Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

louipc · 2010-12-05 04:46:51

1. Arch moves too fast. You need to update relatively often, or you'll be left behind.
That means rebooting when you get a new kernel too. Some people get off on 'uptime'.
2. It doesn't have as extensive a build system as Gentoo, and it's less customizable.
3. It isn't as polished as other distros that focus on the GUI. You have to polish things yourself.
4. You won't be able to tolerate any other distro after using Arch.

SanskritFritz · 2010-12-05 08:20:42

louipc wrote:

1. Arch moves too fast. You need to update relatively often, or you'll be left behind.
That means rebooting when you get a new kernel too. Some people get off on 'uptime'.
2. It doesn't have as extensive a build system as Gentoo, and it's less customizable.
3. It isn't as polished as other distros that focus on the GUI. You have to polish things yourself.
4. You won't be able to tolerate any other distro after using Arch.

Reading the 4th after the first 3, I stopped for some seconds, and then bursted out in laughter. So true, thanks

kfgz · 2010-12-05 11:22:37

Ad. 4. This is so true. Arch is the last step in Linux evolution

Last edited by kfgz (2010-12-05 11:23:23)

Damnshock · 2010-12-05 14:41:51

Just my opinion:

No devel nor debug packages.

Some may think this is a good thing though

Besides, you could somehow build them yourself but...still... ya know

Regards

anonymous_user · 2010-12-05 14:45:04

Isn't the devel stuff just included in the regular packages?

mhertz · 2010-12-05 14:55:31

The aur is filled with dev-snapshots for pretty much everything!

Cyrusm · 2010-12-05 15:11:48

I've never seen any disadvantages that were due to Arch. It does everything that I need to do quickly without being heavy on system resources.
The only disadvantage i can think of is that I have my system personally customized to the point where I have a hard time using any other computer,
but I guess that's really just a personal problem

q0tsa · 2010-12-05 20:40:57

Kerberized NFSv4 is a pain in the ass on Arch.

Otherwise it's perfect.

davidm · 2010-12-13 00:13:18

Disadvantages:

- Slightly less "casual" control than say LFS or Gentoo.
- I find the build system to be less polished than Gentoo (but this may be due to not understanding it enough yet)

...But it makes up for this in usability and convenience.

Other Disadvantage: Arch is so good and the commuinity so nice that I am prone to wasting too much time on the forums.

phildg wrote:

For me, the rolling release system is both a curse and a blessing.
It's a curse on my full fat desktop (XFCE + a plethora of packages ranging from being used everyday to being used once every 6 months). Come update time I typically had a multi 100MB download. So I don't use Arch for my desktop environment.

That's part of the reason why I prefer keeping my system as minimalist as possible. Once you eliminate DE's and use minimalistic WMs the updates aren't near as bad. You should see Gentoo after going a few months without updating. I've always used Arch on my Desktop but that's exactly the reason why I just installed Arch on a laptop that formerly had Gentoo - 900 MB of updates. It was compiling for 10 hours before I killed it and installed Arch Linux in about 20 minutes total.

deficite · 2010-12-13 04:22:56

I agree with the point that after using Arch I can't tolerate any other distro. The only OS I'd consider using over Arch is Windows 7. MS finally got their act together with that one. I do all my serious computing with Arch though

hunterm · 2010-12-13 04:32:17

Arch doesn't really have as much support as distros like Ubuntu and Fedora.

deficite · 2010-12-13 12:21:31

One funny thing I have noticed though is people on Ubuntu forums recommending people over to the Arch Wiki :-p

archman-cro · 2010-12-13 13:07:42

deficite wrote:

One funny thing I have noticed though is people on Ubuntu forums recommending people over to the Arch Wiki :-p

Yes, cause they don't have their own useful wiki.
Look at the debian wiki, it's s**t!

Misfit138 · 2010-12-13 14:13:35

archman-cro wrote:

Look at the debian wiki, it's s**t!

For such a huge, high quality distro (I truly regard it as hi-quality) that touts itself as the 'universal OS', I can't help but be thoroughly disappointed in the Debian wiki and documentation. I hope it improves.

Last edited by Misfit138 (2010-12-13 14:17:11)

jollysnowman · 2010-12-13 15:08:21

I just installed Arch a few days ago, putting it alongside CrunchBang (Debian-based) on my Dell desktop, and am still reading about it, so put my remarks in that context.

