Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

xabbott · 2008-01-26 16:30:13

Saw this on Tux Machines. A very simple review.
distrogue.blogspot: Arch Linux is one of the few distributions to be optimized for an i686 processor- in other words, it's really fast without having to compile anything. It uses a custom package manager called Pacman.

Overall: 3.2/5- A solid distribution, but not recommended for newbies.

xaw · 2008-01-26 16:39:04

Personally, I disagree with the rating given by the author (for obvious reasons) but let me give one big kudos to the arch team: you guys do an awesome job here, keep it up! :-)

Cheers.

torkjel · 2008-01-26 17:17:39

-Hardware support is minimal

Hu? How is the hardware support in arch any different from any other distro?

Anyway, I think distro reviews are pretty boring and pointless. Especially those where it is obvious the reviewer hasn't used the distro for more than half a day (and most of that time was probably spent installing it...).

Here is my review of arch:
It's Linux, with a great package manager. 10/10

tlaloc · 2008-01-26 17:20:05

Fine review, more-or-less my saying: Good distro, not newbie-friendly (unless you would like to probe cool water). But hey - I have even encountered a German magazine recently which called Suse "hard to configure" and "not newbie-friendly". I still don't know what you can get wrong when installing Suse. But then, this is just my point of view.

peets · 2008-01-26 17:36:35

torkjel wrote:

Here is my review of arch:
It's Linux, with a great package manager. 10/10

Yes. That's how I see arch. It's linux. It's completely transparent; it just lets things work. And pacman is excellent.

dolby · 2008-01-26 17:37:36

The Cons are just for laughs , pointing out once more that you cant judge anything on such a short while.
I bet someone who has used Arch for more than a week could come up with more serious ones

cactus · 2008-01-26 18:16:14

haha!
he said "pacmanual". awesome!

His review seemed fine to me. Definitely from the viewpoint of a "regular user" as apposed to an "advanced user". It is best to keep in mind the "voice" of the author, especially in reviews. This review seemed geared towards average or newer linux users, to which it would be well served.

McQueen · 2008-01-26 18:19:59

dolby wrote:

I bet someone who has used Arch for more than a week could come up with more serious ones

Yeah...the review was a passing glance. I have to say that when I first installed Arch my impression was much the same as the reviewer. It did seem much harder to install than what I expected and without GUI's it forced me to read and learn the guts of the system which was frustrating at the time since I just wanted to get it up and running. However, I did come to appreciate the simplicity of the design and banked a lot of knowledge that I can use on any Linux distribution. Arch is not meant for a short test drive.

quad3d@work · 2008-01-26 18:34:50

Arch is really not that complicated to install, you yourself said it took 10 minuted from boot to boot. And the hardware support is minimal comment is just laughable. You fail.

^^^ LOL ^^^

jdhore · 2008-01-26 18:39:38

I'd prolly give Arch a 4.5/5 or a 9.5/10...It's excellent, it works very well and the package manager is awesome, but it's not for the "Ubuntu User" and there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora.

dolby · 2008-01-26 19:08:00

jdhore wrote:

and there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora.

that is the lamest excuse ever imo, and i am not aiming back at you who wrote it in this thread.
creating a package for debian or fedora is rocket science. creating a package for Arch is much easier. if people feel Arch is missing important packages they should try building them, even with the help of people in mailing lists and forums, and upload em to AUR and make them available for all

Last edited by dolby (2008-01-26 19:08:23)

jdhore · 2008-01-26 19:28:34

dolby wrote:

jdhore wrote:
and there aren't nearly as many packages in the repos/AUR as Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora.
that is the lamest excuse ever imo, and i am not aiming back at you who wrote it in this thread.
creating a package for debian or fedora is rocket science. creating a package for Arch is much easier. if people feel Arch is missing important packages they should try building them, even with the help of people in mailing lists and forums, and upload em to AUR and make them available for all

I completely agree (though i'm having some problems uploading to the AUR, but i'll post about that in another thread). It's easy to make deb packages that "work" but not ones that have any dependencies or any complicated scripts or anything. Making a PKGBUILD and running makepkg is the easiest thing ever. I think the problem more is that basically, no one wants to have to compile something that's missing from the repos/AUR...Which is probably why Gentoo is as un-popular as it is. Personally, I know there aren't as many packages as there are in other distros, but it doesn't bother me since almost every package that i can get in Ubuntu, i can get in Arch.

skottish · 2008-01-26 19:52:20

Review Dork wrote:

Pacman has an annoying number of options...

The was the funniest thing I've heard all day!

Last edited by skottish (2008-01-26 19:52:48)

fflarex · 2008-01-26 21:42:29

I think it was a pretty bad review. It seemed to me like he was trying to review Arch using the same criteria as he would if he were reviewing other distros, without taking into account the different goals that Arch is built on. He acknowledged that Arch was only for "pros," but continued to review it as if it were not. Arch may only be suitable for competent linux users, but as far as similar distros go, Arch still greatly simplifies most administration tasks. I really don't understand how he only gave a 3.5/5 for package management, citing "too many options" and a lack of a GUI. Last I checked, a GUI was not an integral part of package management, but is handled by separate programs (and isn't there a packagekit backend being developed by someone around here?).

Off topic, but I also just have to say that xabbott: you have the coolest avatar ever!

