Thoughts on Arch Linux

skale · 2006-11-07 03:08:45

First off, I have not been using Linux as long as some of you all have. I started with Ubuntu last January, and dumped my Windows partition a month later. I used Ubuntu until the summer, when I got tired of the three and a half minute boot time, and the tank-loads of software I never plan on using. I gave Gentoo a whirl (don't get me started) and then found Arch while thumbing through Distrowatch. I downloaded it and tried it out. I could not install X, and just sort of gave up on it. Then I kinda wasted time , futzing around with LFS. I got it to work (which seems to be quite a hurdle), but gave up after trying to build packages from source, I just didn't have the time. I tried Arch again about a month ago, and, probably because I knew a lot more it worked. I thought after a month or so, I should write what I think about it. Here it goes:

The installation was the best I've tried, especially after Gentoo (again, don't get me started). Hell, for a ten-minute install, it's tough to find something to complain about. Everything went well. If the installation changed, I would cry.

Upon booting for the first time, I realized that a console-only system was completely useless. I had tried installing X the last time and failed, but I tried again and it worked, albeit with a lot of effort. I think the problem is the wiki, it's a bit assuming and disorganized. A lot of people like it that way, without step-by step instructions, but that kind of kills the point. I would like to add to it, but don't think I really have the comprehensive knowledge to work it out. I might add a section somewhere. Big thanks to the forum, the guys there helped me out a lot, and I probably would not have been able to do it without your help.

The default fonts were awful. The wiki again left something to be desired, but I worked it out fine in an hour or two (wow, I've really wasted a lot of time on this). I used the Microsoft fonts, and am certain that they changed after the update from sleek to chubby, but I didn't really care that much. Letters are letters. That leads me into the updates.

This rolling release is interesting, but it has it's own problems. Every update breaks something. In the last one the new kernel conflicted with udev, and wouldn't boot. That was sad, because I was kinda counting on that kernel to fix a bug in the last kernel, which ran some "ata1: not found, retrying in 30sec."and dragged the startup time by three extra minutes. Honestly, does anyone really need to upgrade code that is a week old? I seriously think that no-one will notice if you have gcc 4.1.1 or 4.1.2. It's sad, because I cannot really rely on Arch to work properly when I need it. Ubuntu will work every day, no matter what I install or try to do, and there is something to be said for that. I'm not a computer genius, though I think I have come a long way. The whole system right now is in a state of chaos right now, with dozens of workarounds and loose files and crap, that I am inclined to just wipe the partition and reinstall everything. It'll only take ten minutes, then ten more to install everything. That is impressive. But, I don't have infinite time to waste, I have to apply to college and everything this year, and take the SAT, and all that other stuff and it does feel nice when the computer "just works".
I do like its simplicity, however. The /etc folder in Ubuntu has 1,142 files in it, and Arch has only a hundred or so. I never realized how much you can do with configuration files, and have stopped using GUI tools completely. Pacman is nice, if it had more packages that would be better. apt-get on Ubuntu tends to fill up the hard drive with crap after a while, and it is a pain to free space on it every six months. It remains to be seen if Pacman leaves lots of downloaded packages and keeps hundreds of dependency packages long after I uninstalled the software it required.
All together, I like it. It isn't perfect, but after Gentoo (don't start) I can accept that the perfect distro doesn't exist. Arch is pretty close. Just wanted to say all that, that's all.

sarah31 · 2006-11-07 04:30:19

To me it sounds you may have tried stepping up too quickly in your Linux progression. Arch really should have been a breeze especially after Gentoo and LFS. So maybe you have been overwhelmed with information to the point where you were unable to file everything away in the proper spot?

I get this impression from the fact that you have issues with rolling releases. In 98% of rolling releases NOTHING at all should go wrong with the rest of the system. For base components of the system you could have some issues if you either do not do some preparation or have the system properly set up.

Arch is not perfect ... no Linux is but you should not have the issues you do. If you decide that you are more comfortable with something else right now then I do not see the shame in going with that. Maybe try Arch again later once you can narrow down what was causing the problems for you. Granted I can see your point about documentation improvements but between the docs and the forum you should be able to get around many of your issues.

:shrugs:

hotsauce · 2006-11-07 04:33:39

interesting read. Valid points. Are you using xorgconfig to set up X. Works every time for me and is very easy. Otherwise hwd should do the trick.