It's hard, for me at least, to install too much over the base system, as I can see exactly how much it adds to it. I have to enable daemons, set up configs, and other such things. While my CrunchBang setup is xfce with a few GNOME tidbits, I'm keeping my Arch install using dwm/openbox, with absolutely no GNOME, KDE or xfce applications (Arch gave me this strange hatred of gconf and xfconf). This definitely keeps the system light and prevents updates from being too large/complicated, but the "completeness" is a small step behind.

The bleeding edge rolling release model is also preventing me from abandoning CrunchBang/Debian altogether. Debian Testing is an excellent blend of Stable and Sid, and its packages aren't not too far behind those in Arch. I can update as often or as little as I want without worry. Of course, there's nothing wrong with running two distros side by side, but I'm more comfortable running Debian by itself than Arch by itself.

That said, I've found Arch to be highly usable, easily configured, and the community here is just as helpful as CrunchBang's, and both are years ahead of Debian's.

Cyrusm · 2010-12-13 15:18:52

hunterm wrote:

Arch doesn't really have as much support as distros like Ubuntu and Fedora.

not really sure what you are trying to say. Arch has an awesome wiki, an intelligent and helpful community, well moderated forums,
multiple IRC channels....

what else could you possibly want? if you aren't happy with the support, maybe you should consider asking for a refund.

Demon · 2010-12-15 09:52:20

louipc wrote:

4. You won't be able to tolerate any other distro after using Arch.

So damn true!

awfulrofl · 2010-12-15 17:25:42

Cyrusm wrote:

hunterm wrote:
Arch doesn't really have as much support as distros like Ubuntu and Fedora.
not really sure what you are trying to say. Arch has an awesome wiki, an intelligent and helpful community, well moderated forums,
multiple IRC channels....
what else could you possibly want? if you aren't happy with the support, maybe you should consider asking for a refund.

I would have to agree here also. Our Arch Wiki is one of the best help areas for any distro of linux that i've seen. Even if some of the info is outdated on it, its a better start than having to search forums for your topic.

dlin · 2010-12-20 06:22:51

First, I agree with luoipc said "You won't be able to tolerate any other distro after using Arch.".

My desktop is Archlinux since 2005. Sometimes, I would like to use 'Parted Magic' as my 'running on RAM linux'. Because Arch is growing in its base amount install size. It is impossible running all on RAM.

Here are some of my opinions.

1. Software vendor won't support ArchLinux. Because it haven't static version for testing purpose. They like RHEL.
2. Arch changes fast, if you can not keep in pace. One day you can not upgrade smoothly. I've ever found falling in big trap like of the events(eg. upgrading xorg, kernel, xf86-input-event, repository change name).
3. Arch is not friendly to people who can not read/write English. I'm Chinese. I want to introduce Arch for my parents or friends. But, I think if they don't understand English, it is impossible.
4. Arch is not easy to keep multiple solts like Gentoo. Keep multiple version library, API include file is not easy.

ngoonee · 2010-12-20 06:35:23

dlin wrote:

3. Arch is not friendly to people who can not read/write English. I'm Chinese. I want to introduce Arch for my parents or friends. But, I think if they don't understand English, it is impossible.

This is very true, and a serious disadvantage. However it applies to most of the internet (Chinese users don't feel it so much because of baidu, but those who speak lesser-known languages are really at a disadvantage) as well.

Carlwill · 2010-12-20 12:18:57

dlin wrote:

1. Software vendor won't support ArchLinux. Because it haven't static version for testing purpose. They like RHEL.
2. Arch changes fast, if you can not keep in pace. One day you can not upgrade smoothly. I've ever found falling in big trap like of the events(eg. upgrading xorg, kernel, xf86-input-event, repository change name).
3. Arch is not friendly to people who can not read/write English. I'm Chinese. I want to introduce Arch for my parents or friends. But, I think if they don't understand English, it is impossible.
4. Arch is not easy to keep multiple solts like Gentoo. Keep multiple version library, API include file is not easy.

I guess I'll counter this with my views.

1. Arch is a bleeding edge distribution. Of course there's no vendor support. That's like someone who smokes 6 packs a day complaining about his insurance company cancelling his policy. RHEL is dated usually 3 years back for stability so it's very reliable and secure rather than up to date and bleeding edge. Of course "they" like RHEL.

