Why should I switch to Arch?

ftornell · 2008-08-18 07:05:05

Hi,
Have been ogle Arch Linux now for a while but never tried it so now I'm downloading the iso to give it a try.

Currently using Ubuntu/Linux Mint and openSuse at my laptops at home.

Since Arch seems faster than any of these distributions mentioned above I'll have to try it on the oldest of the Laptops IBM T40 1.2 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM. It should do right?

Noticed the Wiki and will browse it later on but Arch comes with no GUI right? Hard to get xorg/gnome to work?

Any support for wireless cards like those in IBM T40/T61p?

mentallaxative · 2008-08-18 07:40:11

Your laptop is quite adequate for running Arch. You can try to find out the exact card you have by googling your laptop specs, or looking on the laptops section of the wiki.

Good luck with your installation.

pauldonnelly · 2008-08-18 07:43:00

ftornell wrote:

Since Arch seems faster than any of these distributions mentioned above I'll have to try it on the oldest of the Laptops IBM T40 1.2 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM. It should do right?

Computers these days. That sounds like a pretty fast machine to me.

Lord Illidan · 2008-08-18 07:45:36

Noticed the Wiki and will browse it later on but Arch comes with no GUI right? Hard to get xorg/gnome to work?

It depends on your linux knowledge. If you follow the wiki, you really shouldn't have much problems getting started. Ever installed a distro from CLI before?

ftornell · 2008-08-18 08:27:28

Lord Illidan wrote:

Noticed the Wiki and will browse it later on but Arch comes with no GUI right? Hard to get xorg/gnome to work?
It depends on your linux knowledge. If you follow the wiki, you really shouldn't have much problems getting started. Ever installed a distro from CLI before?

Hi again, CLI = Command Line Interface?

Installed Slackware back in '99 but then again, i didn't know what i did!

hussam · 2008-08-18 08:34:44

The installer isn't plain CLI. It's a very easy to use ncurses installer.

timetrap · 2008-08-18 11:35:12

ftornell wrote:

Lord Illidan wrote:
Noticed the Wiki and will browse it later on but Arch comes with no GUI right? Hard to get xorg/gnome to work?
It depends on your linux knowledge. If you follow the wiki, you really shouldn't have much problems getting started. Ever installed a distro from CLI before?
Hi again, CLI = Command Line Interface?
Installed Slackware back in '99 but then again, i didn't know what i did!

Don't worry, I just came over from ubuntu a few months ago. You will know exactly what you are doing during the install. The wiki is very good. A few things to start you off though:

0. Know your hardware. Do a complete and though review of your hardware and chipsets (esp your wired and wireless network cards)
1. Make sure you have another computer ready; this way you can read the wiki, forum and use IRC
2. Ask questions/look for answers in this order. Wiki, Forum, IRC
3. If you find a spot in the wiki that is not clear, find the answer, then log into the wiki and make the change to the instructions.
4. Enjoy.

smakked · 2008-08-18 11:45:51

Arch is very easy to install, follow the wiki and away you go.
Cheers

hk2717 · 2008-08-18 12:49:27

I think wiki is now included in the ISO so he does not need network connection or another computer to read the beginner's guide right?

diesel1 · 2008-08-18 19:43:26

hk2717 wrote:

I think wiki is now included in the ISO so he does not need network connection or another computer to read the beginner's guide right?

True, but...I have had smoother installs with the 2007.08.2 release and that does not include it, right?

Good luck, you will not need it!

Just remember the hardware types, chipsets etc.

Diesel1.

Lord Illidan · 2008-08-18 20:24:47

I mentioned CLI because after you install Arch, it dumps you into a terminal, you don't even have X installed. Assuming you have internet access, installing Xorg + a desktop environment like Gnome is pretty easy. If you don't, things can get hairier.

The best way to do it imho is either make sure you have a seperate computer with the wiki open while you install and after the installation, or else print out the relevant wikis. If all else fails, you could even use a live cd to fix your mistakes, and chroot into your arch installation to install packages. (I did it with mine, anyway).

But go ahead, back up, feel free to make mistakes, that's how you learn in any case!

Mr.Elendig · 2008-08-18 21:03:46

I'm going to be the devil here, but someone got to say it:
If you need to be convinced to switch to arch, then you shouldn't do it. That's my opinion.

jraab22 · 2008-08-18 21:22:40

I think the OP question is a bit more about how difficult it is to install, although the title is a bit misleading. I installed arch about 3 weeks ago after having used Ubuntu, and a little distro hopping. Its far easier than you might think. For me I plugged my laptop into a wired internet connection and just followed along in the wiki (which is a great set of documents and a tremendous help). If you have the time to give it a shot and learn something new you may not go back to whatever your previous distro was.

.:B:. · 2008-08-18 21:37:44

Mr.Elendig wrote:

I'm going to be the devil here, but someone got to say it:
If you need to be convinced to switch to arch, then you shouldn't do it. That's my opinion.

