Thinking of trying Arch once more...

dunbar · 2007-12-24 21:38:47

I had used ArchLinux quite a few releases ago (0.2-0.5 were the versions I used). Back then, I suffered some losses and had some system issues. I believe I have addressed a few of those issues right now.

Back then, I had dialup; today, I have DSL, but only via a Buffalo Technologies wireless NIC that uses a Broadcom 43XX chip (e.g., I'd use fwcutter to get it running). That might be fairly easy, but I also never had ethernet and past experience has shown me I'm pretty easily lost by all the eth0/ifconfig stuff. So, Arch will hopefully have matured enough that I'm not going to feel as lost as I have felt in the past, because I still am not all that bright when it comes to figuring out how to configure stuff and where to get information.

Back then, I only had internal hard disks; today I have an external USB 2.0 hard disk with 2 partitions to same my data from unintended reformats.

I fear that I will get stranded at the commandline with no X server. Does Arch allow documentation to be installed in the target system, so that I can fix myself back up to having internet access? Yes, provided I take decent notes about my ethernet/wireless NIC.

Also, is an ATI chipset motherboard supported ... well, supported in a way that this simpleton can get it running at full speed, no errors? I had nasty experiences with ATAPI resets on several VIA chipset motherboards, so I fear the ATI chipset might be even more rough around the edge.

I have a Celeron D 3.33 GHz system, 64 bit uniprocessor. I can go with either 32 bit or 64 bit distro, but I think I want Flash for the simple reason that many tutorials are now Flash based. Flash seems to be difficult for Mandriva 64. Is Flash working under Arch 64bit? Or only for 32bit?

I want the stablest distro I can get my hands on. One issue I'm not fond of: when an automatic update kills ethernet, internet or X and also leaves behind no updated documentation that discusses the NEW versions FULL configuration needs. I'm also a man that has a hard time doing a cranial 'diff'. I'd need full documents installed at the same time that any new code arrives.

So, I'm faced with these questions, open for comment:
32 or 64 bit?
Does Arch support the ATI chipsets including the onboard Radeon Xpress 200 graphics?
Stable without rolling updates?
Does Arch offer local docs?
When something gets updated, does Arch also update docs in the same release?

Thanks!

ebirtaid · 2007-12-24 21:57:11

if you are afraid of getting lost at the command line I would suggest not even bothering to try again, you need at least some shell knowledge to get everything up and running; if you are so inclined though you may want to look at the wiki and beginner's guide. if you feel intimidated by what is stated in the beginner's guide, just stick with whatever you have now.

Misfit138 · 2007-12-24 22:18:34

ebirtaid wrote:

if you are afraid of getting lost at the command line I would suggest not even bothering to try again, you need at least some shell knowledge to get everything up and running; if you are so inclined though you may want to look at the wiki and beginner's guide. if you feel intimidated by what is stated in the beginner's guide, just stick with whatever you have now.

Yeah, I suppose I agree to a point.
Dont get me wrong; we'd love to have you, but it just might be the wrong distro for you if you're dead set against getting your hands dirty. Arch is a very 'do-it-yourself' distro by design. That does not mean you must be a genius to use it, but you must be willing to manually configure and maintain everything.

Ramses de Norre · 2007-12-24 22:25:03

dunbar wrote:

I want the stablest distro I can get my hands on. One issue I'm not fond of: when an automatic update kills ethernet, internet or X and also leaves behind no updated documentation that discusses the NEW versions FULL configuration needs. I'm also a man that has a hard time doing a cranial 'diff'. I'd need full documents installed at the same time that any new code arrives.

If that's what you're after, then no, arch is not for you. Arch has very little documentation installed (no info pages and such) because the devs think you can read the docs online. Arch is also a rolling release trying to be as bleeding edge as possible, this is almost equivalent to occasional breakage (although I have very good experience with this, but it does occur).

dunbar · 2007-12-24 22:44:52

ebirtaid wrote:

if you are afraid of getting lost at the command line I would suggest not even bothering to try again, you need at least some shell knowledge to get everything up and running; if you are so inclined though you may want to look at the wiki and beginner's guide. if you feel intimidated by what is stated in the beginner's guide, just stick with whatever you have now.

Well, not really afraid, if I have DOCS that I can read at the commandline. Apparently, then, this is not a good choice.
Thanks!.

thayer · 2007-12-24 23:01:50

man pages are typically the only documentation installed with a package... most docs and info files are stripped before installation. Granted though, if something breaks from a package upgrade, the answer likely won't be in the man or info pages; the answer will likely be online, either at the software's homepage or at the Arch Linux website itself.

iphitus · 2007-12-25 00:26:25

Aside from man pages for some things, most of the documentation is contained on the wiki.

Phrodo_00 · 2007-12-25 00:44:22

man, I don't think arch is for you, you basically described debian in your post, so I think you'd be happier in a distro like it (ubuntu might make you happy as well)

dunbar · 2007-12-25 02:28:09

Thanks... does wiki work at a commandline?

dante4d · 2007-12-25 02:40:29

I think you are at point where you have to decide if you want to be mere "user" or something more. If you don't want to get hands dirty, you will probably suffer with arch . You have to get familiar with all basic linux functionality.

dunbar wrote:

I fear that I will get stranded at the commandline with no X server. Does Arch allow documentation to be installed in the target system, so that I can fix myself back up to having internet access? Yes, provided I take decent notes about my ethernet/wireless NIC.