I don't encounter the same upgrade problems you seem to have. I don't do it too often and when an app won't launch anymore, 1 or 2 days after it does...

Good points tho...

elasticdog · 2006-11-07 04:38:44

skale wrote:

It remains to be seen if Pacman leaves lots of downloaded packages and keeps hundreds of dependency packages long after I uninstalled the software it required.

A quick <code>pacman -Sc</code> will clean out all old versions of packages (including things that have been uninstalled).

skale wrote:

Upon booting for the first time, I realized that a console-only system was completely useless.

I couldn't disagree more on this...Arch is all about giving you the freedom to make whatever you want of it. If you want a headless server, then you might not want the overhead of running X. There are a large number of apps that aren't gui-based, and the option to only install the bare-minimum in s blessing. I basically live my life inside an ssh screen session.

/end rant

Sounds like you're progressing in the right direction as far as learning goes. I tend to agree with sarah though on the rolling releases...usually it cuts down on issues. The only time I've ever had stuff break is when there are major upgrades to packages like udev or the like, and in those cases we are usually warned well ahead of time on the forums, on the news postings, and the install messages, etc.

The wiki is currently undergoing a big reorganization, so hopefully it will start to clear up some. I know a lot of users out there have requested a more step-by-step guide on how to achieve things in Arch. By all means, even if you're not an expert, feel free to change wiki entries to be more understandable to everyone...it can only get better with more input.

I'd say stick with it, and if you do decide to re-install from scratch, don't forget to make a copy of your important configuration files so you don't have to go through all of the torture twice

scarney · 2006-11-07 05:23:04

keep plugging away. its not unusual to re-install ALOT!, believe me. ;p arch really is the best linux distro around imo. but if your a newb, and impatient, like myself, it takes a long time to be proficient?. and even then, there is always something new to learn, like with any linux/unix os.

Anonymo · 2006-11-07 05:37:43

what graphics card do you have? If you have a fairly recent one and it's nvidia, try nvidia-xconfig. It makes a n x configuration file for you. I tend to rename it to xorg.conf aftward. All works well then. And don't forget to add alsa to /etc/rc.conf. Else you will have sound once, but on reboot, no sound. Arch is almost perfect. So is many other softwares. Humans are not perfect and cannot produce perfect software in the absolute form. Everything has a fault or what seems to be a fault.

dolby · 2006-11-07 09:52:41

just one question to skale.
u are comparing arch mostly with ubuntu, a distro that is supposed to have a rolling release system too. did u try upgrading from dapper to edgy? if u did so, did everything work as before the upgrade?

stavrosg · 2006-11-07 12:30:42

No, Ubuntu doesn't have a rolling release system.
Yes, you can dist-updgrade the system without reinstalling to the new version when it is out, but that's still "Security patches and/or really annoying bugfixes only" in the meantime.
And they get away with the bi-yearly breakage by saying "It is a new version; you were supposed to download the cd and do a clean install anyway".

On the arch front, skale do raises a few interesting points. Sure, my installation is from July 2005, and I've managed to geo around the major breakages, or repair the system without wiping everything, but that was mostly because I actually had enough time for it.
Arch is not an "install and forget" system, and that's where its greatness lays. I learned a lot using it, but now that I want such a system, I am not asking for arch to become one, but got out looking for it.

Borosai · 2006-11-07 12:58:27

As far as updates breaking the system, I have only experienced that once or twice, and it was due to updating my system before the servers were completely synced...but it was resolved the next day.

If you are trying to run a very stable system, my advice would be to only update your system when it's necessary and not every day or every week. Keep an eye on the updated packages available, and when you see something important, update it manually. I don't need to run a stable system, and I update regularly without any serious problems (but I don't have much installed, so...).

ralvez · 2006-11-07 14:29:26

When I got into Linux, about 8 years ago, I started with RedHat, then went to Mandrake for awhile and then jumped to SuSE. Then, for a short period of time, I was wandering through a number of distros and finally settled with Slackware, where I stayed for about 5 1/2 years.
About 1 year ago I moved to Arch and have never looked back.
I have had very few problems with Arch, mostly with apps. not the OS, and find the rolling upgrade to be solid.

