why you choose ArchLinux?

z1lt0id · 2013-04-19 05:45:00

I chose Arch cause I could make any desktop I liked and cause I'm an updates addict. Getting up every morning to see the latest packages makes me happy on the inside.

whilealive · 2013-04-19 12:53:24

I started to use Arch about a year ago after someone suggested me to give it a try. I think the installation process and the rolling release model makes users kind of addicted to it quickly as they invest so much time in their system and see results. And of course one wants to stay up-to-date, too. I just sometimes feel like I spend too much time in configuration of my laptop, since I'm with Arch.

PJ · 2013-04-28 20:41:28

I have been using Archlinux since 2005. I chose it because it was the natural step from Crux. One of the major reasons for that was because I couldn't stand the compile time and I did like the principles of Crux. Most of the core principles from Crux at that time was the same as Archlinux had at that time. I am not sure if the same principles are shared today. Anyway, I did like Archlinux from start and it was the first linux distribution that I really, really liked. I still like it but not as much as I use to do. I do have my reasons why I don't like it as much. It was a different time. Sometimes I which that time could stand still but some changes are inevitable. Maybe I will continue to use it for 8 more years, maybe I don't... guess time will tell.

nonamed · 2013-04-28 22:02:19

My adventure with Linux has started in 2006 or 2007 from Linux FoX based on Fedora Core and Ubuntu. Then I tried Fedora, Debian and Mint. But with time these distributions got slow on my good old Toshiba L300-11i (I mean they were working like worn out Windows just after the installation). I looked for some up-to-date and optimized distribution and I've found Arch. I thought I'll give it a try and it's the best OS I've ever used. Arch makes my old laptop still usable and gives me an opportunity to learn more about Linux. I like to see how things works and I like to learn how to change them.

madr · 2013-04-28 22:11:45

As I've mentioned in a couple of other threads on this topic, I chose Arch because of the simplicity and lightweight approach. I was looking for an alternative to Ubuntu because of the increasing complexity of the design and GUI, and Arch seemed like a perfect fit. Arch is also (in my opinion) one of the best distros if you want to learn more command line, since you're kind of "forced" to use it; and that appealed to me as well.

x33a · 2013-04-29 03:56:30

PJ wrote:

I still like it but not as much as I use to do.

What do you prefer these days?

PJ · 2013-04-29 16:30:12

x33a wrote:

What do you prefer these days?

That's a good question. I still prefer Archlinux but in general I think there are som parts of the Linux ecosystem that I am not a fan of. Well, I understand why someone might have had an idea in the first place but that doen't mean that I have to agree with the design choice. It is still open source after all and I could change it if it annoys me to much. Maybe I do, maybe I don't.

So in my opinion, even if I don't like what happens on a bigger picture in the Linux ecosystem, I still prefer Archlinux as my choice of Linux distribution. I still think it is the closet to my values. In short, I prefer BSD philosophy, but at the same time I am also rather pragmatic and it is easier to use Linux.

cookies · 2013-04-29 19:45:56

I needed a distro that would support the hardware of the laptop I bought in december 2011.

I tried arch linux mainly because of some review I found (don't know where I found it but it was quite short and well fitting) that said (among a few other things) that if something goes wrong in arch linux, I most likely screwed it up myself. So, yeah, I gave it a try and after a few months I ditched debian and installed arch on my desktop pc, too.

I did not choose arch linux because of all those great things that just about everyone else pointed out (I first read "The Arch Way" while downloading the iso), I chose not to go somewhere else because of all those great things.

Last edited by cookies (2013-04-29 19:46:37)

Janarto · 2013-05-07 07:08:44

I've chosen archlinux because it made me learn how to manage my system.

I'm making progress in my understanding and that's valuable in intself.

Then i love the simplicity of the administration once the first install is set up
Then i love the vanilla nature (nor near vanilla) of most packages
Then i love the up to date nature of the distribution, new features, new software, up there on the cutting edge

Point that could be made better

I'd like to see the main repositories growing instead of AUR growing. I know there are wrapper, but still this approach is messier to me.

madr · 2013-05-07 22:19:28

Janarto wrote:

I'd like to see the main repositories growing instead of AUR growing. I know there are wrapper, but still this approach is messier to me.

