The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

EAD · 2006-05-01 18:07:30

Arch IS soo good!!!
I love it very much, it is fast, stable and has a very nice and good package mangger, what else can someone want?
I just wish for now that ARCH will include glibc 2.4, gcc 4.1 and so on, but despite this, it is a great distro :!: :!:

Chman · 2006-05-01 18:20:15

Arch is simply the best.

myst · 2006-05-05 11:28:38

Arch is simply simpliest to work with. IMNHAAO.

palandir · 2006-05-19 13:21:52

I've been using Linux for 7 years now, and I think I should post my Linux story here, because Arch seems to be the perfect match to people who think like me, and I want to give a little feedback. I'm not going into details, because this is quite long already.
(Everything below is related to the desktop, unless otherwise noted)

I started out with SuSE 6.4, but I rarely booted it, so I really started with SuSE 7.0, where I learned most basics (I also bought a great book by Michael Kofler that really helped to understand everything).

I immediately liked the Unix concepts (file system layout, powerful shell, etc.) and that it was so easy to customize (I always have to vomit when I see the Windows registry). From that moment on, I rarely ever booted Windows.

As I like playing around with stuff, the SuSE setup tool YaST quickly became an obstacle to me. I found out about other distributions, that don't offer such annoying setup tools. As I already had a basic Linux understandig I felt prepared enough to try Slackware. It was great, and I used it for 3 years or so (which makes it the distribution I've used the longest time till now).

Then I got curious of Debian, which I used for about 2 years.
Coming from Slackware, I really liked apt-get (of course). But the system was just so big and cluttered. A special Debian tool here, special Debian stuff there, everything was just so different and complex. Like in SuSE. Not to be mistaken, the Debian team does a great job, the default configuration files are well thought-out, debconf is pretty cool, and it somehow just works. But the tinkerer in me really wanted more simplicity, overview etc.
Also, while it's nice that there are over 15k packages available, there is tons of crap. And most things are split up into many smaller packages, a libxyz here, libxyz-dev there, libxyz-common there. Why not just put it in 1 package? You most likely need them all anyway.
The result was (IIRC) that "dpkg -l | wc -l" returned > 1500. My god.
Furthermore, stable and testing were always too outdated -- unstable was ok, but sometimes dependencies were broken, or a program didn't work, etc.
It became obvious that I wasn't the right person to use Debian on the desktop.

Next, in 2005, came CRUX Linux. A very nice source-based distribution. It was also my first source distribution. Compiling was faster than I expected, so I was quite happy at first. The distribution itself is even more simplistic than Arch, it's like LFS with packet management. You could consider it as the source-based equivalent to Arch. After all, Arch uses some good ideas from it (e.g. the PKGBUILD files). But the source-based nature is the reason I'm not using it anymore now. If you are in a hurry but have to compile something, it sucks. If you run into the small chance that a port won't compile at all and you have to spend (much) time to fix/patch it, it sucks even more. It's not reliable enough in certain situations. Though these are rare, they still exist.

And here I am now, using Arch Linux since 0.7. I fell back to CRUX shortly because I know one of the developers on IRC, so I am more or less up to date regarding changes in CRUX, and even though it is getting better over time, it still has the same fundamental problems that I cannot tolerate any longer. Arch is the way to go for me.

I'm not running Arch on my server/router, however. I use Debian stable and OpenBSD there, because I want something rock-solid and proven there. I want to switch to OpenBSD, which is installed in parallel, but I only know iptables, not pf. I didn't find the time yet to "port" my firewalling script to pf.

But for the desktop, Arch is truly the best choice by far. I'm really happy that I found it. I was about to try FreeBSD, but as I already said, I hate compiling... so if there was no Arch, I wouldn't really be happy with ANY operating system/distribution in the long run.

I should note that I also shortly tried out Fedora Core, Gentoo, Ubuntu and have seen other distributions on other systems. But they all got removed again after a few days, for various reasons.

Arch really is the best of all worlds (that's not just a hollow phrase), and if you don't really like any distribution, you should definately give it a try, it's made for you.

So thanks for the great distribution, and keep up the good work. You're definately on the right track for many people.

ihavenoname · 2006-05-21 05:07:27

a123 wrote:

i hear violins

what does that even mean? (ive heard it b4 that why i ask, im not attempting to be rude.)

ItsTheSource · 2006-06-13 22:26:41

arch ftw! started out as a noob with fc1 and used it infrequently through fc3. then found gentoo & linux, loved it! knowledge +10. then i skipped around trying to find a home, visiting with fc5, ubuntu, kubuntu, pclinuxos, slackware, vector, & finally settling on arch. only gripe i'd have would be with pacman. I'd love to see the ability to install packages other than the latest versions .

