Arch linux for Ubuntu users

sirvenue · 2011-04-28 21:12:45

Hello everyone,

When using Synaptic on Ubuntu it usually sets everything up for you so all the installed software tends to work out of the box without any need to change around configuration. Is the package manager in Arch Linux as integrated as the one from Ubuntu?

Thanks
Frank

ethail · 2011-04-28 21:27:25

No, it is not.

Why?

Because of the Arch Way

See also: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way_v2.0

Last edited by ethail (2011-04-28 21:28:08)

ConnorBehan · 2011-04-28 21:28:21

To the extent that it's possible. The PKGBUILD maintainers include configurations that they think all Arch users will want to have - e.g the networkmanager package contains a NetworkManager.conf file already and the php package contains an apache.conf file already and sometimes the install scriptlets will give hints on how a package should be configured.

However, it's a lot harder to have all Arch packages work out of the box because with an Arch system, you cannot make the same assumptions that you can with an Ubuntu system. The package maintainers can't set something up to work with Gnome because you might be using LXDE. They can't setup a package to work with networkmanager because you might be using wicd. They can't set something up to work with consolekit and polkit and GDM because you might prefer starting X from the terminal and managing all the permissions yourself. Stuff like that. However, common problems relating to configurations are almost always addressed on the Wiki!

ANOKNUSA · 2011-04-28 21:29:39

A package manager manages packages, not your system configuration. Why should it do more?

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman
http://www.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman.8.html

And since I can see where this is going:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners'_Guide

A bit to slog through at once, but totally invaluable if you decide to switch.

defears · 2011-04-28 21:30:40

It's way better at it's job than synaptic. But you need to read what it's doing, and read the optional depends. For example, you install gnome-disk-utility but not dosfstools, and you can't create fat usb drives. But gnome-disk-utility won't tell you that. It just sits there. It tells you everything, but doesn't hold your hand.

tjwoosta · 2011-04-28 21:47:48

Most things will just work without any configuration. Things that run as daemons and/or kernel modules need to be added to rc.conf manually. Everything is usually covered on the corresponding wiki page. Some other files need to be configured during initial installation and setup. For installing arch youll need to follow the Beginners Guide on the wiki, which is fairly lengthy and can take a while if its your first time.

If you dont like to configure things arch proabably isnt for you. It has nothing to do with the package manager, its just the arch philosophy that users should have complete control over everything.

sirvenue · 2011-04-28 21:48:43

Ok, thanks. I started using Linux with Ubuntu and am still learning. In Ubuntu everything works out of the box which makes it the perfect idiots' Ubuntu for people like me. Recently however, I noticed that with every version it seems to get slower so I was looking for alternatives. Also thanks for the links.

Xyne · 2011-04-28 23:16:54

sirvenue wrote:

Ok, thanks. I started using Linux with Ubuntu and am still learning. In Ubuntu everything works out of the box which makes it the perfect idiots' Ubuntu for people like me. Recently however, I noticed that with every version it seems to get slower so I was looking for alternatives. Also thanks for the links.

Arch definitely isn't for lazy/very casual users, but it's not difficult either. It just requires a particular mindset.

You might find some of the replies in this thread informative.

TeoBigusDickus · 2011-04-29 17:20:04

Xyne wrote:

Arch definitely isn't for lazy/very casual users, but it's not difficult either. It just requires a particular mindset.
You might find some of the replies in this thread informative.

Sorry, but I have to disagree.
I switched to Arch from Ubuntu about a year ago and I find it much easier to use than Ubuntu.
With Arch I know what's going on in my pc; with ubuntu, everything was hidden under so many layers of gui, that when something broke it was very difficult to find the culprit.
With Arch, the difficult part was setting up my system; so it was about a weekend of my life.
With Ubuntu, after every update, I was afraid to restart the pc: would I ever see my desktop again?

swanson · 2011-04-29 17:40:30

Go for. the switch! I did some months ago and with a bit of reading and patience you'll do fine. By the way, did you ever try to uninstall Evolution in Synaptic?

