What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

markasoftware · 2014-11-28 21:20:15

I see that one of the main things about arch linux is that it is very customizeable. However, couldn't I take any linux distro I wanted, even Ubuntu, and just strip off all the built in things like desktop environment, etc, and then it would be just as customizeable as arch? Or is there something I'm missing?

Trilby · 2014-11-28 21:25:19

markasoftware wrote:

I see that one of the main things about arch linux is that it is very customizeable.

Where do you see this? If this is something you've concluded, fine - but I don't think you've concluded this as you then go on to refute it. I don't know of any documentation that claims arch is more customizable. Certainly no where on this page.

markasoftware wrote:

couldn't I take any linux distro I wanted, even Ubuntu, and just strip off all the built in things ...

Probably. But it's not always a trivial task to do so.

markasoftware wrote:

Or is there something I'm missing?

Yes, with arch you are missing something: the necessity to strip away all that stuff you don't want.

So, the answer to your title question: Nothing. Don't use arch. I have it on good authority that it sucks.

Proinsias · 2014-11-28 21:36:03

I don't think you're misssing much. I just prefer building things up, arch provides a nice clean base for that.

alphaniner · 2014-11-28 21:55:24

Trilby wrote:

markasoftware wrote:
I see that one of the main things about arch linux is that it is very customizeable.
Where do you see this? If this is something you've concluded, fine - but I don't think you've concluded this as you then go on to refute it. I don't know of any documentation that claims arch is more customizable. Certainly no where on this page.

'this page' wrote:

... rather than tearing out unneeded and unwanted packages, the user is offered the ability to build up from a minimal foundation without any preemptively-chosen defaults. Arch's design philosophy and implementation make it easy to extend and mold into whatever kind of system is required ... it is the user who decides what his Arch system will be.

It seems to me that that could reasonably be summarized as "Arch is very customizable". And the 'rather than' part suggests something that not all distros can claim.

nstgc · 2014-11-28 22:05:03

At one time I had Antergos installed, and thought about just leaning it down. Then I looked at the list of installed packages and thought "no way in hell". Instead I installed Arch and built it up.

As you, the op, state, you can strip most any distro down, however that takes quite a bit of work. To say that Arch is more customization is inaccurate. To say that Arch installs are more unique, however, is likely quite accurate. This is because we build up from a small, base install.

Ultimately Arch's strength is user control and responsibility.

Customizable just means that it can be customized, it says nothing of how easy it would be. A desktop computer from Dell is just as customizable as one you build yourself, but the later is likely to be somewhat easier. A desktop, however, is more customizable then a Mac since Macs have soldiered on parts that are in a sealed case running an OS that refuses to run on hardware configurations that aren't preapproved.

clfarron4 · 2014-11-28 22:10:21

markasoftware wrote:

However, couldn't I take any linux distro I wanted, even Ubuntu, and just strip off all the built in things like desktop environment, etc, and then it would be just as customizeable as arch? Or is there something I'm missing?

Without forcefully removing the package and ignoring dependencies, try removing the plymouth package on Ubuntu.

OK, that aside, two points with Arch are that you put want you want on top of the base installation and the binaries shipped are typically built with very few changes from the upstream developers releases.

jeff story · 2014-11-29 02:44:48

markasoftware wrote:

is there something I'm missing?

Yes you are missing something. In fact, you're likely missing a lot. Of course Arch is very customizable, as you accurately point out and as is possible with many other Linux distros. What you may have missed is what makes Arch appealing to use compared to other distros.

Here's a personal quick list of pluses:

* Arch is a relatively stable rolling release, unlike most other distros

* Access to a very skilled and knowledge Linux community that not many distros can match

* Provides binary packages "as delivered" from upstream source, with very minimal patching only as required

* Pacman is a very nice package manager compared to what other distros offer

* Provides makepkg, making a very clean method to compile and install packages that are not in the official repos, compared to methods used by other distros

* Provides more up to date package versions compared to most other distros

I'm sure others have their own personal lists that would differ significantly from mine. Arch also has requirements of the users that may surpass those of other distros, to be able to take advantage of the above list. I'd ask what else compels you to want to use Arch?

If it's only the customizable aspects that attracted you to Arch, yes, you have missed a lot in my opinion, and I'd encourage you to take a closer look.