I did my first install of Arch with this guide: http://michael-and-mary.net/intro/?q=node/260 and it worked just fine at first try.
I also read through http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/arch.html and gained some more insight and went from there.

I do not know if any of this would be of any value to you but for what it's worth take a look at those guides and use the forums.
My experience with getting help has been outstanding (mostly ) and for someone who has tried so hard to learn Linux you are not doing too badly ... I think.

cactus · 2006-11-07 19:29:21

skale. I have done a similar, personal, cost/benefit analysis much akin to what you spoke of...comparing a rolling release to a more discreet release system, and some of the benefits and issues of both.

I think a rolling release system is generally preferable. This largely depends on the problem domain though. If rock solid stability is needed, then a more discreet release system is going to win. If being up to date is desired, rolling release gets the win. For a mix of the two, I think rolling release wins as well.

The key is execution. People are fallable, and not everything can be gracefully handled (the devs work hard to do their best).

Part of the instability issues you run across when using rolling release, may be due to the need to update regularly. Painful as that is, it is an important thing to consider.

Leaping many updates will likely cause *more* problems.
For instance. Lets say you update once every 3 months. You would be leapfrogging MANY incremental fixes. Some of those incremental fixes leapfrogged might be migration scripts to ease the transition to mkinitcpio, udev, etc. You might miss package messages that tell you 'hey! make sure you do X before you reboot'... and on and on.

Yet, updating regularly exposes you to more of the incremental issues here and there... 'package X is broken, yet it is fixed in 6 hours..etc'

I think a moderate hand with updating, and checking for news items, keeping an ear to the ground in the community (forums, irc, etc) is important to maximize stability. I try not to update major things until i hear from a few people at least..that the update didn't explode in fire.

You can further increase your stability, by testing packages in a test environment first, by managing your own repo fork, by managing your own important packages, etc.. these all help. But then, I venture to say, you are using less of 'arch' the distro.

To me, Arch is both a distro (the packages in current, extra, community), and a set of meta-distribution tools. (pacman, makepkg, abs, etc).

With the meta tools, you could "relatively easily" make your own distribution (relative to using rpm, deb, etc to make your own distro). Arch the distro is largely defined by package management, community, and the installation cd.

A thoughtful topic skale. Thanks for the intellectual interlude.

Cynical · 2006-11-07 23:26:16

I just discovered this distribution, and its exactly what I've been looking for. Its such a perfect match for me I'm in shock as I type this. I spent all day setting up this box because of how much fun I was having. Ubuntu was too simple/bloated and gentoo was a pain in the ass (maintaining it just isnt worth the effort for someone like me). The suse 10.2 beta was gorgeous but dependency hell and lack of packages forced me to search anew. I was stuck in the distro hopping stage everyone seems to go through and I was beginning to give up hope.

I found Arch on distrowatch.org while browsing for up to date distributions. It was one of the few to have the 2.6.18 kernel. (I like having the latest in hardware support) Excited, I grabbed one of tpowa's iso's after a search on these forums revealed his remastered images had better hardware detection than the official ones. (I have a p965 based motherboard with a jmicron ide controller which gives most distributions trouble) After the simple installation, I began getting all of my favorite packages effortlessly due to this beautiful package manager. I check my ram usage to see 67mb in use after booting to the desktop! After converting the default gnome desktop into a SLED-10 lookalike, I knew I could finally stop distro hunting.

twiistedkaos · 2006-11-08 00:45:55

Archlinux is a distro I can not describe in words, Much like love . I feel in love with it for so many more reasons then there are not to love it. I suppose it just depends on the person and what they are looking for. I don't ever plan to use any other distro. Archlinux is my one true linux love, even if I am not a linux expert or even close to it.

McQueen · 2006-11-08 06:31:45

Indeed, I'm always shocked more people aren't using Arch. I suppose it has something to do with the more hands-on approach, but to me it is a perfect blend of transparency and usability. It takes away most of the big headache issues like packaging and system conflicts, and lets you spend time on things that actually impact your productivity and enhance the desktop experience.

sarah31 · 2006-11-08 18:25:17

McQueen wrote:

Indeed, I'm always shocked more people aren't using Arch. I suppose it has something to do with the more hands-on approach, but to me it is a perfect blend of transparency and usability. It takes away most of the big headache issues like packaging and system conflicts, and lets you spend time on things that actually impact your productivity and enhance the desktop experience.