Xyne · 2011-04-29 17:48:08

TeoBigusDickus wrote:

Xyne wrote:
Arch definitely isn't for lazy/very casual users, but it's not difficult either. It just requires a particular mindset.
You might find some of the replies in this thread informative.
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
I switched to Arch from Ubuntu about a year ago and I find it much easier to use than Ubuntu.
With Arch I know what's going on in my pc; with ubuntu, everything was hidden under so many layers of gui, that when something broke it was very difficult to find the culprit.
With Arch, the difficult part was setting up my system; so it was about a weekend of my life.
With Ubuntu, after every update, I was afraid to restart the pc: would I ever see my desktop again?

I never said it was difficult to use. The thing with Arch though is that if something goes wrong, you're expected to do your own research before asking other people to fix your problem. That's not for everyone. Of course, most of the time it "just works"... I haven't had any significant problems since I started using it.

I linked to that thread because most of the replies show that Arch isn't difficult even for someone with little Linux experience, but most of the replies agree that it requires the aforementioned attitude.

Also, you realize that it's difficult to take your replies seriously when your avatar is trollface, right?

TeoBigusDickus · 2011-04-29 18:01:20

Xyne wrote:

...Also, you realize that it's difficult to take your replies seriously when your avatar is trollface, right?

Problem?

Seriously now, there's a myth about Arch, being hard to use, etc.
You see people in ubuntu forums dismissing it for the time it takes to set it up; yet the same people might waste days of their lives trying to figure out why the cube doesn't work, or why the recent update borked their system etc.
Sometimes I can't understand people

Anyway, expect a lot of ubuntu users switching to Arch after unity. Is this the year of the Arch Desktop?

chris-kun · 2011-04-29 18:28:56

surprised no one has mentioned archbang or chakra

jeslinmx · 2011-05-02 10:12:43

Arch packages generally work out of the box, just not exactly as how they will suit you. The stock configurations are usually compromises for every possible type of Arch user. Welcome to Arch.

sudokill · 2011-05-02 12:14:23

It's just that Ubuntu is usually Linux users first distro, it installs so easy and so easy to use with babyish software centre etc. I've only been using Linux as my only OS for about 2-3 months now, I started with Ubuntu up until a few days ago when I installed Arch. I tried installing Arch ages ago and because of my lack of basic Linux knowledge the Arch install was a real put off.
I never had any problems at all with Ubuntu 10.10 but I tried 11.04 and it was terrible, NOTHING worked. I'm also not a fan of Ubuntu bringing out new versions every 6 months, I hate upgrading/re-installing, risking breaks, incompatability or losing settings. Not to mention the first thing I do when I install any OS is remove everything I don't need to keep it miminal and clean.

This is why I installed Arch- rolling release, install what you want no preinstalled generic stuff, nice config files, nice wiki. I doubt I'll ever look at another Linux distro. Arch has taught me so much about Linux the last few days, not only is it an Amazing distro it's great for forcing you to learn too. When you realise you only have to set it up and go through the install (the hardest bit) once, it's great because hopefully you won't ever have to re-install, and if you do you already know how.
I am loving it so far and can't wait to learn more, hopefully I'll learn a lot in the next couple of years which will help me loads with Linux in general. If I stuck with Ubuntu I doubt I'd know anywhere near as much.

vinayv · 2011-05-02 13:31:15

swanson wrote:

Go for. the switch! I did some months ago and with a bit of reading and patience you'll do fine. By the way, did you ever try to uninstall Evolution in Synaptic?

I know.. Uninstalling Evolution in Ubuntu is such a pain.. It is not possible without breaking the system. For me, when I used ubuntu, the worst part was evolution updates.. They are quite huge (>20MB), but utterly useless for me. Still, I was unable to remove Evolution..

Finally, when I did remove it, it broke Gnome completely and messed up a few other packages as well.. I did manage to work on LXDE for sometime after that.

I also have Arch as my primary distro.. I can conveniently choose not to install Evolution.. That is freedom

Regards,
Vinay V

vinayv · 2011-05-02 13:40:57

TeoBigusDickus wrote:

With Ubuntu, after every update, I was afraid to restart the pc: would I ever see my desktop again?

