What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

alphahsk · 2007-01-22 20:22:57

I am a recent Windows to Linux convert. I have a new pretty up to date laptop (Dell Inspiron 9400 - Intel dual core) courtesy of my company and one of my colleagues convinced me to dual boot XP with Ubuntu. Needless to say I haven't used Windows in months. I love the simplicity and clever way the Linux system works, I like using Vim to tweek the system text files (I use GVim at work for text editing anyway) and things just works even with an uptime of weeks at a time.

Then I hear of a distribution that is optimized for new comps and I wonder if its worth the bother of reinstalling. If anyone has some experience with going from Ubuntu to Arch, some thoughts and comments on the following questions are appreciated.

1. How complicated is the installation process compared to Ubuntu?

2. Is gnome any different on Arch that it is on Ubuntu?

3. Is the 20 sec complete boot time just a myth? My ubuntu edgy eft does the complete boot in 45 sec (which I though was pretty fast compared to XP)

4. What is the biggest advantage/disadvantage of Arch over Ubuntu (or other distributions you have tried)?

Cheers - hsk

McQueen · 2007-01-22 20:52:04

Arch Compared To Other Distros

arooaroo · 2007-01-22 21:06:40

A few things spring to mind:

1. pacman package management is very simple and streamlined. Yeah, apt is fine too, but pacman is even easier.

2. Arch is pretty vanilla. It's easy to build the system YOU want. E.g., you can make Arch look and behave like Ubuntu, but you can't easily make Ubuntu look/behave like Arch.

3. Fast.

4. Learn more about Linux, but not necessary too much. For example, I'm a pretty lazy. I like to use, and not so much with the tinkering. Despite its reputation, Arch hasn't FORCED me to get to dirty in the depths of Linux system configuration.

5. Jacman - I would say that, wouldn't I?!

6. arooaroo - I would say that, wouldn't I?! Actually, the forums are pretty darn fine, you'll learn to love everyone.

That's it for now. The wiki is certainly handy. Check out the Arch Linux reviews for more info (loads are linked to on the AL front-page.)

hugin · 2007-01-22 21:09:04

I'll try to answer your questions as completely as I can, (i've made this switch back and forth a couple of times)

· I don't really feel qualified to answer this, as the installs seemed relatively the same to me, even though I know not everyone will have the same experience to that. The Arch installation, almost holds your hand through it. But it's not as simple as keep clicking continue until you are through it. But after old school Gentoo installs, everything less is a cake walk.

· Gnome on Arch (if using the gnome and gnome-extras groups) are relatively the same. The theme is different, and you have to take some care to configure stuff you prob "took for granted" with Ubuntu; like the auto mounting defaults. Arch can do it all, you just have to learn how to configure it that way.

· My laptop boots into KDE (auto log in) in about 30 seconds or so... I think, never timed it.

· the biggest advantage I found over Ubuntu with Arch is makepkg/PKGBUILDS. I mostly run default configs for built applications, but there are a few apps I needed to have special options for. PKGBUILDS made this easy for me (I had written my first one in about an hour). I still don't know how to get dpkg to do it right. As a second Advantage, I find that the learning curve in Arch is there. It forces you to learn how to configure certain packages that it is to your advantage to learn how to configure. (sshd is just one good example). The other one is the lack of -dev packages. if I have libmtp installed, not only can I use packages built for it, but I can build packages that use it, if you can use it, you can code it. It's nice.

Also do refer to McQueen's link.

lumiwa · 2007-01-23 19:29:24

There are no answer on your question. I am Linux user all the time (I never used Windows) and the last year I am an Arch user. You need to try a distro and than decide if is for you or not. I am a KDE user and there are no difference between distros which I had. What I like it is a <b>pacman</b> which is really the best.

Dusty · 2007-01-23 20:55:26

From your attitude, I think you'd enjoy using Arch more than you enjoy using Ubuntu. One distro isn't better than another, they just differ, and its our job to pick the one that suits us. lumiwa is most correct though, give it a shot and see what you think.

Dusty

Misfit138 · 2007-01-23 21:11:41

I am no Linux expert by any means. On the contrary, I am very new to it, though I have tried it on and off for a couple of years.
One thing about Arch is that you basically "build" it from base packages into whatever you like. KDE, Gnome, xfce, FLuxbox, or just command line without X.
I have tried Ubuntu a few times and always came away from it frustrated, because I found it hard to customize.
I look at it like this:
Ubuntu is cake to install and use, but hard to Customize. (But if you don't want to customize much, this is a non-issue I suppose)

Arch is hard to install (at first) but teaches you a lot along the way and you invariably learn exactly what is happening with your system. You also end up with exactly what you chose to build, which is gratifying IMO.
Arch boots up in <20 seconds on my machine, which is FAST for Linux. Once inside, it is the fastest distro I have ever tried, and I have tried 25 or more, including Gentoo, which many tout as the fastest.

manmower · 2007-01-23 21:35:53

1. The first time might be a little hairy depending on your specific setup, but after doing it once you will see it really is quite simple, albeit a different kind of simple than Ubuntu (hope that makes some sense).

2. Gnome's Gnome. Probably some of the bloat that is standard in Ubuntu will have to be installed separately in Arch (I consider that a big plus), but like I said, Gnome's Gnome, you'll feel at home.

3. 20 sec is very realistic. I've never timed it but my not-so-bleeding-edge pentium 4 gets somewhere around 20 secs I think. That's from power on to the shell login though (I don't use a graphical login manager). Either way not only in boot but in most other aspects Ubuntu will feel like a snail after you've tried Arch.

4. Arch is very up to date compared to Ubuntu which updates little between releases. Arch is one of the few distributions to use a rolling release system, which beats reinstalling or trying the ever so tricky dist-upgrade when a new release comes out. Why not more distributions use this system I don't know. Arch is designed to let you decide on how you build your system pretty much from the ground up. Packages are considerably more vanilla than Ubuntu which seems to put it's own touch/branding on everything.

The repos are comparatively smaller in Arch (although I find them very complete) but building packages yourself is also a lot easier than in Ubuntu/Debian, and the AUR makes it a trivial affair if there is a PKGBUILD available. The same goes for the community: it is definitely smaller but on average also more knowledgeable IMHO.

Basically my personal feeling is: Ubuntu tries to be smart, while Arch does exactly what you tell it to, nothing less, but also nothing more. I prefer putting a little more work into getting everything setup as I like rather than having to uninstall a bunch of stuff I'll never need anyway, only to have it reinstalled with the next upgrade. Ubuntu just got in my way after a (very short) while and I moved to Arch. I can definitely see how someone would prefer the Ubuntu way though, it's just not for me.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-01-22 20:22:57

What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

#2 2007-01-22 20:52:04

Re: What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

#3 2007-01-22 21:06:40

Re: What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

#4 2007-01-22 21:09:04

Re: What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

#5 2007-01-23 19:29:24

Re: What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

#6 2007-01-23 20:55:26

Re: What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

#7 2007-01-23 21:11:41

Re: What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

#8 2007-01-23 21:35:53

Re: What can I suspect from a transition to Arch

Board footer