The hands on would be a definite deterrent for some folks but, in many cases, once the set-up is done one should not have to go back and do it again. Even then most of it is like riding a bike you should not forget it. Indeed the hands on approach can even be helpful as it marries you to the OS more and allows for you to solve many of the simple issues that may arise. The more one knows about the OS the more productive you can be and the more time and money you can save down the road.

When I used Arch I found it to be a perfect balance between hands on and hands free. I can't imagine it is any different now.

That being said I remember some folks having issues with the documentation so that should always be a dynamic process. One that those who have issues should try and contribute to if possible since those out there that have a fairly good grasp of how to do things will often forget the small details that could be the difference between someone else getting a handle on Arch or giving up in frustration.

Then again there is only so far one can hold another's hand before getting frustrated themselves.

capkanada · 2006-11-08 19:57:24

My thoughts on Arch....

I like it.

No, that's not all I'm going to say.

I just migrated to it a few weeks ago from Gentoo. Don't get me wrong, in all seriousness, I love Gentoo to death; the USE flags are a WONDERFUL idea, IMO, its just that...well... *sigh* what kind of ex-Gentoo-er am I going to sound like saying this? ...compiling EVERYTHING gets REALLY old after a while.
:oops:
Yeah. I said it.

I will admit, I did have a spot of trouble with the install-guide being somewhat out of date, (I did an FTP install...I like my packages up-to-date out of the box...) but after some helpful advice on the IRC channel, I got up and running.
As for the rest.. the binary packages are nice, having the ports-esque build system is very nice (although a way to track which packages you've built and installed, and update those would be really, really nice. I like to keep my -svn and -cvs packages as up to date as I can...things like beryl with their rather quick development get kind of stale quickly, and it'd be nice to be able to keep up with them without having to manually versionpkg all of the packages), and the rc.conf system is great. From my very, very short adventure into *BSD-land, I can see that Arch is even more designed after BSD than Gentoo. Not a bad thing at all.

Ah.. then there are PKGBUILDS. I love it! I've tried messing with .rpm's, .deb's, and *shudders* .ebuilds (In order, I tried Mandrake, SuSE, FC, Gentoo, Ubuntu, and now Arch) and they are seven kinds of hell to "do it yourself"...at least for me. I will admit, I'm lucky to get a Bash for loop to work right (my programming experience comes from my TI-99 4/A TI BASIC childhood) :oops:, but the documentation on creating PKGBUILDs is quite good, and...well... its pretty much a rather simple script that includes the configure, make, make install steps and then tars the resulting output up into a package to be handled by pacman. Very nice, very useable, and very configurable. Not quite as smooth as USE flags for adding desired program features, but very acceptable. That, and quite simple for making fresh ones, i.e. finding a program that is neither in the regular repos or in AUR, but still wanting to install it using the package manager (can't help it...preference.). I've studied a few of the ones from the ABS tree, and the info is all there and simple to grok.

Yeah...can you tell I came from Gentoo? Yes, I don't mind compiling some packages...just not ALL of them.

Anyhow...I'll be quiet now, and get on with being an Arch user.

[CK@arch]$ May the source be with you.

Anonymo · 2006-11-09 05:14:37

capkanada wrote:

My thoughts on Arch....
I like it.
No, that's not all I'm going to say.
I just migrated to it a few weeks ago from Gentoo. Don't get me wrong, in all seriousness, I love Gentoo to death; the USE flags are a WONDERFUL idea, IMO, its just that...well... *sigh* what kind of ex-Gentoo-er am I going to sound like saying this? ...compiling EVERYTHING gets REALLY old after a while.
:oops:
Yeah. I said it.