I agree with you on this one. I want to have access to as much as possible through official repositories.

bohoomil · 2013-05-07 22:54:43

Save the Earth, save the AUR…

The AUR is growing because anyone who has managed to enable/disable a single option in a PKGBUILD from ABS feels the need to share his achievement with the rest of the population… There are loads of packages in the AUR that should have never been uploaded there. I bet that even twice as many TUs wouldn't manage to tidy up that mess (without suffering from a serious breakdown). Learn to build packages on your own and share only really useful things: seems like the easiest method to control the growth of the AUR…

x33a · 2013-05-08 05:35:43

bohoomil wrote:

Save the Earth, save the AUR…
The AUR is growing because anyone who has managed to enable/disable a single option in a PKGBUILD from ABS feels the need to share his achievement with the rest of the population… There are loads of packages in the AUR that should have never been uploaded there. I bet that even twice as many TUs wouldn't manage to tidy up that mess (without suffering from a serious breakdown). Learn to build packages on your own and share only really useful things: seems like the easiest method to control the growth of the AUR…

Indeed. PKGBUILDS with personal changes should be uploaded to github or something, instead of the AUR.

PS: Has there ever been an AUR cleanup operation? It needs to be done, otherwise the packages will go over 100,000 in the coming few years.

madr · 2013-05-08 17:39:27

It may not be so clever to let this discussion get out of hand, but I just want to add one more thing. I'm fairly new to this forum, but I've allready come across a couple of AUR fanboys. The AUR is like religion, and the mess you're all talking about is what you get in return. When "Jeff" is allowed to play God from his garden shed, it's not going to be pretty.

Awebb · 2013-05-08 23:33:24

madr wrote:

It may not be so clever to let this discussion get out of hand, but I just want to add one more thing. I'm fairly new to this forum, but I've allready come across a couple of AUR fanboys. The AUR is like religion, and the mess you're all talking about is what you get in return. When "Jeff" is allowed to play God from his garden shed, it's not going to be pretty.

You must lurk different parts of this board than I do. However, if the AUR is our religion, then yaourt is what? The antichrist?

madr · 2013-05-08 23:51:00

Awebb wrote:

You must lurk different parts of this board than I do. However, if the AUR is our religion, then yaourt is what? The antichrist?

If you in any way felt offended by my post I think you misinterpreted it. I was not talking about the average Arch user. My only point is that it shouldn't be "mandatory" to use the AUR. A lot of people choose Arch because of the customizability, and nothing else; and they should be able to choose not to use the AUR without getting the finger. Again; I'm not talking about the average Arch user.

nomorewindows · 2013-05-09 00:34:02

Ah...but *BSDs have ports.

ewaller · 2013-05-09 01:33:59

madr wrote:

If you in any way felt offended by my post I think you misinterpreted it. I was not talking about the average Arch user. My only point is that it shouldn't be "mandatory" to use the AUR. A lot of people choose Arch because of the customizability, and nothing else; and they should be able to choose not to use the AUR without getting the finger. Again; I'm not talking about the average Arch user.

finger(1)                 BSD General Commands Manual                finger(1)


NAME

     finger -- user information lookup program


SYNOPSIS

     finger [-46gklmpsho] [user ...] [user@host ...]


DESCRIPTION

     The finger utility displays information about the system users.

     Options are:

Don't see anything there about AUR

But, you are right. Use of the AUR is not mandatory, and make install works just fine, but... At that point, that individual is on their own in terms of support from the forums or from the tools that make Arch Linux Arch Linux. Support from the mail list or the forums is going to be difficult to obtain when something breaks. I use make install for some things; every now and again it bites me right on the toe.

nomorewindows · 2013-05-09 01:42:51

Anything that saves having to start from scratch or do trivial things and try to correctly rearrange them as they belong. Once it gets figured out and/or optimized then there is the almost universal practice of ports and/or AURs.

Awebb · 2013-05-09 08:42:27

I am not really able to be offended by such things. I just liked your comparison to religion. However, I am still puzzled about this sub-demographic here, that discriminates people, who do not use the AUR. I have never encountered such specimen.

madr wrote:

and they should be able to choose not to use the AUR without getting the finger.

Use the AUR in what way? You mean instead of writing your own PKGBUILD? Instead of installing software manually (make install etc.)? If you mean the latter, then I must inform you, that I personally reject all requests around "I did not use pacman to install X, and I did not prefix it to /usr/local". Could you clarify what you mean by "not using the AUR"? If you just mean, that one should be able to use the packages from the official repositories and that's it, then I'd really know, what kind of a person has a problem with that.

madr · 2013-05-09 12:37:38

Awebb wrote:

Use the AUR in what way? You mean instead of writing your own PKGBUILD? Instead of installing software manually (make install etc.)? If you mean the latter, then I must inform you, that I personally reject all requests around "I did not use pacman to install X, and I did not prefix it to /usr/local". Could you clarify what you mean by "not using the AUR"? If you just mean, that one should be able to use the packages from the official repositories and that's it, then I'd really know, what kind of a person has a problem with that.

