Review: Arch: Pros Only, But Not Bad

schivmeister · 2008-01-28 20:12:43

cut the reviewers some slack will ye

i mean cut the reviewers some arch..?

Last edited by schivmeister (2008-01-28 20:13:14)

Basn · 2008-01-29 08:20:27

rson451 wrote:

arch is the distro-hopper-stopper.

Yup, ive tryed some distros since i came to arch but i dont feel home without pacman and the good things about arch.
The review was ok i guess but i dont like how he says it isnt easy, if you just read the install and read trough the configs its a piece of cake imo.
First time i installed arch i didnt like the switches of pacman but now i dont mind, its just getting to know them.

raul_nds · 2008-01-30 06:04:55

Packaging: 3.5/5- Good package manager, but no GUI.

blasphemy

[raul@horus ~]$ yaourt -Ss gtkpacman
aur/gtkpacman 2.2-1 [installed]
    GTK package manager for archlinux based on pacman
aur/gtkpacman-svn 110-1
    GTK package manager for archlinux based on pacman (svn version)
[raul@horus ~]$ yaourt -Ss jacman
community/jacman 0.4-2
    Java-based GUI front-end for pacman
[raul@horus ~]$ yaourt -Ss yapg
aur/yapg 0.1beta1-2
    Yet Another Pacman GUI

at least no official gui....

japetto · 2008-02-09 01:35:30

It's a review on a blog site. Take that for what it's worth, IMO.

Zer0 · 2008-02-09 17:00:14

rson451 wrote:

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

zOMG, I love it! I might change it a bit though.. The Distro Hopper - Show Stopper.

B-Con · 2008-02-09 19:04:52

Distro Review wrote:

Artwork: 1/2.5- Nothing special.

I'm always befuddled why reviewers ever bother reviewing the "art" or the "looks" of a distro, not just for Arch but for any distro. What on earth does the "art" matter"? Have these people not figured out how to change their desktop backgrounds? Are they unaware of the theme color changers available in Gnome, KDE, etc? NO distro has special artwork. You can make *any* distro look however you want it if you just use the built-in tools to change how it looks, the same tools available in ANY distro. These settings are a part of the WM/DE, not the actual distro.

I find this aspect of the review particularly amusing because Arch doesn't even come with a WM. He's rating the WM's in the repositories and criticizing them for having "bland" default wallpaper. Since when did one review an operating system based on it's wallpaper?

Last edited by B-Con (2008-02-09 19:05:59)

bgc1954 · 2008-02-09 20:25:07

Hi all! I must say that I agree with everyone that gets tired of reinstalling new versions of the so-called popular distros. I like to play around with lots of distros and break them just for the fun of it--sick, I know. The biggest pain is all the cd's I end up with for all the new versions. Have you ever tried upgrading Fedora with yum. It's enough to make you pull your hair out--if I had any. I currently have Ubuntu Hardy, Fedora 8, Debian Etch, Mepis 7, Suse 11, Sidux, Mandriva 2008.1, PCLinux 2007, Dreamlinux 2.2, with a small partition for Winblows XP, and my main distro for every-day use is Arch 64 bit. Like I said, try to upgrade Fedora with yum or even Ubuntu with apt-get sometimes is a royal pain. Arch Linux is a simple pacman -Syu. The reviewer is definitely leaning toward the so-called newbie-friendly distros.
I've also tried lots of distros on my old t21 ibm laptop but I keep coming back to Arch as there's always something I can't quite seem to get working right with the other so-called popular distibutions. Arch works great for me on both 32 and 64 bit machines.
Also the reviewer, who seems to like eye-candy, obviously hasn't tried getting compiz to work with some of the so-called newbie friendly distros on an nvidia video card. With Arch it just worked for me. Sure you might have to read some wikis or forum postings but isn't that what life is all about--LEARNING.

SiC · 2008-02-18 07:21:55

Gotta say i agree with the consensus here, Arch is a great distribution provided you look at it with the aims it has. For a long time I used an LFS based system when running GNU/Linux as I really hate the bloat that most distributions have, I hate unnecessary packages being installed, and I hate the way that most distributions are still oriented towards the x86-386 architecture.

Arch allows me to have exactly what I want, simple administration, fast base system, awesome package management. Lets face it without any form of package management your installation will quickly descend into anarchy. Pacman is by far the best package management system I have used to date.

I can't see me using any other distribution at all, the way I have this setup is perfect.

The reviewer should seriously consider relooking at his comments, so what if the artwork is bland, well frankly I don't use the default artwork on any system I use, I always install my own wallpapers anyway. And seeing as I use fluxbox I don't have a need for all the finicky icon packages etc that get installed either.

Ah well, those of us who use this distribution should thank ourselves that reviewers give arch such marks as it will discourage those people who want everything to work out of the box and when it doesn't post stupid questions on forums without looking first to see if there are answers there already.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-01-28 20:12:43

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

#27 2008-01-29 08:20:27

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

#28 2008-01-30 06:04:55

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

#29 2008-02-09 01:35:30

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

#30 2008-02-09 17:00:14

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

#31 2008-02-09 19:04:52

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

#32 2008-02-09 20:25:07

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

#33 2008-02-18 07:21:55

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

Board footer