why you choose ArchLinux?

ilAli · 2011-05-05 19:22:18

Hello. i am a newbie to linux, why you choose ArchLinux?

drcouzelis · 2011-05-05 19:32:12

Please read The Arch Way for the answer.

archman-cro · 2011-05-05 19:35:39

'why you choose' or 'why you chose'?

ilAli · 2011-05-05 19:36:59

archman-cro wrote:

'why you choose' or 'why you chose'?

my english is not perfect

wonder · 2011-05-05 19:37:32

i choose arch because it suites my needs

ilAli · 2011-05-05 19:42:27

which one is more stable and has more user friendly interface?
1- linuxmint 2- opensuse 3- archlinux
///Ali
http://mgtman.blogfa.com

Last edited by ilAli (2011-05-06 05:26:29)

wonder · 2011-05-05 19:44:01

ilAli wrote:

which one is more stable and has more user friendly interface?
1- linuxmint 2- opensuse 3- archlinux

ubuntu

SanskritFritz · 2011-05-05 19:54:36

I chose Arch, because it gave me a certain elitist feeling without the cumbersome, time consuming compiling processes with Gentoo or LFS.
I choose Arch, because it teaches me every day about the internals of software, and it lulls me into the false sense of being in control of my computer (this will never be true, the last time I was really in control was when I used the ZX Spectrum with my own custom ROM).

hunter_thom · 2011-05-05 20:03:08

I use Arch because:

1. I wanted something that wasnt bloated to the gills.
2. I wanted to define exactly what was installed on my machine
3. I'm all about The Arch Way
4. I've used just about every distro for long enough to get well enough acquainted with each. Of all the distro's, I just found that I liked Arch Linux better.
5. In comparison to other package managers, I absolutely love pacman.
6. I had installed Arch for a home RADIUS server because I wanted something minimal, and got real used to it. Then I found that I quite liked the architecture.

I use several other distributions also; not just Arch. But by far my favorite is Arch.

uc50ic4more · 2011-05-05 20:03:25

ilAli wrote:

which one is more stable and has more user friendly interface?
1- linuxmint 2- opensuse 3- archlinux

Arch is a little different than the other two, ilAli. Given that you are the one who builds up and Arch system, it is as stable as you make it; and it's interface is the one you provide and use.

jakerules · 2011-05-06 15:19:32

wonder wrote:

ilAli wrote:
which one is more stable and has more user friendly interface?
1- linuxmint 2- opensuse 3- archlinux
ubuntu

This.

SanskritFritz wrote:

I chose Arch, because it gave me a certain elitist feeling without the cumbersome, time consuming compiling processes with Gentoo or LFS.
I choose Arch, because it teaches me every day about the internals of software, and it lulls me into the false sense of being in control of my computer (this will never be true, the last time I was really in control was when I used the ZX Spectrum with my own custom ROM).

And this.

Dieter@be · 2011-05-06 15:46:07

Arch Linux choose me.

taylorchu · 2011-05-07 00:58:27

1. I need a customized system for speed, and I dont want to waste time to compile everything.

2. so lets take a look at distrowatch and find some results.

3. Rank Distribution H.P.D*
1 Ubuntu 2255> *bloat*
2 Mint 1997> *bloat*
3 Fedora 1441< *bloat*
4 Debian 1423> *not bad, but not simple and up-to-date*
5 openSUSE 1298> *bloat*
6 Arch 927> *it looks good*
7 PCLinuxOS 844> *bloat*
8 Sabayon 843= *bloat*
9 Puppy 805= *the interface looks ugly*
10 CentOS 752> *for server*

you can clealy see why I love arch.
It is not that I dont like a preconfigured system; preconfigured system makes our lives easy but it also includes lots of softwares that you dont need.
Arch is the few that allows us to customize, and it is the most popular rolling-release linux!

graysky · 2011-05-07 01:26:30

1) The Arch Way
2) Bleed edge repos
3) pacman
4) pacman

tlmiller · 2011-05-07 01:37:01

I actually run lots of OS's. Of those, I choose to keep Arch around because several reasons:

1. I do like having ONLY what I want installed. Arch & Debian are great for this.
2. I do like to keep up to date. Arch and OpenSuse are great for this (and with some work, Debian can do this, but generally it's more work than it's worth)

I do like easy, but once you get used to configuring Arch, it's not bad. That first time it's a MAJOR hassle learning about how Arch does things, but once you get past that, it's actually not all that bad. And there are some things I REALLY like the way Arch does compared to others (such as the DAEMONS in rc.conf, I really wish I could do that in Debian instead of the irritating symlinks in the rcx.d directories).
Now stable, I will knock Arch on this. Arch is NOT stable. I routinely have things crashing after updates. However, it's designed around being bleeding edge, so I'm perfectly willing to accept some flakiness. Having come from Windows, I'm rather used to it by now. I will say OpenSuse generally leads it in stability, and actually boots faster than Arch too, although Arch is usable sooner (OpenSuse "hangs" after login to a desktop while Arch doesn't, so while OpenSuse will get to a desktop first, Arch is usable first).
And I do use Kubuntu. For a quick install it's pretty decent, but yeah, it takes a while to get rid of all the fluff. And in the time it takes to do that, I could have installed and configured Arch. However Kubuntu is nice if someone has a slow network connection. Arch is horrible to install with a less than fabulous internet speed.