I will admit, I did have a spot of trouble with the install-guide being somewhat out of date, (I did an FTP install...I like my packages up-to-date out of the box...) but after some helpful advice on the IRC channel, I got up and running.
As for the rest.. the binary packages are nice, having the ports-esque build system is very nice (although a way to track which packages you've built and installed, and update those would be really, really nice. I like to keep my -svn and -cvs packages as up to date as I can...things like beryl with their rather quick development get kind of stale quickly, and it'd be nice to be able to keep up with them without having to manually versionpkg all of the packages), and the rc.conf system is great. From my very, very short adventure into *BSD-land, I can see that Arch is even more designed after BSD than Gentoo. Not a bad thing at all.
Ah.. then there are PKGBUILDS. I love it! I've tried messing with .rpm's, .deb's, and *shudders* .ebuilds (In order, I tried Mandrake, SuSE, FC, Gentoo, Ubuntu, and now Arch) and they are seven kinds of hell to "do it yourself"...at least for me. I will admit, I'm lucky to get a Bash for loop to work right (my programming experience comes from my TI-99 4/A TI BASIC childhood) :oops:, but the documentation on creating PKGBUILDs is quite good, and...well... its pretty much a rather simple script that includes the configure, make, make install steps and then tars the resulting output up into a package to be handled by pacman. Very nice, very useable, and very configurable. Not quite as smooth as USE flags for adding desired program features, but very acceptable. That, and quite simple for making fresh ones, i.e. finding a program that is neither in the regular repos or in AUR, but still wanting to install it using the package manager (can't help it...preference.). I've studied a few of the ones from the ABS tree, and the info is all there and simple to grok.
Yeah...can you tell I came from Gentoo? Yes, I don't mind compiling some packages...just not ALL of them.
Anyhow...I'll be quiet now, and get on with being an Arch user.
[CK@arch]$ May the source be with you.

bring all the gentoo user you can.

bones · 2006-11-09 21:58:51

The one thing that annoys me about Arch is that once I installed it and got it running perfectly I got hooked. I left and tried a couple of other distro's, yes some were good and did everything I wanted but it always felt like I was missing something. So to fix the problem I reinstalled Arch, and will never change again. Another box I have will be used for testing and playing with other distro's but Arch will always be #1 in my book .

palandir · 2006-11-10 03:06:12

@skale:
You could always use Arch as if it didn't have the rolling release system: just don't upgrade (or only rarely) when everything is working as you want it to.
Your post sounds as if you were forced to upgrade your system every day or so.

However, I'm using Arch now for ~1.5 years and never had a big problem with the upgrades, and I'm doing a "pacman -Syu" nearly every day. I can't even remember what the last problem was, but I'm sure it was just some minor issue (otherwise I would remember it). I like the rolling release system, as I'm a sucker for the latest stable versions of software and for the latest features. I think the devs do a very good job, because in my experience Arch is just as stable and reliable as Slackware and Debian was here, and that's quite a positive surprise.

I've tried many distributions and Arch is well on the way of becoming my most-used distribution (putting Slackware to 2nd place). And since I've used Arch I never had the desire anymore to try out another distribution on the desktop.
That means I'm really, really happy with it.
With the other distributions, Linux only was like "the operating system that sucks less" to me, but with Arch it's more than that again. It's fun to use.

I completely agree to what McQueen said, but I hope that Arch always stays true to its philosophy and doesn't try to become more like mainstream distributions because of increasing popularity and thus increasing demand for "newbie friendliness"/bloat.

benplaut · 2006-11-10 08:10:31

.

Last edited by benplaut (2021-06-25 12:33:13)

Snarkout · 2006-11-10 14:43:18

benplaut wrote:

this isn't really a distro for those who don't have the time.

Ding, ding, ding! I love arch, but it can be painful to deal with repeated breakage due to it's "bleeding edge" nature. Very little of this breakage is due to anything done wrong in the packaging department, but there are a limited number of devs, and a limited number of testers which means that if you are a fringe case, upgrades may break things. Fixes or workarounds are usually found within days if not hours, but if you're used to no flux whatsoever I imagine this would be a minus - hell, I've ranted a few times about breakage, for sure.

It's not at all uncommon for me to discover something that worked a day ago no longer works after an -Syu - this is usually resolved quickly, or there are usually good pointers on the forums or mailing list, but still it happens. Very rarely is this in the "catastrophic failure" category, but access to my ipod has been broken several times by various upgrades (jut as an example). You have to be willing to figure out how to fix these issues, and franky, it can be extremely frustrating if you discover these issues monday morning on the way to work.

Also, it's a distro that really does require you to keep your ear to the ground, or at least *read* the output of pacman. It's frankly astonishing to me the number of people bitten by the move to mkinitcpio recently - there were warnings for at least 6 weeks ahead of time (seems to me at least) yet people were still taken by surprise. If you're willing to read the advisories, read the mailing list, or at least read the output of pacman, these sorts of upgrades shouldn't be an issue, but for some folks that may be a big IF.