Been there done that.. At work, I had to use Ubuntu (as that was the only "supported" distro in my company). There were multiple times when, after a reboot Ubuntu would not boot, the GUI would not come up or network card stops working, etc.. It would take me hours to fix it.. Finally, I would end up not rebooting the machine for months..

At home, on my Arch Linux, I have been updating for over 4 years now.. I am yet to experience any real issue.. At one point of time, I updated my system after 3-4 months, and even then everything was so smooth. The only one or two minor problems were addressed in the forums quickly..

Arch beats Ubuntu hands down in stability and upgrades.. Ubuntu however attracts newbies.. :-)

Regards,
Vinay V

ANOKNUSA · 2011-05-02 14:38:41

chris-kun wrote:

surprised no one has mentioned archbang or chakra

Folks don't mention Chakra because of its quickening divergence from Arch. I personally don't recommend Archbang to anyone because all it provides is an automatic installer. Don't want OpenBox? Need a specialized network setup? Don't want a bunch of extra crap you never use being installed without your permission? Archbang takes the power and freedom that makes Arch what it is away. If you want Arch, then you'd better use Arch, not someone else's idea of what Arch should be.

ConnorBehan · 2011-05-03 01:00:19

These are exactly my thoughts too! On the chakra / archbang idea and the benefits of a rolling release distro. One word of warning I have is that since I started using Arch four years ago, I have probably spent more than 100 hours tweaking random things and hacking my system which I would not have done with Ubuntu.

However, I do this because I want to have a perfect system and with Arch, I feel like it's almost within my grasp. Ubuntu doesn't save time in that regard by being perfect "out-of-the-box", it saves time by discouraging the user from ever trying to make it perfect because he knows that it never will be.

655321 · 2011-05-03 06:48:13

Different aproachs to an operating system, thats all. Some people would say that ubuntu rules because its easy to configure for the novice user and say that Arch is only for geeks/linux gurus. I switched from ubuntu also and couldnt be any happier. One thing that amazes me is the amount of punishment arch can take without breaking the system, I have been all over the system configuration and break stuff lots of times, but I can always fix it, with the help from the wiki or just some package install/uninstall. Ubuntu can take VERY LITTLE punishment (take that evolution example posted above) , so in that matter I would say Arch is more noob friendly but it takes a while to learn and install, and after that you get the BEST operating system you will ever use, because it has all the stuff you want and none of the stuff you dont.

in short words: do it you will never regret it, and if you need help come back and ask and I will be happy to help

Last edited by 655321 (2011-05-03 06:52:56)

davide · 2011-05-03 16:34:48

Sirvenue, in the case you weren't convinced already. I switched from Ubuntu to Arch a few months ago and one of many the things I find MUCH MUCH better is the documentation (both in the wiki and in the forums):
Ubuntu's troubleshooting pages always sound like "choose System->administration->terminal, copy and paste this 10-lines long command and your problem should be fixed" (which is probably what most Ubuntu users want). I personally find it terribly annoying and, moreover, if the tip doesn't work you have no means of getting things right yourself. In Arch's documentation I love that there is no tip which doesn't explain the reason why it shold work. This way, you can actually realize if it might be your case or if you have to find something else and, in this case, you have the means to do it.
If you're not afraid of learning how things work in you OS, Arch won't be a problem for you

Davide

jeslinmx · 2011-05-04 04:36:06

Somehow Arch just works for me. Once after installing PulseAudio my speakers stopped working. One week later it fixed itself even without a pacman -Syu.
On the other hand, I didn't boot into ubuntu for 2 days and the kernel broke itself.
Still, ubuntu upgrades shouldn't be a problem. Place /home on a separate partition and reinstall ubuntu every 6 months.

frank604 · 2011-05-04 05:07:50

I'm new to the linux scene (about 1 month now). My most used distro (and my fallback if I mess up another distro on a seperate partition) was Ubuntu, until I figured out the basics of Arch. After this enlightenment, I find Arch to be much easier to work with in terms of customizing apps, having the right libraries I want, and to just do daily functions. I love to always check for updates to the system. Ever notice in ubuntu there are about 30 repositories you have to sync with? In Arch there are the 3 basic repositories (extra, core, community) and multilib if you are on 64bit. Working with pacman is much more efficient and controlled than apt-get imho.

