Why not use Arch Linux only?

rasat · 2003-10-23 01:17:03

Named as an Arch Linux "Linux Addict" (according to my upgraded user profile ), for some times I have asked myself why use other distros than AL, especially RedHat, SuSE and Mandrake. What do they provide what AL doesn't?

One of the roles of RedHat became clear reading Linux Today, though it may not be for the common users but have to admit its impressive (there are three major advances in the new RHEL3 product line....):
http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2003102200926NWRHSW

PS.
Does it sound like I am addicted??... it feels natural :idea:

Xentac · 2003-10-23 04:43:37

Ease of use. Some other distros are automagic and you hear things like, "I just installed it and it worked."

Other reasons to use other distros are because certain packages aren't in arch and won't be for a while. Like gnucash.

Edit: You lucky people with your user types... I think I'm going to be stuck a 'Package Maintainer" for a long time now...

zen_guerrilla · 2003-10-23 09:01:32

In one word: maturity . Debian (& slack) is 10 years old, that's why (along with stability of woody & pkg database of sid) I use it on my workplace. Arch is great but I can't trust it for my servers yet .

dp · 2003-10-23 16:45:31

maturity? stable? can't trust?

let me tell you something i learned by experience ...

i runed SuSE for long time (from 5.2 to 8.1) and what i know they do wrong is: if you have e.g. 6.0 (the most stable SuSE i know) then you can update your packages over internet, but after some time you will be "forced" to buy the next release that is totally differently constructed (7.1, because it uses YaST2 instead of the YaST and other stupid inovations that you cannot easily update from internet) ... and after a while again you have to upgrade by buying the next one ...

sure, you install it in about an hour and everything works, but hey, each package costs some money and this install is each time from quite 0 (because the integrated update often does not work) :-(

trusting?
i trust only in systems i configure myself ... and since SuSE 7.2 i lost the overview in where you can configure what and why ... and you are not sure that YaST2 will change your changed settings to default

archlinux is fully configureable and does not have a tool that changes files behind your back (well, there is one case: when you update init-scripts with packman without setting in pacman.conf to exclude some files you changed ... but also then you can restore the settings by mv'ing the original files to their right name-links :-)

why using also other distros?
well since arch 0.5 i removed all other linuces from my machine (to save space) and now have only arch and winXP ... xp is used only for watching tv (because hauppauge usb "usbvision" module cannot be compiled with a 2.4.x or 2.6.0tx kernel (but 2.5.x) and because of ebanking software that will not install on archlinux but easily on SuSE and WinXP (need the original sun's java vm, but have no time to construct a PKGBUILD for sun's jdk 1.4)
... and the needed other software i built packages of and installed on my local repository (and also copied in incoming) ... now i'm quite happy with archlinux as an OS (and i hope with a more advanced 2.6.x TV will come too, and java i will find one day time to build for ebanking)

-> "use an OS that works, use archlinux"

ps
and about "linux addict":
no, i dont think i'm addict, but i use this forum as a normal member (to help others switching to an os that works, to help people with problems i had myself often some time ago, to ask if i find something interessting or funny about something in arch, to inform that i built packages and put them in incoming :-) ... i would be much happier to have "regular user" instead of "linux addict", but that's something i cannot change

Xentac · 2003-10-23 17:43:52

Just as a note... j2sdk is the official java sdk, version 1.4.2... if that works for you, then all the better. We moved from blackdown when we realized that the newest version of the java sdk worked with the new gcc.

About the addict part, it's just a title based off of the number of posts you make... I don't know how many you have to make to get anything more than addict... but I bet if we bugged the administrator of the board (apeiro!) enough he'd change the wording Then again, he might just be overworked and get annoyed at you...

whatah · 2003-10-23 18:06:30

i wanna have a cool title, maybe 'lord of the linuces' or something. If i could get that... oh man, just thinking about that is awesome. oh yeah, i only have AL installed. The reason i use archlinux is because i want to learn more about computers and arch linux helps me in that task. With mandrake i was using GUI configs and having the distribution perform all your tasks for you maybe be easier, but it doesn't exactly teach you how to do it. If i wanted to tell someone on another linux distribution how to do something, i can't say go to diskconf and do such and such, but with arch, i am editing the config file itself and i now have more of a feel for the template of packages, configuration files, makefiles and so on. Besides, AL is underground and that is all the rage now a days.

Shoutouts: Jagged2, Andy (Your head is about junk height)

whatah

terrapin · 2003-10-23 18:21:02

I agree with zen_guerrilla that maturity is major advantage that other distributions like Debian, Slackware and Red Hat have over Arch. Some benefits that a mature distros offer are an established community with a large and diverse user base, decreased chance that the distro will stop being developed and greater influence in the general Linux community.

