Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

garlicarch · 2012-04-22 11:58:31

1.)Taking into consideation that it took me a few trys to even register for the forum (facepalms) and that I have only ever been a Mint user, how does the Arch install process compare to that of Mints?

2.)Will the install for a duel boot with Windows 7 be just as easy with Arch as it is with Mint?

3.)Are my questions an indication that I am probably not ready for Arch? (laughs)

4.)I really only use the Linux half of my duel boot when I am on unsecure networks while travleing and it makes me feel safer etc.. and when I do use it it's really just for browsing the internet. Should I just stick with Mint if thats all I really do?

I have heard only good things about Arch and if it's not going to make me want to rip out my hair, I would certinly like to reaplce Mint with Arch. Thank you for your time and help.

LoBo3268715 · 2012-04-22 12:10:43

Hi garlicarch. Please read the wiki. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide
Plus I would say if you're not a full time Linux user you should stick with mint, Arch requires a certain amount of an investment of time on your part to maintain as it is a DIY distro. Linux mint is not, (most) everything is done for you when you click "Install". Don't let that discourage you from trying Arch if you really want too though, it is a wonderful distro.

chamber · 2012-04-22 12:15:46

You could try setting up an arch install in a vm to see what you thought of it. Read the Beginners Guide as it is excellent, however as mentioned above you do need to invest a lot of time in your Arch system and the install is not just point and click.

garlicarch · 2012-04-22 12:19:03

Thank you to the both of you. I will do some reading.

magicalChicken · 2012-04-22 13:32:54

As for how well duel booting will work on arch, it should work just as well as Mint. If you really want to learn more about linux then try arch, but in order to install and configure arch quite a bit of knowledge of linux must be gained.

x33a · 2012-04-22 14:51:24

LoBo* summed it up quite nicely. Arch requires effort setting up, and effort maintaining, as it's a rolling release distro. Mint is an awesome distro for all types of users, and keeping in mind your requirements, you should probably stick to it.

bernarcher · 2012-04-22 15:29:48

Don't let you shy away from trying, garlicarch. You can use a VM for the beginning but if you are serious about it, try a multiple boot installation parallel with what already exists on your system.

Mandatory is that you read and understand the Beginners' Guide and that you follow it to the letter. If you can spare an extra partition on your HDD install Arch there. And then try it out, using all the information the Wiki and the forums provide. You will find that there is not so much extra work once you have tailored the system to your needs. And there is no need to fear Arch's rolling release model. Most of us have almost no problem with it. Mind, there will be more cumbersome upgrade procedures necessary in timed releases like Mint.

Keep what you currently have so you can always go back to an already running system. Experiment and later on decide.

andesho91 · 2012-04-22 21:33:04

LoBo summed it up in one. I would say that it you were to go the full whack and install Arch, partition the hard disk first, and decide as to whether you want the GRUB bootloader with Arch, or GRUB2 with Mint. I chose GRUB with Arch, which means that whenever there is a kernel update in Ubuntu, I have to manually add the GRUB entries, but I am fine with that.

KingX · 2012-04-23 00:51:10

For the purposes you use your linux install for, I'd also recommend staying with Mint and trying Arch in a virtualbox/vmware setup. After you get a little comfortable then you can consider installing it on a physical drive.

sonoran · 2012-04-23 01:08:23

andesho91 wrote:

I chose GRUB with Arch, which means that whenever there is a kernel update in Ubuntu, I have to manually add the GRUB entries, but I am fine with that.

I dual boot Arch (legacy grub on the mbr) and Fedora (grub2 installed to the first sector of a single / partition) with the following entry in Arch's menu.lst:

title Fedora 17
root (hd1,5)
chainloader +1

If I select Fedora 17 from the legacy grub menu I go directly to grub2's menu. This setup has worked through several Fedora kernel updates without any manual intervention.

Not intending to hijack garlicarch's thread - he appears to have received good responses.

Last edited by sonoran (2012-04-23 01:08:53)

Awebb · 2012-04-23 09:00:20

garlicarch wrote:

Should I just stick with Mint if thats all I really do?

If you have no intention of learning more about Linux and how it ticks, then you might be better off with Mint. If you have, on the other hand, some spare time and want to enrichen yourself, then try Arch. Don't worry if you can't get the system working on the first try. When I first tried Arch, it took me a night and a day and half of the things didn't work, so I fell back to Debian, just to retry Arch half a year later. Now I find Arch easier to handle than Ubuntu.

Roken · 2012-04-23 10:43:54

I came from Mint to Arch, via Debian and LFS. With regards to Grub, I'm still using the same grub installed by Mint two years ago, even though I no longer have Mint on the system. However, I do use a separate /boot partition and I'm comfortable editing grub.cfg directly when required. It does, however, mean that I never have to worry about adding a new OS for dual boot. Having said that, it's certainly not something I would suggest to anyone with limited experience.

Don't let others put you off with the "Arch is high maintenance" thing. If I'm honest, I don't find Arch significantly more high maintenance than any other Linux distro, though certainly during install and initial set up it helps if you have a reasonably good understanding of how the system is configured. Whereas the likes of Mint and other pre-built general distros have most of the system configuration done for you out of the box, on Arch you have to walk the extra mile and do it yourself. Linux is like women. The more you have to do to get them, the more you will get out of them in the end

Nevertheless, I fully agree with the "Test in a VM and get comfortable" philosophy first. This will help when you eventually come to a full install significantly. I did two test installs before a complete one, noting down where I had to pay particular attention. Also make sure that you don't need any firmware files, especially for network, when installing for real, or at least get the files and put them on a USB stick. Nothing worse than installing a system them not having any network to get the firmware required to get the network working. Catch 22 anyone?

Last edited by Roken (2012-04-23 10:46:23)

Awebb · 2012-04-23 13:59:12

Okay, a little example on what you might encounter:

When I came to work today, the first thing I did was updating the two Arch boxes under my desk, as I had been ill for two weeks. It asked to update pacman first, then it told me, that there was a dependency cycle for udev, because gcc requires a more recent version of gcc-libs. That happens almost every time, when I leave my work machine without updates for more than two weeks (vacation, sick call). The solution was simple, I installed all four packages manually - that means instead of updating them, I invoked an install command - and pacman stopped complaining.

You can avoid this by updating more often.

Arch Linux

#1 2012-04-22 11:58:31

Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#2 2012-04-22 12:10:43

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#3 2012-04-22 12:15:46

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#4 2012-04-22 12:19:03

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#5 2012-04-22 13:32:54

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#6 2012-04-22 14:51:24

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#7 2012-04-22 15:29:48

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#8 2012-04-22 21:33:04

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#9 2012-04-23 00:51:10

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#10 2012-04-23 01:08:23

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#11 2012-04-23 09:00:20

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#12 2012-04-23 10:43:54

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

#13 2012-04-23 13:59:12

Re: Is the Arch install process the same as Mint's?

Board footer