So, yeah, it's a moving target sometimes, but to me, it's home.

skale · 2006-11-11 03:23:10

When I said last January, I meant two years ago. I know, it sure doesn't seem like it from what I wrote, I just wasn't thinking. I have been using Linuxz for about two years.

Anyway, I reinstalled the whole system, and I think I am going to go about setting this up differently. I will leave out things like nautilus (which I never use) and might update more carefully. I'm trained to do an 'apt-get upgrade' every couple days or so, it's hard to unlearn that. I haven't finished setting it up yet, but what I did do was a breeze. I suppose you have to do it once to understand it.

It's not that I have no time to do these things, I have lots of time, just that I have been really busy this fall. I will have a free docket in a month. I usually have lots of free time. But yes, it's upsetting to have a kernel panic the night before the History paper is due, but I keep the Ubuntu liveCD just for that.

I haven't updated my iPod in ages, I guess it's time. I've grown quite tired of Merle Travis.

I guess I'll have to update everything frequently. I will, however, keep my ears open for anything important.

McQueen · 2006-11-11 04:52:41

Snarkout wrote:

Also, it's a distro that really does require you to keep your ear to the ground, or at least *read* the output of pacman.

It is admittedly a distro that requires a little more due diligence when it comes to tracking .install file output during upgrades, researching applicable bug reports, and keeping tabs on the community output (lists, forum, wiki); but this does result in a couple of very desirable outcomes: (1) you learn a vast amount about how things work, which means you become a more adept manager of your system, and (2) you no longer have to resign yourself to doing yet another clean install or system recompile in order to keep up to date.

veek · 2006-11-13 18:50:31

One thing, using an out-of-date base cd can lead to confusing upgrade complications. Not sure if you mentioned which version you used.

Also I think Arch recently (Over the past several months) went through a lot of major changes, like the move to udev, modularization of Xorg, change in initrd, etc.

That was a rocky period for me too where my system was frequently in trouble after an upgrade.
Over the past month or so things seem to have settled down.

I think we've just gone through an unusually turbulent period due to these fundamental changes in Arch's major packages,
but things should be more stable now that the dust is settling.

X.org isn't going to be restructuring every month, and I'm guessing we're more or less finalized on using udev and the new method of generating initrd.
So we've experienced some revolutionary changes. I think we'll be seeing more evolutionary changes as we go along.

I wonder if others agree?

I'm now happily living on the bleeding edge using beryl on aiglx, and a whole bunch of AUR packages.

krazybastid · 2008-02-29 03:14:57

I really like Arch also and the fact you can customize it anyway you want. For me since Oct. 07 I installed Arch Don't panic and everything worked like a charm. Then in Feb 08 I reinstalled Arch with my same disk and found my video driver not to work when I did pacman -Syu I broke pacman or I just couldn't figure out how to make configure it the way the new one was suppose to be. I just can't see rationally why things are updated to frequently. I something is not broke don't fix it. More energies can be devoted to other things. I consider my self a moderate intermediate Linux user a little more past beginner but not dead center intermediate. Probably more like Yellow belt in Karate almost ready to take the Orange belt course.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-11-07 03:08:45

Thoughts on Arch Linux

#2 2006-11-07 04:30:19

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#3 2006-11-07 04:33:39

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#4 2006-11-07 04:38:44

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#5 2006-11-07 05:23:04

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#6 2006-11-07 05:37:43

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#7 2006-11-07 09:52:41

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#8 2006-11-07 12:30:42

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#9 2006-11-07 12:58:27

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#10 2006-11-07 14:29:26

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#11 2006-11-07 19:29:21

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#12 2006-11-07 23:26:16

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#13 2006-11-08 00:45:55

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#14 2006-11-08 06:31:45

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#15 2006-11-08 18:25:17

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#16 2006-11-08 19:57:24

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#17 2006-11-09 05:14:37

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#18 2006-11-09 21:58:51

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#19 2006-11-10 03:06:12

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#20 2006-11-10 08:10:31

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#21 2006-11-10 14:43:18

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#22 2006-11-11 03:23:10

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#23 2006-11-11 04:52:41

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#24 2006-11-13 18:50:31

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

#25 2008-02-29 03:14:57

Re: Thoughts on Arch Linux

Board footer