Last edited by jeff story (2014-11-29 03:05:38)

markasoftware · 2014-12-05 04:44:19

Trilby wrote:

markasoftware wrote:
I see that one of the main things about arch linux is that it is very customizeable.
Where do you see this? If this is something you've concluded, fine - but I don't think you've concluded this as you then go on to refute it. I don't know of any documentation that claims arch is more customizable. Certainly no where on this page.

acutally, it does say on this page that

Another guiding principle of Arch Linux development is freedom. Users are not only permitted to make all decisions concerning system configuration, but also choose what their system will be. By keeping the system simple, Arch Linux provides the freedom to make any choice about the system.

And then,

clfarron4 wrote:

markasoftware wrote:
However, couldn't I take any linux distro I wanted, even Ubuntu, and just strip off all the built in things like desktop environment, etc, and then it would be just as customizeable as arch? Or is there something I'm missing?
Without forcefully removing the package and ignoring dependencies, try removing the plymouth package on Ubuntu.
OK, that aside, two points with Arch are that you put want you want on top of the base installation and the binaries shipped are typically built with very few changes from the upstream developers releases.

Good point, I previously thought it was just a lot of uninstalling to get rid of unneeded/unwanted packages

jeff story wrote:

Yes you are missing something. In fact, you're likely missing a lot. Of course Arch is very customizable, as you accurately point out and as is possible with many other Linux distros. What you may have missed is what makes Arch appealing to use compared to other distros.
Here's a personal quick list of pluses:
* Arch is a relatively stable rolling release, unlike most other distros
* Access to a very skilled and knowledge Linux community that not many distros can match
* Provides binary packages "as delivered" from upstream source, with very minimal patching only as required
* Pacman is a very nice package manager compared to what other distros offer
* Provides makepkg, making a very clean method to compile and install packages that are not in the official repos, compared to methods used by other distros
* Provides more up to date package versions compared to most other distros
I'm sure others have their own personal lists that would differ significantly from mine. Arch also has requirements of the users that may surpass those of other distros, to be able to take advantage of the above list. I'd ask what else compels you to want to use Arch?
If it's only the customizable aspects that attracted you to Arch, yes, you have missed a lot in my opinion, and I'd encourage you to take a closer look.

Yeah, I was aware of all that, my mind is pretty much already set on Arch, it's frikkin amazing, you don't need to convince me more

Thank you everybody for explaining things! What I've gathered so far is that the main reason is that you don't have to strip out other packages (which can sometimes be a big, annoying task)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2014-12-05 08:14:25

There is also the fact that, unlike other distro's, all the config & setup is done manually from scratch.

This means you have a chance of troubleshooting problems without going insane...

Awebb · 2014-12-05 08:56:51

markasoftware wrote:

However, couldn't I take any linux distro I wanted, even Ubuntu, and just strip off all the built in things

This is how I started. I took a read to go distro, stripped everything away I didn't need and bent the rest according to my wishes. This turned out to be a daunting task every six months. I also did not know how my system worked, I was always patching around assumptions, had to google every how to step. Arch on the other hand has little unknown features. Everything special to Arch can be found in the archlinux man page.

Trilby · 2014-12-05 12:10:29

Silly semantic arguments.

The page linked for the claim of arch being more customizeable does not contain the string "custom" anywhere in it. It's not there. What is there is a different statement. A true statement. This true statement that even the OP agrees with. But that true statement was boiled down, simplified, twisted, and contorted into the statement "arch is more customizable". Then that distortion was rejected and a request for someone to defend that distortion was made. So markasoftware, all you've really disagreed with is your own flawed interpretation.

This is very much a strawman argument. The wiki does not claim is "more customizable". It does say it is simple and you build up your system yourself. One might interepret this (as clfarron4 and others have) that it would be easier to customize as it reduces the number of steps needed: you just build up, you don't need to strip away. But whether easier to build into what you want and "more customizeable" mean the same thing are up to individual interpretation; to me "easier" and "more" have different meanings.

PReP · 2014-12-05 13:29:31

My take has always been that what makes Arch good in the long run, is that if you feel it fits you, it saves time in the long run.

Just the notion that what ends up running on the system is something you have yourself had an active process in setting up,
and that all the movable parts of common linux (vanilla) that you get, forces you to educate yourself all the time.