I mean both, to some extent. I prefer the official repositories, so I would really like if everthing I need was in there. But I also understand that a lot of things can't fit in those, due to variouse and obviouse reasons. I also mean that Arch, being a DIY distro, shouldn't disencourage users to really DIY instead of using the AUR. I'm not implying that one is better than the other since there exist an whole array of different users with different goals and needs; or that users that takes detours should expect the same technical support as othters. I'm just saying, as ewaller also mention, that there is a choice there. I did not intend for this discussion to get to this point, so I'm not the Le Resistance against the AUR as it may seem. I was just trying to make a small point.

SquidGuy · 2013-05-09 13:15:22

Well, why do I use Arch? Honestly, I started on the *buntu path, and then went Debian minimal. I learned a great deal about how to configure the system to my needs and preferences there. I eventually wanted to get packages that were released less than 5 years previously, so I started to pull from Sid and Exp. I ended up having to have a "pinning" list of the things that I was getting from what repos. At some point I realized that it would honestly be easier just to make everything as new as possible (trying to get Virtualbox to compile vboxdrv was the last straw.) I read up on rolling distros, and it was either Arch or Gentoo for me. Arch won, and I've been using it without any huge issues since.

milomouse · 2013-05-12 19:25:53

I chose Arch because...

the option to download/install pre-built packages
the option to compile and manage packages yourself using PKGBUILDs and 'pacman'
using and modifying an Arch install is transparent and allows for continuous learning
great wiki pages compared to other distro sites
helpful and active forum

I also enjoy using Gentoo linux for similar reasons, but my heart still belongs to Arch linux.

ormu · 2013-05-16 20:46:38

I've previously used Mandriva, LMDE, Debian, Suse + some live CDs and installed Arch about a month ago onto my new desktop computer. The main reasons to choose it were

No bloat, unneeded progs, automation which does not work, hidden/complicated internals
I rather install what I need instead of removing what I don't need
Rolling release instead of slight updates - then big and bulky updates + repository mess when a new release is ready
Excellent documentation
32-bit libraries are readily available and easy to install (multiarch)
Development files included with library packages, no need to install -dev packages separately
Functionality over ideology (no repository mess with codecs etc.)

smlb · 2013-05-20 16:55:46

Using GNU/Linux since 2006. I started with Debian until the end of 2009. I use since then, personally it's a choice that I made because i want to set up entirely my system and have full control of the OS.

Last edited by smlb (2017-07-29 17:26:29)

manouchk · 2013-05-23 13:23:37

1) I use archlinux because documentation is great. I allowed me to solve almost all the configuration problem I had.

2) I switched from gentoo too archlinux when I stopped being a student and because, it saves me times and I needed this times and I don't feel soo much the need to compile everything.

3) I don't like ubuntu too much, except for ubuntu live which I use to configure new system (disk) before installing archlinux! Lol!

4) I love yaourt which allows me to install som any programs

Arch Linux

#301 2013-04-19 05:45:00

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#302 2013-04-19 12:53:24

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#303 2013-04-28 20:41:28

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#304 2013-04-28 22:02:19

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#305 2013-04-28 22:11:45

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#306 2013-04-29 03:56:30

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#307 2013-04-29 16:30:12

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#308 2013-04-29 19:45:56

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#309 2013-05-07 07:08:44

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#310 2013-05-07 22:19:28

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#311 2013-05-07 22:54:43

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#312 2013-05-08 05:35:43

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#313 2013-05-08 17:39:27

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#314 2013-05-08 23:33:24

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#315 2013-05-08 23:51:00

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#316 2013-05-09 00:34:02

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#317 2013-05-09 01:33:59

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#318 2013-05-09 01:42:51

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#319 2013-05-09 08:42:27

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#320 2013-05-09 12:37:38

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#321 2013-05-09 13:15:22

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#322 2013-05-12 19:25:53

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#323 2013-05-16 20:46:38

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#324 2013-05-20 16:55:46

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

#325 2013-05-23 13:23:37

Re: why you choose ArchLinux?

Board footer