If you can boot to console and get internet connection working, you can use text web browser (links) and read wikis. Or print them beforehand. It's not that much work to get X and firefox running (with google ).

dunbar · 2007-12-25 03:59:30

dante4d wrote:

I think you are at point where you have to decide if you want to be mere "user" or something more. If you don't want to get hands dirty, you will probably suffer with arch . You have to get familiar with all basic linux functionality.

My issues of being unable to administer a system have been caused by the LACK of accurate and thorough documentation on the target system. I'd search the man pages and find nothing or I'd read a document anywhere only to find it is not for the current version I'm using, or similar relevancy issues. Reading the wrong document should not be counted as 'having an answer'.

If you can boot to console and get internet connection working, you can use text web browser (links) and read wikis. Or print them beforehand. It's not that much work to get X and firefox running (with google ).

That is a mighty big if, dante4d. I can take notes about using the version(s) of binaries that I use; problems arise when large changes take place after an 'update' and then the wiki on the internet is not available (and even if it was available, experience tells me that web instructions such as wiki get updated months after the binary gets updated). While I'm not asking for a perfect world, I'm thinking that local documentation was the original intention of the man pages AND the info system; I feel that wiki is not the optimal choice if it is online only. The older ideas would work for me, if coders would only take the time to wait for documentation before they release newer, revamped binaries.

Google
Google contains millions of 'answers', the user has to determine which is the correct answer - Google is not asking for your kernel version, distro name, release date, etc. The biggest problem with Google is I can still find, at the top of search results, web documents discussing instructions that were only current at kernel 2.2.x. I tried Google many times, my system got botched many times. Google cannot be considered an effective answer: obfuscation.

Your names are all new to me; the arguments for and against internet documentation remain the same and remain tenuous. I know some folks can get by with it; but I want a dependable distro that does not fry itself with each update. I have Mandriva 64 for that!

Thanks again, folks; Arch is still not going to be installed.

KimTjik · 2007-12-25 10:32:27

dunbar wrote:

I can take notes about using the version(s) of binaries that I use; problems arise when large changes take place after an 'update' and then the wiki on the internet is not available (and even if it was available, experience tells me that web instructions such as wiki get updated months after the binary gets updated). While I'm not asking for a perfect world... The older ideas would work for me, if coders would only take the time to wait for documentation before they release newer, revamped binaries...
... the arguments for and against internet documentation remain the same and remain tenuous. I know some folks can get by with it; but I want a dependable distro that does not fry itself with each update. I have Mandriva 64 for that!
Thanks again, folks; Arch is still not going to be installed.

I think you forget the reality of having x-thousands of users running x-distro on x-thousands of hard-ware combinations, plus x-thousands of software combinations. If coders should wait for every possible unknown scenario - even if 95 % of the user base would run the test repositories there would still be 5 % left for possible breakdowns - you would never ever see any development and new releases.

You also have to accept and appreciate the diversity of Linux: folks here pointed out Arch features, not flaws, that don't fit your criteria. The rolling release feature is appreciated by many, and it has pros and cons, all depending on what kind of user you are. Hence it's just as nonconstructive to tell Rothko to paint like Picasso, as telling distro X to be like distro Y. If you appreciate Mandriva 64, do that without accusing another distro with biased exaggerations.

Last: Arch isn't a cooperation, it's based on individual visions, you didn't pay for it, you got it for free.

Aaron · 2007-12-25 17:02:41

The only real problem I think you'll run into, is simply forgetting simple things, such as a line in rc.conf or to install a specific package.

Arch is not a hard distro to install by any means, provided you have the documentation. Either print it out, or bring it up on another computer. (I borrow a laptop so I can have the install guide right there with me)

Last edited by Aaron (2007-12-25 17:04:12)

dante4d · 2007-12-25 17:57:51

dunbar wrote:

dante4d wrote:
I think you are at point where you have to decide if you want to be mere "user" or something more. If you don't want to get hands dirty, you will probably suffer with arch . You have to get familiar with all basic linux functionality.
My issues of being unable to administer a system have been caused by the LACK of accurate and thorough documentation on the target system. I'd search the man pages and find nothing or I'd read a document anywhere only to find it is not for the current version I'm using, or similar relevancy issues. Reading the wrong document should not be counted as 'having an answer'.

What's the exact problem here? Administration is very broad term. You don't have documentation while installing, right. But that's how it's meant to be. It forces you to know what you're doing.

Google
Google contains millions of 'answers', the user has to determine which is the correct answer - Google is not asking for your kernel version, distro name, release date, etc. The biggest problem with Google is I can still find, at the top of search results, web documents discussing instructions that were only current at kernel 2.2.x. I tried Google many times, my system got botched many times. Google cannot be considered an effective answer: obfuscation.

Well, if you can't google what you need. What else? Google pretty much sees everything out there. So if there's any docs, you can google them. What about 'arch once more site:bbs.archlinux.org' . I mean you just need to formulate your search precisely. Include your problem, kernel version, whatever and google will find most realiable pages. Don't expect to find answers with one google search though.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-12-24 21:38:47

Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#2 2007-12-24 21:57:11

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#3 2007-12-24 22:18:34

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#4 2007-12-24 22:25:03

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#5 2007-12-24 22:44:52

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#6 2007-12-24 23:01:50

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#7 2007-12-25 00:26:25

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#8 2007-12-25 00:44:22

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#9 2007-12-25 02:28:09

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#10 2007-12-25 02:40:29

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#11 2007-12-25 03:59:30

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#12 2007-12-25 10:32:27

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#13 2007-12-25 17:02:41

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

#14 2007-12-25 17:57:51

Re: Thinking of trying Arch once more...

Board footer