RevertTS · 2006-06-29 05:47:47

I just switched to Arch from Ubuntu, and I'm loving it. Install was painless, although configuring sound and finding a good torrent program took awhile, but the system's lean, fast, and exactly what I want.

It's great!

funkyou · 2006-06-29 13:30:16

well, i switched to arch some months ago... before i had several distributions installed, starting in the middle 90s with red hat, then mandrake, slackware and then debian for a long long time before i switched to ubuntu 2 years ago... but i needed something new because ubuntu wasnt the right distro for me, and then i discovered arch after carefully studies on distrowatch... had some lowdowns on the first install and felt pretty lost after the base install but it was worth it!

arch is just a beautiful piece of software, everything is just as i want it and i never had to compile an own kernel for example or mess around with something... with those other distros there were always some problems, and with arch i did not had any big problems since my first install

so, heres my big THX to the developers for making this possible, you guys simply rock!!1!

Ryujin · 2006-06-29 13:48:32

Just for the record I think the devs rock, not all distros are lead by guys with backbone like Arch, good job to Judd and the others! You are making the perfect distro!

chippy · 2006-07-03 03:20:19

Arch in the news again. OSNews has an update article on Arch, just because Arch is so good. Actually.

Ibex · 2006-07-12 09:09:07

Omg, I love arch so much .

bud · 2006-07-12 20:38:16

Tried most dists out there, I kinda liked gentoo and was running it for a while til i got bored to compile everything.
Switched to Arch and voilá im stuck (forever?). Ran much faster than gentoo wich I find to be very rather strange but nothing to be sad about xD
Love it!

balzac · 2006-08-12 10:13:20

You seem to have too much time on your hands, CmX.

For me, Arch is simply a means to doing my work. If I use Arch or another distro is basically irrelevant for me, as long as the system doesn't crash and as long as I get webbrowsing and office apps that work.

Is it the best? I don't think so as every user has different needs and expectations. For some, Arch is the answer, for others, it's another distro. I can live with that.

Bitbucket · 2006-08-27 04:58:54

Well for me Arch! does the trick. I like gentoo very much, but the time it takes to complie everything no thanks. I didn't like unbuntu's load it all approach. Arch! allows me to have a working os with out the fat. enough said.

chrismortimore · 2006-08-30 10:15:11

I use one of 3 distros, depending on the machines use:

Gentoo: for my "power" desktop. Basically, if the machine has some good power behind it, then I like Gentoo because of the USE flags, (sorry guys) portage is the best package manager I've used extensively. Also, I like a project

Arch: for my low power boxes. My laptop runs Arch because it simply doesn't have the power to compile all the source, and Arch gives me binaries for the bulk of the stuff, and lets me recompile easily. I see it as a nice mix of the source world and the distro world. But I still have a few issues with Pacman.

Debian: when it comes to servers, I find Debian cannot be beaten. I found it is the only distro out there that doesn't break when you upgrade it. And especially now that they have started using "aptitude" instead of "apt-get", I find it couldn't be easier to maintain. Yeah the software is outdated, but that isn't an issue for me.

These are the 3 I've settled on. I've tried a hell of a lot of the distros that are listed on distro watch (through vmware), and I first used Linux back in 2000, using Redhat (7 I think it was, maybe 6.x). After finding that RPMs suck, I switched to Debian 2.2, and was with Debian (using vmware to try other distros) until I found Gentoo in ~2004, and I switched to that. Then I found Arch (from the Gentoo forums) a few months ago, and switched my laptop over. My server is still "running" Debian, but just now it is missing a PSU (any donations are welcome ).

To summerise: Arch, Debian and Gentoo rule supreme

My two cents

lumiwa · 2006-08-30 11:32:43

I like and I have Alfa Romeo car. Is it the best? For me is not important because I like it and for me is good.
I had SuSE Linux to version 9.1 and I try OpenSuSE too and I like it, I had Debian which I like it and for me is very good, stable and secure and now I have the Arch Linux which I like it too but for me and my computer needs are using the programs and much less "playing" with OS. If is pacman much faster than apt-get for example is less important because I did use apt-get few times a year. I have programs which I use and if is nothing "life" imortant for OS I didn't use apt-get.
Many Arch user tried many distributions. How is about Frugalware? Nobody try this distro? I am thinking to try it. Looks not bleeding edge but has more "fresh" programs than Debian and I had Slackware too on my computer.
And BTW I tried DesktopBDS and I like it too

detto · 2006-09-30 12:17:35

lumiwa wrote:

Many Arch user tried many distributions. How is about Frugalware? Nobody try this distro? I am thinking to try it. Looks not bleeding edge but has more "fresh" programs than Debian and I had Slackware too on my computer.