The effect of this is that you spend less time wondering wtf something does this, and with care Arch is very, very little maintenance

- Almost to the point that when some component offers something new, something specific to take care of and give some minutes of love,
It is a fun distraction from the daily "just runs as i want it too" status

Arch helps you educate yourself, and spend less time doing it and working against most pre-set ideas of how your box should run.

drcouzelis · 2014-12-05 13:54:52

markasoftware wrote:

my mind is pretty much already set on Arch, it's frikkin amazing, you don't need to convince me more

Just to let you know, this thread won't stop until every Arch Linux user has had a chance to post their opinion.

As for me... Not only does the Arch Linux logo look amazingly cool, but even the logo is customizable!

starbreaker · 2014-12-05 14:17:57

markasoftware wrote:

I see that one of the main things about arch linux is that it is very customizeable. However, couldn't I take any linux distro I wanted, even Ubuntu, and just strip off all the built in things like desktop environment, etc, and then it would be just as customizeable as arch? Or is there something I'm missing?

You don't really need to strip down Ubuntu. You could install from the minimal CD instead, and add the stuff you want. Or, you could install CrunchBang or even vanilla Debian.

Here's the thing: Debian will patch code taken from the original developers to make it run "optimally" on a Debian system. Ubuntu, in turn, takes Debian's packages and tweaks them further to run on their distro. If you then decide to use Linux Mint, which is downstream from Debian and Ubuntu, you have a third distro's design decisions cramping your style.

With Arch, most of that is eliminated. As long as the package/AUR maintainers are on the ball, you can install the latest and greatest of just about everything. If the package repos or AUR don't have what you want, you have the option of building your own package. The base arch install is so bare-bones, it doesn't even have the "standard" Unix text editor.

alphaniner · 2014-12-05 14:56:09

Note to self, never make an informal contract with Trilby...

chaonaut · 2014-12-13 14:16:47

What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

the short answer: community.

ANOKNUSA · 2014-12-13 15:28:28

Man, I don't know how many times I've typed this argument out, but it seems like one of the most vital distinctions newcomers need to make between Arch and some other popular GNU/Linux distros: Arch is not a "distribution" in the commonly used sense. On one end of the Linux spectrum you have distros like Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, SuSE, Mint, and others that are pre-packaged distributions, intended to provide a sense of feature-completeness straight out of the installation. They're designed to appear and behave as cohesive, full-featured operating systems.

Toward the other end you have projects such Arch, Gentoo, CRUX, Exherbo, Sorcerer and Slackware that don't offer that experience. Rather than being packaged distrubutions, they're instead software distribution platforms---they offer sets of tools that end users can utilize to build Linux-based operating systems to their own tastes. Arch is customizable insofar as it leaves it entirely up to you what components your system will consist of, and since nearly all the packages in the repositories are unmodified from upstream there's nothing keeping the user from reading the official documentation and configuring packages as they see fit. The same goes for Arch's cohorts listed above.

You can of course customize any Linux distribution you want in any way you want, but in order to achieve that with the more "beginner-friendly" distros you need to act against all the assumptions made by the distribution providers, rather than starting from scratch. Simply put, you can customize any Linux distribution to any degree, but you're not supposed to. You're expected to leave things the way they are, and the tools those distributions provide almost always act within limits set by the assumptions of the developers.

Awebb · 2014-12-13 20:12:48

People cannot agree on the meaning of "distribution" anyway. It used to be a box full of disks and the university library charged five bucks for the rental. Now it's the project, the live iso and the repositories. None of that is a distribution, they are all different operating systems.

Arch Linux

#1 2014-11-28 21:20:15

What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#2 2014-11-28 21:25:19

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#3 2014-11-28 21:36:03

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#4 2014-11-28 21:55:24

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#5 2014-11-28 22:05:03

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#6 2014-11-28 22:10:21

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#7 2014-11-29 02:44:48

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#8 2014-12-05 04:44:19

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#9 2014-12-05 08:14:25

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#10 2014-12-05 08:56:51

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#11 2014-12-05 12:10:29

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#12 2014-12-05 13:29:31

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#13 2014-12-05 13:54:52

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#14 2014-12-05 14:17:57

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#15 2014-12-05 14:56:09

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#16 2014-12-13 14:16:47

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#17 2014-12-13 15:28:28

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

#18 2014-12-13 20:12:48

Re: What makes Arch more customizeable than other linux distros?

Board footer