even with the amount of control it gives you. The few issues I had getting things working the way I wanted didn't take me terribly long to fix. A few times I was tempted to ask a question on the forums but decided to try to work it out myself and thanks to the wiki and some forum searches I was able to get it all fixed.

lordmetroid · 2010-07-03 05:37:27

As everyone previously pointed out very good features of Archlinux I want to add that packages do not contain insane dependencies like they do in Debian and Ubuntu.

Yarui · 2010-07-03 08:02:41

lordmetroid wrote:

As everyone previously pointed out very good features of Archlinux I want to add that packages do not contain insane dependencies like they do in Debian and Ubuntu.

Minimal dependencies definitely sounds like a very good thing.

archman-cro · 2010-07-03 08:34:08

The big plus for Arch Linux are exactly those low deps. I've been using Ubuntu for three years, and I know how hellish is "The Dependency Hell". If you want to install some app, you need to get something updated, but ubuntu is outdated by nature, so you have to use ppa or source, and then you lose control of everything (except if you're skilled about keeping things in order - in ubuntu). Here, all is up to date, and I have no problems at all. Pacman rules, AUR rules, and it's so simple! The best OS for good!

Cdh · 2010-07-03 08:41:31

bananaoomarang wrote:

PAcman is brilliant because it's light and featurefull and manages my system perfect;y.

No it isn't. Try replacing openjdk with sun's jre. Pacman can't do that when something is installed that depends on java-environment even when both packages provide it.

In fact I consider pacman to be the only thing that really needs improvement:
The "database" is the filesystem which makes the first reading of the database extremely slow until it is in cache.
Pacman really has problems with handling dependencies of dependencies, the user often has to do it himself instead of pacman offering some sane options.

Other than that Pacman is great: It is fast when the database is in ram and it's not bloated like the package manager on other Distributions (rpm on fedora *caugh*).

What makes Arch stand out is the extremely good Rolling Release: I used ubuntu before and you maybe know about the time when there was this discussion about open office 3 and firefox 3 not going into the release version... With time it were simply too much applications that were hold back. You may also remember the brasero 0-byte-free bug, where many people could not burn with brasero for 6 months because Ubuntu refused to put the fixed version in the repos.

Another thing is the init system. I never quite understood all these /etc/rc.* things and how they are configured correctly. There are some hacks like the rcconf program, but nothing compares to the simplicity and sanity of rc.conf + /etc/rc.d/

Anything that comes from the Archlinux project is simple and fun to use. Try building a sane package for debian - that's the opposite of fun.
Try building a package for Archlinux: Write a pkgbuild and it just works.

Gusar · 2010-07-03 08:49:46

Cdh wrote:

bananaoomarang wrote:
PAcman is brilliant because it's light and featurefull and manages my system perfect;y.
No it isn't. Try replacing openjdk with sun's jre. Pacman can't do that when something is installed that depends on java-environment even when both packages provide it.

pacman -Rd openjdk && pacman -S --asdeps jre

Does the above not work?

I won't go into what makes Arch stand out, because I'd pretty much be repeating what has been said already. Well, there's one thing that wasn't mentioned yet: netcfg. I love netcfg. A lot smaller than either NetworkManager or Wicd, but does the job perfectly. Especially when coupled with wifi-pipe.

Last edited by Gusar (2010-07-03 08:54:17)

Mr.Elendig · 2010-07-03 14:49:29

pacman -Syu jdk should work. (jre does not provide java-enviroment, jdk does)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-06-30 18:31:05

What makes Arch stand out?

#2 2010-06-30 18:35:45

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#3 2010-06-30 18:46:02

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#4 2010-06-30 19:02:22

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#5 2010-06-30 19:20:10

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#6 2010-06-30 20:56:38

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#7 2010-06-30 21:04:13

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#8 2010-06-30 22:04:49

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#9 2010-06-30 22:43:45

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#10 2010-06-30 22:52:58

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#11 2010-06-30 22:59:30

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#12 2010-07-01 07:05:25

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#13 2010-07-01 17:35:30

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#14 2010-07-01 17:48:16

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#15 2010-07-01 18:01:13

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#16 2010-07-01 19:22:58

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#17 2010-07-02 22:20:59

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#18 2010-07-03 03:48:40

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#19 2010-07-03 04:59:34

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#20 2010-07-03 05:37:27

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#21 2010-07-03 08:02:41

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#22 2010-07-03 08:34:08

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#23 2010-07-03 08:41:31

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#24 2010-07-03 08:49:46

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

#25 2010-07-03 14:49:29

Re: What makes Arch stand out?

Board footer