Last edited by fflarex (2008-01-26 21:52:35)

jdhore · 2008-01-26 22:15:00

fflarex wrote:

I think it was a pretty bad review. It seemed to me like he was trying to review Arch using the same criteria as he would if he were reviewing other distros, without taking into account the different goals that Arch is built on. He acknowledged that Arch was only for "pros," but continued to review it as if it were not. Arch may only be suitable for competent linux users, but as far as similar distros go, Arch still greatly simplifies most administration tasks. I really don't understand how he only gave a 3.5/5 for package management, citing "too many options" and a lack of a GUI. Last I checked, a GUI was not an integral part of package management, but is handled by separate programs (and isn't there a packagekit backend being developed by someone around here?).
Off topic, but I also just have to say that xabbott: you have the coolest avatar ever!

Yea, he reviewed it as a Ubuntu user would review it, not reviewing it compared to EVERY distro or reviewing it on it's own merit. For example:

Slackware = MUCH harder to install, but he didn't mention that
Gentoo = Source-based distro...He said it's harder to install, but i always found it just as easy, perhaps easier if you don't count the time you wait around for it to compile

Misfit138 · 2008-01-27 03:20:27

jdhore wrote:

Slackware = MUCH harder to install, but he didn't mention that
Gentoo = Source-based distro...He said it's harder to install, but i always found it just as easy, perhaps easier if you don't count the time you wait around for it to compile

I find Slackware a cake-walk to install. You pop in a DVD and you get a completely usable system with KDE to boot into.
It's using Slackware that is time-consuming and more involved, not installing it.
Installing Arch is perfect: rather than tearing things apart and rebuilding a system the way it should be, you start from a minimal base and build up.
And no wasted hours upon hours of compiling.

Last edited by Misfit138 (2008-01-27 03:22:11)

Zer0 · 2008-01-27 16:11:49

Review Dork wrote:

Pacman has an annoying number of options...

Haha, as compaired to what? apt-get has more command switches by far!

PJ · 2008-01-27 16:25:50

Zer0 wrote:

Review Dork wrote:
Pacman has an annoying number of options...
Haha, as compaired to what? apt-get has more command switches by far!

As compaired to Synaptic...

schivmeister · 2008-01-27 18:22:48

one word: abs-get

Last edited by schivmeister (2008-01-27 18:23:59)

zodmaner · 2008-01-28 00:54:34

This review just confirmed that you should trust most reviews on the internet with a grain of salt.

It's sad too see that the author, while he's right on some of the points he made, completely off the mark on others (pacman is complicated? Come on! Did this guy ever use apt-get?).

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-01-28 00:54:48)

patroclo7 · 2008-01-28 09:33:31

There is nothing worst than people running 250 distros each year and writing longish reviews to decide which distro is most newbie-friendly. Newbies are not people who install an OS in an afternoon and then change, and are often willing to learn and configure bit by bit.

Arch is not the distro for distro-hoppers and reviewers.

jdhore · 2008-01-28 09:42:02

patroclo7 wrote:

There is nothing worst than people running 250 distros each year and writing longish reviews to decide which distro is most newbie-friendly. Newbies are not people who install an OS in an afternoon and then change, and are often willing to learn and configure bit by bit.
Arch is not the distro for distro-hoppers and reviewers.

Well...I think that last sentence brings up a very important point...If Arch is not for Distro-hoppers, Reviewers, or barely-handling-Ubuntu-level noobs, who is it really for?

I'm not asking this because i'm being an asshat or putting Arch in the gutter...but...really...Who is it for?

patroclo7 · 2008-01-28 09:58:34

For people who have a bit of time and attitude to learn and who want to have an highly configurable, uptodate, stable system.
Newbies are included: what I meant to say is that distro-hoppers and newbies are two completely distinct categories, and that alas it seems that most reviewers are distro-hoppers who pretend to guess how a newbie would behave.

torkjel · 2008-01-28 10:36:35

patroclo7 wrote:

Arch is not the distro for distro-hoppers and reviewers.

Agree completely! In fact, arch took away all my reasons for distro hopping. Firstly, you don't have to reinstall the darn thing every 6 months. It wouldn't surprise me if very distro loses a few users every time they release a new major version, because it is equally easy/difficult to upgrade to the latest versjon as it is to install a completely different distro.

Second reason is of course that arch is infinitely configurable and transparent. I never need to go to another distro to get what I want.

So who is arch suited for? I'd say people who are interested in having a system that works the way they want it to work. People that are sick and tired of distro-specific peculiarities and bugs. People that wan't Linux, not RedHat/SuSe/Ubuntu/whatever. People who have the patience to fix things when they break, intead of fleeing to the next great thing.

rson451 · 2008-01-28 13:59:23

it's been said before, i'll just repeat it. arch is the distro-hopper-stopper. worked for me

Arch Linux

#1 2008-01-26 16:30:13

Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#2 2008-01-26 16:39:04

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#3 2008-01-26 17:17:39

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#4 2008-01-26 17:20:05

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#5 2008-01-26 17:36:35

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#6 2008-01-26 17:37:36

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#7 2008-01-26 18:16:14

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#8 2008-01-26 18:19:59

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#9 2008-01-26 18:34:50

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#10 2008-01-26 18:39:38

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#11 2008-01-26 19:08:00

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#12 2008-01-26 19:28:34

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#13 2008-01-26 19:52:20

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#14 2008-01-26 21:42:29

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#15 2008-01-26 22:15:00

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#16 2008-01-27 03:20:27

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#17 2008-01-27 16:11:49

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#18 2008-01-27 16:25:50

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#19 2008-01-27 18:22:48

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#20 2008-01-28 00:54:34

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#21 2008-01-28 09:33:31

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#22 2008-01-28 09:42:02

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#23 2008-01-28 09:58:34

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#24 2008-01-28 10:36:35

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

#25 2008-01-28 13:59:23

Re: Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

Board footer