Arch Linux

energiya

Member

Registered: 2007-03-03

Posts: 29

Arch?!

First, hi all you arch people!
I'm just downloading the beta2 iso and I have some questions before installing:

1) Arch doesn't have a release cycle, so installing a beta version is ok ?

2) Would I have the option to install KDE, Gnome or XFCE at install/after ? What is the default (if any) ?

3) I've been working with FreeBSD (a long time ago), RPM based, Debian basen, Slackware based distros. Arch is more similar to ... ?

4) This is the most important, because I really don't have time to waist. I'm currently using Zenwalk and loving it. Will Arch be faster? Zenwalk is flying both with xfce and kde (less, but still speedy) on my AthlonXP 1700+ with 384MB RAM, and it fully boots (GDM autologin) in about 35 seconds. Will Arch compete?

5) Are there any stability problems? I'm used to slackwares stability...

Thanks in advance !

Last edited by energiya (2007-03-03 21:46:14)

lucke

Member

From: Poland

Registered: 2004-11-30

Posts: 4,018

Re: Arch?!

1) Downloading beta iso is okay, even preferable.

2) You get a bare system after install, installing xorg and any DE/WM of choice is up to you. There is no default DE/WM.

3) Coming from FreeBSD/Slackware, you'll feel at home. It's like a mix of good features from both :-) Browse through that (wiki is generally a great source of information).

4) Generally people coming from other distros often marvel at how their system flies. Boot is also one of the quickest in the Linux world.

5) It is stable. Sometimes minor hiccups occur when updating, but you can't expect anything else from a bleeding-edge distro.

Last edited by lucke (2007-03-03 22:07:12)

fk

Member

From: Germany

Registered: 2006-04-29

Posts: 524

Re: Arch?!

First, hi all you arch people!
I'm just downloading the beta2 iso and I have some questions before installing:

1) Arch doesn't have a release cycle, so installing a beta version is ok ?

2) Would I have the option to install KDE, Gnome or XFCE at install/after ? What is the default (if any) ?

3) I've been working with FreeBSD (a long time ago), RPM based, Debian basen, Slackware based distros. Arch is more similar to ... ?

4) This is the most important, because I really don't have time to waist. I'm currently using Zenwalk and loving it. Will Arch be faster? Zenwalk is flying both with xfce and kde (less, but still speedy) on my AthlonXP 1700+ with 384MB RAM, and it fully boots (GDM autologin) in about 35 seconds. Will Arch compete?

5) Are there any stability problems? I'm used to slackwares stability...

Thanks in advance !

HI

1) The "beta" status is only for the install medium, not for arch

2) yes you have, there is no default, after install you can install KDE/GNOME/whatever via pacman

3) I think slackware and gentoo, slackware as KISS and gentoo as the rolling release system

4) Arch is optimized for i686 or x64 cpu's, and yes I think Arch is the fastest Distro I have ever seen, and it starts very fast (Unix like boot scripts similar to slackware)

5) no

---

Have you tried to turn it off and on again?

ndlarsen

Member

From: Denmark

Registered: 2005-11-02

Posts: 157

Re: Arch?!

First, hi all you arch people!
I'm just downloading the beta2 iso and I have some questions before installing:

1) Arch doesn't have a release cycle, so installing a beta version is ok ?

You won't be installing a beta, you'll be using a beta of the installer to install a close-to-current version of arch.

2) Would I have the option to install KDE, Gnome or XFCE at install/after ? What is the default (if any) ?

I'd recomend installing the base system first. When the base system is installed and configured you can install whatever your heart desire.

3) I've been working with FreeBSD (a long time ago), RPM based, Debian basen, Slackware based distros. Arch is more similar to ... ?

Of the distros I've tried, arch reminds me most of Slackware, this is entirely subjective, however. Arch is using Slackware/BSD style init scripts and as for the simplicity and KISS philosophy I'd say it's closer to Slackware than anything else.

4) This is the most important, because I really don't have time to waist. I'm currently using Zenwalk and loving it. Will Arch be faster? Zenwalk is flying both with xfce and kde (less, but still speedy) on my AthlonXP 1700+ with 384MB RAM, and it fully boots (GDM autologin) in about 35 seconds. Will Arch compete?

I find this a little hard to answer as it has been quite some time since I tried out Zenwalk. However, I'm running Arch on my secondary box too, a AMD XP 1800+ with 512 MB RAM, it definitely beats Slackware's boot times on the same box by far.

5) Are there any stability problems? I'm used to slackwares stability...

As the execellent devs on Arch releases new packages fairly quickly, a bug from time to time slips through that haven't been weeded out during the testing phase. IMO, this a rare situation which is usually dealt with swiftly and personally I haven't noticed any stability issues neither worth mentioning nor hard to fix.

Enjoy

Last edited by ndlarsen (2007-03-03 22:20:50)

---

I made it long
as I lacked the time to make it short...

energiya

Member

Registered: 2007-03-03

Posts: 29

Re: Arch?!

Thanks a lot for the quick answers!
1) Understood. Something like Gentoo
2) I'll be installing both KDE and XFCE. If they were on the CD it would be great, if not, I'll loose a lot of time downloading (at 20-40k/s will take some serious time).
3) Being similar to Slackware is perfect. This is the distribution I enjoy most.
4) Remains to be seen
5) I really hate stability issues. Anyway, apart from the first system-update, I will probably make no other (if all works fine). I can live with "older" applications.

Thanks again for your posts! A nice first contact with the Arch community !

Last edited by energiya (2007-03-03 22:53:41)

dolby

Member

From: 1992

Registered: 2006-08-08

Posts: 1,581

Re: Arch?!

seems like u should RTFM before installing. it will help all of us & moreover since u aint got much time to waste, yourself

Last edited by dolby (2007-03-03 23:37:08)

---

There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

energiya

Member

Registered: 2007-03-03

Posts: 29

Re: Arch?!

Read it (Mainly the installation part). Thanks anyway. I'll install in a few days (when I have some free time) and post here my first opinion.

pelle.k

Member

From: Åre, Sweden (EU)

Registered: 2006-04-30

Posts: 667

Re: Arch?!

This is also a good resource. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide

---

"Your beliefs can be like fences that surround you.
You must first see them or you will not even realize that you are not free, simply because you will not see beyond the fences.
They will represent the boundaries of your experience."
SETH / Jane Roberts

Snarkout

Member

Registered: 2005-11-13

Posts: 542

Re: Arch?!

I'd consider Arch similar to slackware -current as far as stability goes.  For the most part things just work, and work very well, but there are occasional issues.  Sometimes these are very minor, and sometimes these are box-breakers if you don't keep yourself in the loop.  The forums and the front page news blurb are a good place to keep yourself updated on upcoming events.  Also, always, always read the output of pacman - 99% of the time (if not more) if a system breaking update is known about, you'll get the dirt there.  Generally it's in the form of "The new kernel requires you to modify your grub config with the following changes."  So far I've never experienced any breakage in Arch that I couldn't recover from.

As far as speed goes, I guess it depends on what you're running.  In my recent experience, zenwalk is very quick so I'd imagine it's more or less a wash.

---

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
-Albert Einstein