My experience with Frugalware 0.5:

Neat system, which was based on slackware, now is on its on with a SysV init system :? (not a good thing for me imo), and a newer pacman (version 3) that has some advantages.
But using pacman 2 in arch is no problem, it's stable, which i cannot say for frugalwares packages for example :!:
They somehow try to ship latest and gratest but in a stable tree, that cannot really work imo, and it was also represented to me this way.
Their FrugalBuilds are pretty nice because there are many include scripts to make packagin easier, but after all and reading many of those files and compared to the ones in arch, i have to say that in archlinux you have more control, overview, and flexability (the whole archlinux distribution is much more matured!).

Aynway, try it our yourself and compare. I first got a wow to frugalware, because of comforatble way of setting things up but that after all wasnt the way i wanted my system. arch is my wanted system. ill stik with arch. peace.

cheers,
detto

con · 2006-10-12 14:57:27

Have been usign Arch on my laptop for about a year, it has been a great experience almost the speed of Slack but alot easier to keep updated and installing new stuff . So two weeks ago Slack 11 gets released and I stood before the choice of re-installing Slack on my desktop or Arch... It felt bad at first but I did it...long story short, running Arch on both laptop and desktop..../me luvs Arch now:D but Slack will always have a special little space in my heart

detto · 2006-10-12 16:37:29

So two weeks ago Slack 11 gets released and I stood before the choice of re-installing Slack on my desktop or Arch... It felt bad at first but I did it...long story short, running Arch on both laptop and desktop..../me luvs Arch now:D but Slack will always have a special little space in my heart

EXACTLY the same feelings as i had 2 weeks ago

Ibex · 2006-10-12 17:00:48

I'm impressed that every time I boot my laptop and I see the Arch picture, I realise that I love Arch so much.

It's not only a distro or an OS. It's an OS with a beautiful community, with a philosopy. Arch is a way life.

con · 2006-10-12 17:05:22

detto wrote:

So two weeks ago Slack 11 gets released and I stood before the choice of re-installing Slack on my desktop or Arch... It felt bad at first but I did it...long story short, running Arch on both laptop and desktop..../me luvs Arch now:D but Slack will always have a special little space in my heart
EXACTLY the same feelings as i had 2 weeks ago

LOL! Most Slack users who switch distros usually go back to Slack after some time ...let's see what happens.

detto · 2006-10-12 17:20:40

con wrote:

LOL! Most Slack users who switch distros usually go back to Slack after some time Wink...let's see what happens.

I think i wont. No... i know i wont With slackware i have more things to set up, package management is now a thing that i dont wanna miss anymore (as long as its that good like in arch), and gnome on slackware is a problem as before. they still use 2.4 kernel, gcc3 and so on.
sure its stable and rock solid and damn well tested because of this. and i love slack for this. but not do i love it anymore this much for my deskto system. there arch linux is the way to go imo

stavrosg · 2006-10-12 17:30:50

con wrote:

EXACTLY the same feelings as i had 2 weeks ago

LOL! Most Slack users who switch distros usually go back to Slack after some time ...let's see what happens.
I was a slack user, too. I do miss it at times, but for the desktop, arch all the way

con · 2006-10-12 17:50:10

detto wrote:

con wrote:
With slackware i have more things to set up, package management is now a thing that i dont wanna miss anymore (as long as its that good like in arch), and gnome on slackware is a problem as before. they still use 2.4 kernel, gcc3 and so on.
Yea, thats probably the biggest reason I went with Arch...I dont mind sitting and configuring and installing stuff for 5hrs straight, that is when I have an extra 5hrs, atm I dont...
Gnome/GTK stuff is a pain on Slack now, especially since I use KDE, but Firestarter is the best IMO iptables frontend I've used. Installing dropline just for the sake of getting firestart isnt really my bag so to speak.

charlie dont surf!

Arch Linux

#76 2006-05-01 18:07:30

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#77 2006-05-01 18:20:15

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#78 2006-05-05 11:28:38

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#79 2006-05-19 13:21:52

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#80 2006-05-21 05:07:27

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#81 2006-06-13 22:26:41

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#82 2006-06-29 05:47:47

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#83 2006-06-29 13:30:16

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#84 2006-06-29 13:48:32

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#85 2006-07-03 03:20:19

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#86 2006-07-12 09:09:07

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#87 2006-07-12 20:38:16

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#88 2006-08-12 10:13:20

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#89 2006-08-27 04:58:54

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#90 2006-08-30 10:15:11

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#91 2006-08-30 11:32:43

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#92 2006-09-30 12:17:35

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#93 2006-10-12 14:57:27

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#94 2006-10-12 16:37:29

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#95 2006-10-12 17:00:48

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#96 2006-10-12 17:05:22

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#97 2006-10-12 17:20:40

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#98 2006-10-12 17:30:50

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#99 2006-10-12 17:50:10

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#100 2006-12-17 15:43:36

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

Board footer