Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

Gullible Jones · 2006-07-03 16:05:41

Well, it is a testing repository....

(I actually don't think I've ever experienced breakage with Testing. I think that the trick, during large updates, is to Syu only when most or all of the packages have been recompiled against the new libraries.)

iBertus · 2006-07-03 16:33:55

Gullible Jones wrote:

Well, it is a testing repository....
(I actually don't think I've ever experienced breakage with Testing. I think that the trick, during large updates, is to Syu only when most or all of the packages have been recompiled against the new libraries.)

Yes, you should always check the Arch Linux homepage for news prior to a huge update. If it says 'moving a HUGE amount of packages for testing to current' then it's probably a good idea to wait until it says 'all packages have been moved' before doing a -Syu. I always check the latest news if more than ~50MB of stuff needs updating or if the update is something like gcc or glibc, which could break pretty much everything.

profoX · 2006-07-03 17:20:27

Gullible Jones wrote:

Well, it is a testing repository....
(I actually don't think I've ever experienced breakage with Testing. I think that the trick, during large updates, is to Syu only when most or all of the packages have been recompiled against the new libraries.)

True, I pacman -Syu'd every few days

profoX · 2006-07-03 17:21:51

iBertus wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:
Well, it is a testing repository....
(I actually don't think I've ever experienced breakage with Testing. I think that the trick, during large updates, is to Syu only when most or all of the packages have been recompiled against the new libraries.)
Yes, you should always check the Arch Linux homepage for news prior to a huge update. If it says 'moving a HUGE amount of packages for testing to current' then it's probably a good idea to wait until it says 'all packages have been moved' before doing a -Syu. I always check the latest news if more than ~50MB of stuff needs updating or if the update is something like gcc or glibc, which could break pretty much everything.

I actually read the news too, but I tend to upgrade anyway...
A little question: can I switch to "current" (from "testing") easily ?

Gullible Jones · 2006-07-03 17:46:09

As of right now, very easily.

Komodo · 2006-07-03 20:44:30

*overwhelmed by posts*
...
...
*fatigued by reading*

phew! erm... well I'm sorry to admit this, but I just reinstalled windows (was a real pain in the arse actually, i had to unplug 2 of my three hdd's to get it to install without complaint), and have found everything such a breeze that I've decided to stick with it for now I know that I can go back to linux at any point, since I'm now very experienced with it having used it for a couple of years, and Arch for about 1. I'm just fed up of OS problems inhibiting my work flow.

I will still visit this place from time to time; it will be a pleasant haunt for me to spend time in (reading, not posting) But for now, I bid you all the fondest farewell. Take care guys, keep up the great dev work, keep the forums friendly, and good luck for the future!

Signing off for the final time,

Komodo

benplaut · 2006-07-04 01:03:24

well... have fun.

If you're a *box user, look into bblean. It's fast as sh*t, and has a huge community

mucknert · 2006-07-04 12:57:05

Komodo wrote:

I'm just fed up of OS problems inhibiting my work flow.

And with that you mean gaming? Because that's it how it reads. It's simply a hasty conclusion to rule out every Linux-Distribution because Arch doesn't suit your needs.
Then again, use whatever lets you get your work done. A Computer is a tool and so is an Operating System. Life's too short to fight over them.

user · 2006-07-04 13:25:24

Then you need fedora core 5 or 6.
and afaik, they glibc or gcc/binutils hacker, though it is i386-based(but it was optimzed just like i686 internally), it doesn't matter.

PS: i mind-controlled/fixed archlinux already. ;-)

PPS: when you something stuck in fedora, try http://www.fedoraforum.org/ (to you komodo only)

PPPS: solid distro, weak, want to be protected, women..

Bison · 2006-07-04 13:32:27

Komodo wrote:

Wow, a plethora of choice replies. Thank you
I realised a problem with using ubuntu or debian; they're not i686 optimized. In spite of naysayers' thoughts on this subject, the speed difference between i386/i686 optimization is huge imo. I suppose I could try Yoper, but I recall being unimpressed with it while trying it for a brief stint 2 years ago.
I've taken what you've all said into consideration, and have decided to do the following: I will install XP on a large hdd as suggested by Joe, using it only for gaming, and reinstall Arch on another hard drive, with no repos except current and extra included. I'll then gradually preen stable apps for all my needs, selecting only those that appear completely bug-free. Furthermore, I'll keep from -Syu'ing more than once a month, since as Gullible mentioned, upgrades can (and usually do, at least for me) cause problems.
I appreciate all your kind words and thoughtful suggestions
Have a great day everyone

If you use ubuntu, they offer i686 optimized kernels. That said, it'll still run much slower than arch.