2. Upgrading your system regularly is part of any healthy system. Have you tried not running Windows update in over 1 week, you're bombarded with a mess of updates and patches that usually destroy your system. Again, since Arch is a bleeding edge distribution, as soon as new software is available, it's expected to be updated. I don't see how this is a disadvantage if you knowingly understand Arch is a rolling release bleeding edge distro. I use Arch for this very reason.

3. Arch isn't friendly to non-English speakers? Well, that's a gray area I guess. The way I look at this, Arch is developed in a universal language by people all over the world. It just happened to originate in Canada where people speak mostly English. I speak dutch and spanish but I understand that if I download a German Linux distribution, I need to speak...German. That's like saying Arch doesn't cater to blind people and I'm blind so it's hard to use. It sounds harsh but most people speak English to some degree and are expected to if you're using an English based distribution.

4. People still use Gentoo?!?! I've got better things to do with my 8 hours.

ngoonee · 2010-12-20 13:53:49

Carlwill wrote:

3. Arch isn't friendly to non-English speakers? Well, that's a gray area I guess. The way I look at this, Arch is developed in a universal language by people all over the world. It just happened to originate in Canada where people speak mostly English. I speak dutch and spanish but I understand that if I download a German Linux distribution, I need to speak...German. That's like saying Arch doesn't cater to blind people and I'm blind so it's hard to use. It sounds harsh but most people speak English to some degree and are expected to if you're using an English based distribution.

Yes, most Arch Linux users use English. To say that 'most people speak English' is just misguided, though. The most spoken language in the world is Mandarin.

Most of the ONLINE population uses English, yes. That may change in the next decade or 2 (hopefully not, my mandarin is rusty...).

You have the right point in that Arch originates from Canada, so other language support needs to be tacked on by interested community members. To attribute that to numerical superiority of English speakers is narrow-minded though

Carlwill · 2010-12-20 14:24:40

ngoonee wrote:

You have the right point in that Arch originates from Canada, so other language support needs to be tacked on by interested community members. To attribute that to numerical superiority of English speakers is narrow-minded though

Not to start a debate in which I'm no where qualified to speak on but I would say I'm less narrow minded and more suggesting my un-educated opinion that I find most people find some form of English the universal language (maybe I'm thinking about music). Obviously I don't think that numerically English is superior but just more commonly accepted (especially on the Internet) but I'm usually wrong which is why I always ask for help here in regards to items clearly explained in the English Wiki

Either way I love Arch and wouldn't change a thing except omiting a minimal install with the /srv/ftp & /srv/http directories and associated users. I find that useless unless I will be installing those services on my machine.

Misfit138 · 2010-12-20 15:47:40

English is really a terrific language, albeit full of chaotic quirks and rule exceptions. I suppose since it is my mother tongue and over 80% of the web is in English, I never really consider non-English speakers as part of 'the equation'.

Sad how languages divide people, isn't it?

There seem to be a growing number of distributions that cater to languages like Chinese, Russian, and Portugese, for example.

Carlwill · 2010-12-20 15:49:09

I would like a morris code release of Arch Linux. Think how fun the installer would be...

Last edited by Carlwill (2010-12-20 15:49:21)

Arch Linux

#151 2010-12-05 04:46:51

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#152 2010-12-05 08:20:42

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#153 2010-12-05 11:22:37

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#154 2010-12-05 14:41:51

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#155 2010-12-05 14:45:04

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#156 2010-12-05 14:55:31

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#157 2010-12-05 15:11:48

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#158 2010-12-05 20:40:57

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#159 2010-12-13 00:13:18

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#160 2010-12-13 04:22:56

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#161 2010-12-13 04:32:17

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#162 2010-12-13 12:21:31

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#163 2010-12-13 13:07:42

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#164 2010-12-13 14:13:35

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#165 2010-12-13 15:08:21

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#166 2010-12-13 15:18:52

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#167 2010-12-15 09:52:20

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#168 2010-12-15 17:25:42

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#169 2010-12-20 06:22:51

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#170 2010-12-20 06:35:23

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#171 2010-12-20 12:18:57

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#172 2010-12-20 13:53:49

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#173 2010-12-20 14:24:40

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#174 2010-12-20 15:47:40

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

#175 2010-12-20 15:49:09

Re: Disadvantage of using Arch Linux?

Board footer