One thing I hated with apt-get is that you add in 3rd party PPAs that are slow. With Arch and its pacman + yaourt(aur) there is really no need for these 3rd party repositories as everything you can imagine is probably available in official repositories or built by the community. Go check out https://aur.archlinux.org/ this is one of the coolest community made pool of apps around.

As mentioned before, the pacman doesn't hold your hands so be prepared to google and learn what some packages do. For example, I am running gnome and install a KDE app called amarok. Pacman will install everything (including KDE and qt libs) to get amarok started. However, the only things it doesn't install (but it does tell you what) is extra depencies.

Optional dependencies for amarok
libgpod: support for Apple iPod audio devices
libmtp: support for portable media devices
loudmouth: backend needed by mp3tunes for syncing
ifuse: support for Apple iPod Touch and iPhone

So, basically I just read through pacman's output, and either google or make a decision on what is needed. This way my system is controlled tightly and I know more about the system. In the future if I buy an ipod and want to sync, I'll remember there are some optional depencies available for this. I can type "pacman -Qi amarok" and it will show me what it depends on as well as optional depencies.

Sorry for going on for so long but you get the point.

ANOKNUSA · 2011-05-04 16:35:11

frank604 wrote:

<snip> As mentioned before, the pacman doesn't hold your hands so be prepared to google and learn what some packages do. For example, I am running gnome and install a KDE app called amarok. Pacman will install everything (including KDE and qt libs) to get amarok started. However, the only things it doesn't install (but it does tell you what) is extra depencies.
Optional dependencies for amarok
libgpod: support for Apple iPod audio devices
libmtp: support for portable media devices
loudmouth: backend needed by mp3tunes for syncing
ifuse: support for Apple iPod Touch and iPhone

Amarok actually provides a fine example of the Arch User Repository and Arch Build System. When I was using Amarok, I found a PKGBUILD for the development version in the AUR that cut out a bunch of cruft I never use. Using this as a template, I was able to alter the PKGBUILD for Amarok in the ABS tree to build the stable version without the crap I don't use: I don't have an iPod; don't need it to transfer files to my portable player (I can just use a file manager); don't use mp3tunes; don't need Wikipedia support; and I don't need lyrics scrolling across the screen. I just need it to play music. After building it without those features, I found that Amarok started up in about 3 seconds, as opposed to the ten it took before. AUR wrappers like yaourt and packer also let the user build VCS packages regularly and easily, and every week I can pull the latest source on the half-dozen or so packages I like to keep bleeding-edge and update them easily, with Pacman keeping track of everything that's installed painlessly.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-04-28 21:12:45

Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#2 2011-04-28 21:27:25

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#3 2011-04-28 21:28:21

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#4 2011-04-28 21:29:39

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#5 2011-04-28 21:30:40

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#6 2011-04-28 21:47:48

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#7 2011-04-28 21:48:43

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#8 2011-04-28 23:16:54

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#9 2011-04-29 17:20:04

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#10 2011-04-29 17:40:30

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#11 2011-04-29 17:48:08

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#12 2011-04-29 18:01:20

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#13 2011-04-29 18:28:56

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#14 2011-05-02 10:12:43

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#15 2011-05-02 12:14:23

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#16 2011-05-02 13:31:15

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#17 2011-05-02 13:40:57

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#18 2011-05-02 14:38:41

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#19 2011-05-03 01:00:19

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#20 2011-05-03 06:48:13

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#21 2011-05-03 16:34:48

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#22 2011-05-04 04:36:06

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#23 2011-05-04 05:07:50

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

#24 2011-05-04 16:35:11

Re: Arch linux for Ubuntu users

Board footer