Gullible Jones · 2006-07-04 13:55:57

user wrote:

Then you need fedora core 5 or 6.
and afaik, they glibc or gcc/binutils hacker, though it is i386-based(but it was optimzed just like i686 internally), it doesn't matter.
PS: i mind-controlled/fixed archlinux already. ;-)
PPS: when you something stuck in fedora, try http://www.fedoraforum.org/ (to you komodo only)
PPPS: solid distro, weak, want to be protected, women..

Umm... Ouch... you really, really might want to delete that last line.

user · 2006-07-04 14:03:08

Gullible Jones wrote:

Umm... Ouch... you really, really might want to delete that last line.

No, i want to delete the wink emoticons(nasty!) of mine from quote of you, really.
I hate phpbb emoticons, bring it back to ascii..

PS: i mean this line

PS: i mind-controlled/fixed archlinux already. ;-)

mezoko · 2006-07-04 22:03:36

I'd have to say I have an issue maybe about once or twice every 4 months. Usually when it these big upgrades. Since January I haen't had a problem (haven't used arch last 2 weeks because I'm waiting for new hardware don't have a computer atm, just server). The last problem was abiword and it was crashing do to some buggy code and new gtk2 pkgs. Though when problems do come along, there are fun, well providing I'm not trying to do something very very important because it helps me with my troubleshooting skills and helps me prepare for my dream job (IT Tech (type of thing)). I also seem to learn a thing or two more about my favorite os, linux. Just wait it out. A while ago I was kinda in a delima like you are in now. I was thinking about switching to ubuntu, and I think I even installed it on spare partition. I ended up not switching and a week or two later everything was back to normal. But, as the phrase goes you get what you pay for. We are not paying for arch nor are the devs get paid, unlike other distros were the devs do get some money/profit.

user · 2006-07-04 22:32:02

Why we have to pay? we aren't to be paid to born..

profoX · 2006-07-04 22:34:33

Bison wrote:

Komodo wrote:
Wow, a plethora of choice replies. Thank you
I realised a problem with using ubuntu or debian; they're not i686 optimized. In spite of naysayers' thoughts on this subject, the speed difference between i386/i686 optimization is huge imo. I suppose I could try Yoper, but I recall being unimpressed with it while trying it for a brief stint 2 years ago.
I've taken what you've all said into consideration, and have decided to do the following: I will install XP on a large hdd as suggested by Joe, using it only for gaming, and reinstall Arch on another hard drive, with no repos except current and extra included. I'll then gradually preen stable apps for all my needs, selecting only those that appear completely bug-free. Furthermore, I'll keep from -Syu'ing more than once a month, since as Gullible mentioned, upgrades can (and usually do, at least for me) cause problems.
I appreciate all your kind words and thoughtful suggestions
Have a great day everyone
If you use ubuntu, they offer i686 optimized kernels. That said, it'll still run much slower than arch.

I found this to be untrue!
Unless you can provide some proof? (this goes to you too, Komodo)

I run Ubuntu on another partition on the same pc, and I found it to be reacting and multitasking better. I think this is caused by the kernel, which has many performance patches aimed at desktop usage. It even feels faster than the (better-than-default) beyond kernel (sorry James :oops:). (And yes, the Ubuntu kernel I use there is the i686 optimized one)

The bootspeed is a little bit slower on Ubuntu, but that's not caused by the i686 optimization afaik (it's still pretty fast compared to many other distro's btw)

I don't really think there is that much difference in i368 and i686, maybe a .0001% performance gain?

I am happy with Arch for other reasons than speed. Sure, Arch is fast, but it's not running at lightspeed.

user · 2006-07-04 22:38:35

The speed is eigen-value which is enough to feel each distro own's unique flavor.

PS: Oh i omit the stability(the lazyness)

mezoko · 2006-07-04 23:19:02

user wrote:

Why we have to pay? we aren't to be paid to born..

The point I was trying to get at was that the devs do the best job they can and they are all doing this with there free time, unlike windows, suse(novel), etc...

briancurtin · 2006-07-05 03:53:26

mingfal wrote:

Seriously speaking ,arch is the most stable distrobutions i've ever used.

same for me. ive only used linux as a whole for one year, but Arch definitely beats SuSE 9.3 and 10.0, FC4, and Ubuntu 5.10 as far as stability. everyone has a different machine and different purpose though.

deficite · 2006-07-05 04:50:31

I run Ubuntu on another partition on the same pc, and I found it to be reacting and multitasking better. I think this is caused by the kernel, which has many performance patches aimed at desktop usage. It even feels faster than the (better-than-default) beyond kernel (sorry James Embarassed). (And yes, the Ubuntu kernel I use there is the i686 optimized one)

Ubuntu really did surprise me on how fast it really is. It's pretty impressive. There's some things that Arch has performed better for me though. As well as I have more RAM free with Arch, which helps out with speed issues in some applications.

I don't really think there is that much difference in i368 and i686, maybe a .0001% performance gain?