Jagged · 2003-10-23 18:42:41

Jagged == Jagged2

I only use Jagged2 when im on IRC with both of my arch machines

both machines run archlinux, and archlinux only

one is a server for my lan, running bind postfix tpop3d, etc and the other is my workstation.

when proper care is taken to configure archlinux, it's an excellent distribution

i have since added a bunch of packages to my noupgrade options for the server machine (namely init, gcc, glib, kernel, and whatnot) so it has no chance of accidentally upgrading to broken software. Once I validate software on another box, then i consider upgrading the server. I try to stay away from glib/gcc upgrades mainly because that requires rebuilding stuff (like the kernel).

dp · 2003-10-24 14:58:59

Xentac wrote:

Just as a note... j2sdk is the official java sdk, version 1.4.2... if that works for you, then all the better. We moved from blackdown when we realized that the newest version of the java sdk worked with the new gcc.

# $Id: PKGBUILD,v 1.6 2003/08/20 17:07:28 jason Exp $
# Contributed by: Sarah Hay <sarah@archlinux.org>
# This PKGBUILD was built largely from code in Crux Linux
# Maintainer: Jason Chu <jason@archlinux.org>

pkgname=j2sdk
pkgver=1.4.1
pkgrel=5
pkgdesc="Blackdown's optimized java runtime environment"
url="http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/java2-status/"
depends=('xfree86' 'gcc' 'glibc')
source=(http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.blackdown.org/java-linux/JDK-1.4.1/i386/01/j2sdk-1.4.1-01-linux
-i586-gcc3.2.bin j2sdk.profile)

build() {
  mkdir -p $startdir/pkg/opt
  cd $startdir/pkg/opt
  echo "yes" | sh $startdir/src/${pkgname}-${pkgver}-01-linux-i586-gcc3.2.bin
  mv ${pkgname}${pkgver} ${pkgname}
  rm -r ${pkgname}/man/ja*
  for i in $pkgname/* $pkgname/jre/*; do
    if [ -f $i ]; then rm -rf $i; fi
  done
  chown -R root.root $startdir/pkg/*
  install -D -m755 $startdir/src/${pkgname}.profile $startdir/pkg/etc/profile.d/${pkgname}.sh
}

funny ... in the abs i can find only a 1.4.1 PKGBUILD, and this is a blackdown-version ... but pacman sayed that j2sdk 1.4.2_01-1 is installed ? what's wrong i dont know

but thanx anyway, and sorry you all that i post this reply in this post about "why only archlinux
"
EDIT: yes, i run abs regularly to update the tree
EDIT2: i update my system with pacman -Suy and sometimes with abs and then makeworld

Guest · 2003-10-24 15:19:14

because you are looking in /usr/abs?

the default abs location is now /var/abs

Xentac · 2003-10-24 15:35:03

Mwahahaha! Another one is bit by the move from /usr/abs to /var/abs!

dp · 2003-10-24 23:44:18

Anonymous wrote:

because you are looking in /usr/abs?
the default abs location is now /var/abs

hä? ups, i didnt know that the abs location changed ... and the worst: why did the update not mv'ed /usr/abs/local to /var/abs/local and rm -rf /usr/abs ?

well ... at least i know now ... thanx for this hint ...

fortune hitchhiker wrote:

"`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.'
`Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'"
- Arthur failing in his first lesson of galactic physics
in four years.

jlowell · 2003-10-25 06:47:39

rasat,

While Red Hat is "storming the enterprise with Linux 3" as the Linux Today article to which you refer us suggests, they are also storming their user's pocketbooks. Try updating your Red Hat installation without major complications today unless you submit to the onerous $60/machine annual fee extorted from you by them a la Microsoft. If you're looking for an excuse to run Arch all by itself, there's one for you.

Instead of vomiting on the rug with their imbicile enthusiasms for Red Hat, Linux Today would do well to caution Linux users against the rank commercialism and exploitation involved with such tactics. Here's one grateful, recovering Red Hat user that misses neither their company nor their company.

jlowell

Arch Linux

#1 2003-10-23 01:17:03

Why not use Arch Linux only?

#2 2003-10-23 04:43:37

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#3 2003-10-23 09:01:32

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#4 2003-10-23 16:45:31

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#5 2003-10-23 17:43:52

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#6 2003-10-23 18:06:30

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#7 2003-10-23 18:21:02

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#8 2003-10-23 18:42:41

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#9 2003-10-24 14:58:59

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#10 2003-10-24 15:19:14

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#11 2003-10-24 15:35:03

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#12 2003-10-24 23:44:18

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

#13 2003-10-25 06:47:39

Re: Why not use Arch Linux only?

Board footer