Grinch · 2011-05-07 02:00:54

Basically it boils down to : Add what I want, rather than remove what I don't want. Apart from that the Arch Wiki, AUR, and the overall high level of knowledge amongst the userbase is just the icing on the cake, I learn something new here practically every day.

drcouzelis · 2011-05-07 02:24:20

I couldn't tell if this was going to be a long fun thread or a thread that was instantly closed...

Anyway, I started using Arch Linux because I was tired of formatting my hard drive and reinstalling a new version of an operating system every few months. I was also tired of waiting to use the latest version of a piece of software.

I've been using Arch Linux for about a year and a half and haven't needed to reinstall yet.

yungtrizzle · 2011-05-07 02:39:48

I chose Arch because I
1. Was tired of all the bloated excess of ubuntu and linuxmint
2. Wanted a custom OS for my acer mini
3. Wanted to learn the entrails of core linux (all the configuring and commands etc)
4. Am a student programmer, nothing is more code friendly than Arch (Gentoo's 'compile everything' is rather boastful and misses the point)

hauzer · 2011-05-07 05:54:38

graysky wrote:

1) The Arch Way
2) Bleed edge repos
3) pacman
4) pacman

This.

lutherus · 2011-05-07 06:22:51

I didn`t chose Arch.Arch has chosen me

siriusb · 2011-05-07 08:03:08

Because after 2-3 years of Ubuntu I was tired of waiting for the landing of new features for 6 months.
Because I learnt much more about linux while installing Arch than the 2-3 years I was using Ubuntu.
Because what I do is what I get.
Because KISS.

KimTjik · 2011-05-07 09:11:02

Because I'm the incarnation of the last letter of the acronym KISS.

Seriously Arch makes sense to me, just as Slackware does, but I'm lazy enough to appreciate pacman. I like the no fuzz forum, well maintained Wiki and prefer to text instead of interpreting GUI rebuses.

Pajaro · 2011-05-07 09:46:46

What I expect from an operating system is that it simplifies my life. So I want to set it up and forget about it while I work for as long as needed. Windows fails here (viruses, antiviruses, defragment to optimize, absurd functionatilities that can break your concetrantion, reinstalling from time to time if you install too many applications, etc), Mac OS X/Ubuntu get close to the top, but te winner is Arch Linux in front of anythig else:

1. pacman packaging system (makepkg): when a program is not available you never have to run a make install that puts unhandled files in your system... creating packages is so easy.
2. AUR and its wrappers (i.e: yaourt): thanks to the previous point (being easy to create custom packages), it makes sense to have a public repository where users can upload the packages they have created, AUR. So as well as being easy to create packages, almost anything you can find around the internet can be installed with a single command in the command line.
3. abs: when a program is available in the official repositories, but you need a customization on it (i.e: 32 bit support for jack2), run abs, find the package in /var/abs, make a copy of it, customize it and run makepkg. All done. Then, if you want, you can then submit the package to AUR.
4. it runs fast.

It is important to note that the initial configuration in Arch Linux takes much more time than in other systems like Ubuntu or Mac OS X, so, depending on the use you are going to have you might want to choose something else.

akephalos · 2011-05-07 23:16:38

archman-cro wrote:

'why you choose' or 'why you chose'?

Good question. My array of reasons altered a bit along the time.

KimTjik wrote:

Seriously Arch makes sense to me, just as Slackware does, but I'm lazy enough to appreciate pacman.

I don't think a package manager with dependency checking is necessarily lazyness, unless that's specifically one's subjective reason (eg. wants to do everything manually but he's too lazy). I see it part of the architecture (selection) and error-proofing/control tool. I mean, packaging in general does this anyway for stability and consistency (in Slack packages too, the filesystem hierarchy), otherwise the system may become a mess. I see the malfunctioning of a binary caused by the lack of an unmet dependency no less grave than say placing that binary in an inappropriate place.

(The lack of dependency checking, along with the choice of a desktop, more precisely KDE, and those arbitrary package categories (letters), is actually among the few things that don't make sense to me about Slackware, FTR .)

KimTjik · 2011-05-08 10:38:39

akephalos wrote:

I don't think a package manager with dependency checking is necessarily lazyness, unless that's specifically one's subjective reason...

It was more of an exaggeration to make a point. My interest in Linux started with Slackware and WindowMaker, and if it wouldn't have been for Arch I probably would have stayed with it.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-05-05 19:22:18

why you choose ArchLinux?

#2 2011-05-05 19:32:12

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#3 2011-05-05 19:35:39

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#4 2011-05-05 19:36:59

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#5 2011-05-05 19:37:32

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#6 2011-05-05 19:42:27

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#7 2011-05-05 19:44:01

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#8 2011-05-05 19:54:36

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#9 2011-05-05 20:03:08

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#10 2011-05-05 20:03:25

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#11 2011-05-06 15:19:32

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#12 2011-05-06 15:46:07

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#13 2011-05-07 00:58:27

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#14 2011-05-07 01:26:30

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#15 2011-05-07 01:37:01

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#16 2011-05-07 02:00:54

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#17 2011-05-07 02:24:20

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#18 2011-05-07 02:39:48

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#19 2011-05-07 05:54:38

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#20 2011-05-07 06:22:51

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#21 2011-05-07 08:03:08

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#22 2011-05-07 09:11:02

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#23 2011-05-07 09:46:46

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#24 2011-05-07 23:16:38

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#25 2011-05-08 10:38:39

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

Board footer