Yeah, one of the first things I do when I install Ubuntu is get the k7 kernel (assuming I'm on a k7-based machine, of course). I don't really notice much of a speed increase either.

test1000 · 2006-07-05 10:27:07

So make a package for the ubuntu kernel if it's so optimized and put it in AUR . I'd vote it up if it's so good for desktop usage, and one day we'll have it in community. hehe.

user · 2006-07-05 11:02:35

deficite wrote:

Yeah, one of the first things I do when I install Ubuntu is get the k7 kernel (assuming I'm on a k7-based machine, of course). I don't really notice much of a speed increase either.

guess that it is amd64-based distro, not i386-based..
ubuntu has 3 different hardware platforms.

deficite · 2006-07-05 21:25:54

user wrote:

deficite wrote:
Yeah, one of the first things I do when I install Ubuntu is get the k7 kernel (assuming I'm on a k7-based machine, of course). I don't really notice much of a speed increase either.
guess that it is amd64-based distro, not i386-based..
ubuntu has 3 different hardware platforms.

What does that have to do with the fact I got the k7 kernel? Athlon 64 is k8, and there is a seperate isntallation for that. The k7 kernel just has that option in menuconfig that says I'm running a k7. Same thing with the 686 kernel they have. The default is the 386 kernel.

test1000: I think beyond is better, personally

nirvanix · 2006-07-08 14:44:50

You'll be back! ;-)

Seriously, I installed Windows recently on an old hard drive so that I could run my tax software. What a f@#^@^g lousy experience! Every time I think that fiddling with linux is a bad experience, I just have to go and try to get a Windows version installed with all the drivers and patches - 2 days and about 500 "you must restart your system" later, it hobbles to life for an hour before it picks up a virus, spambot, etc.

The thing about Arch is that it is very stable when you take the time initially to set it up properly AND - don't keep upgrading it. Be judicious about what you upgrade. I have friends that I installed Arch for a year ago and they haven't upgraded at all and their machine is still fine. They use open office, skype, and firefox and that's it. They are much happier than with they were with winbloze

KerowynM · 2006-07-10 11:56:21

Hehe, I just re-installed windows (Or rather restored my backup of it) because I wanted to play around with WinRK, and it didn't seem to work for me with wine (I never have gotten wine working well, oh well such is). OMG I'm so glad I banished it from my PC. About a day and a half, just to get things working half-assed again. I could have installed and configured 3 arch systems fully in that time. Whats more, I have to deal with crashes again. Silly MS product. I can't wait till I'm done being nostalgic so I can get back to arch and stability/simplicity.

ihavenoname · 2006-07-19 13:58:17

To be honest, I have found the Fedora base to be very stable. If you want it to be closer to the KISS philosophy you can just do a net install and get only what you want. THe problems that I have had while using Fedora were either my fault (I still have nightmares about installing XGL), or related to one one package (f-spot being the package I have in mind here) Occisonally a program will have a minor quirk, but it is usually not to difficult to work around. Plus they are usually pretty fast at getting bugs fixed (plus they have redhat support, which sometimes includes patches that haven't made it upstream yet. Contrary to what many people think, RPM Dependency hell is now a thing of the past. Yum is very good at handling dependecies. I would venture to say that I perfer yum over apt-get. The output is much cleaner, there are some neat things as well such as the ability to have yum restore your system to a set date ( basically it remebers what packages were installed on what day and can take your computer back to that day by deleting and reinstalling the necessary packages. useful if an update messes your system up.) The main problem I have with yum is that it sometimes takes a while for the metadata to refreash ( I have a slow connection). Also, Fedora is not one of the annoying handholding distros. It provides many (useful?) guis but it doesnt make you use it. (Wow this is long... I was only trying to bring up an often unmetioned distro here) anyways good luck with whatever you do end up doing.

Arch Linux

#26 2006-07-03 16:05:41

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#27 2006-07-03 16:33:55

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#28 2006-07-03 17:20:27

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#29 2006-07-03 17:21:51

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#30 2006-07-03 17:46:09

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#31 2006-07-03 20:44:30

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#32 2006-07-04 01:03:24

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#33 2006-07-04 12:57:05

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#34 2006-07-04 13:25:24

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#35 2006-07-04 13:32:27

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#36 2006-07-04 13:55:57

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#37 2006-07-04 14:03:08

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#38 2006-07-04 22:03:36

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#39 2006-07-04 22:32:02

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#40 2006-07-04 22:34:33

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#41 2006-07-04 22:38:35

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#42 2006-07-04 23:19:02

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#43 2006-07-05 03:53:26

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#44 2006-07-05 04:50:31

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#45 2006-07-05 10:27:07

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#46 2006-07-05 11:02:35

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#47 2006-07-05 21:25:54

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#48 2006-07-08 14:44:50

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#49 2006-07-10 11:56:21

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

#50 2006-07-19 13:58:17

Re: Considering moving back to windoze, or more stable distro

Board footer