+1

The topic's title does not cover the first post. That's nice in journalism where you need to turn heads but not for a thread that asks for input.

Last edited by B (2008-08-18 21:46:01)

Dusty · 2008-08-18 21:50:12

Whats with all the community moderation suddenly? If you don't like the thread either ignore it or report it.

Mr.Elendig · 2008-08-18 22:15:13

Dusty wrote:

Whats with all the community moderation suddenly? If you don't like the thread either ignore it or report it.

+1

Anyway:

Since Arch seems faster than any of these distributions mentioned above I'll have to try it on the oldest of the Laptops IBM T40 1.2 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM. It should do right?

Arch isn't really faster if you benchmark it, some tests shows eg ubuntu to be faster.
But what arch is, is lighter. Not nessesary in disc space, since we don't split away -devel stuff, like most others do, but in the amount of apps installed. Arch is also more adaptable than most other distroes. Got tight resources? No problem, select a light wm and some light supports apps, instead of a heavy DE. Got a 4000€ gaming rig and want to show off? Just trow on evere piece of eye-candy you can find. Want a mix of both? Nothing to stop you from doing that.

You can shape the distro to fit your need, it don't forse stuff on you, that you have no intention of using. You don't have to spend 2 weeks trying to strip away layers of crud that you don't want. No need to trawl trough /etc/rc5.d/ to remove 40 services that you had no intention of even installing in the first place.

It will make you feal like driving a light sports car instead of a 2500kg suv.

k2t0f12d · 2008-08-18 22:47:13

Good points, Mr.Elendig.

The reason I use Arch is that is less fscked around with by the distribution. Instead of piling on abstractions to the native methods of configuration (i.e. plaintext files, mostly in /etc), the Arch devs make doing it the native way as easy as possible and focus on a simple and robust package management system. Configuration files are well-commented for the new user, and the Wiki resources are exemplary.

diesel1 · 2008-08-18 23:09:15

k2t0f12d wrote:

Good points, Mr.Elendig.
The reason I use Arch is that is less fscked around with by the distribution. Instead of piling on abstractions to the native methods of configuration (i.e. plaintext files, mostly in /etc), the Arch devs make doing it the native way as easy as possible and focus on a simple and robust package management system. Configuration files are well-commented for the new user, and the Wiki resources are exemplary.

I fully agree.

And this seems to fit the thread title now - "Why should I switch to Arch?"

Diesel1.

Last edited by diesel1 (2008-08-18 23:09:47)

moljac024 · 2008-08-18 23:23:57

Another reason might be to learn more about linux and how it is all put together.

tigrmesh · 2008-08-19 01:40:25

I found installing Arch to be super easy. However, I found configuring X to be quite difficult. The links web browser is one of the apps that get installed, so you if you can get online, you can access the wiki. I found the page about xorg to be very helpful: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xorg. And, of course, there is the beginner's guide: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide.

Edit: wrong link? Not me.

Last edited by tigrmesh (2008-08-19 01:56:34)

celthias · 2008-08-19 03:56:03

Arch's design in itself is fairly transparent, once you read the wiki and get the basics down (ie the installation, xorg, basic pacman commands etc) it's all too easy, and the rest of the system is impossible for you to not like, as you add it all yourself As tigrmesh linked above, if you have any doubts definitely check out the beginner's guide, it's very comprehensive.

k2t0f12d · 2008-08-19 07:33:55

moljac024 wrote:

Another reason might be to learn more about linux and how it is all put together.

It isn't bad, but Linux From Scratch and DIY Linux are better for that.

rooloo · 2008-08-19 12:57:52

k2t0f12d wrote:

moljac024 wrote:
Another reason might be to learn more about linux and how it is all put together.
It isn't bad, but Linux From Scratch and DIY Linux are better for that.

yes, your right, but lets not get a head of ourselfeves. LFS and DIY are not for the beginner. Where as Arch linux is for the beginner. No beginner wants to waste hours compiling only to keep getting errors, but a lot of beginners wanna learn how to administer a linux box. Arch gives you the flexibility to do as much or as little as you want.

I learned more from ARCH linux then any one OS has ever taught me in the years I been working with computers. It's just what you expect it to be, a working linux install with no bloat.

k2t0f12d · 2008-08-20 00:07:10

k2t0f12d wrote:

It isn't bad, but Linux From Scratch and DIY Linux are better for that.

rooloo wrote:

yes, your right, but lets not get a head of ourselfeves. LFS and DIY are not for the beginner. Where as Arch linux is for the beginner. No beginner wants to waste hours compiling only to keep getting errors, but a lot of beginners wanna learn how to administer a linux box. Arch gives you the flexibility to do as much or as little as you want.
I learned more from ARCH linux then any one OS has ever taught me in the years I been working with computers. It's just what you expect it to be, a working linux install with no bloat.

Arch is minimalist with a fast, easy, well-designed package manager. Where other distributions might have you jump into a pit of spikes, Arch offers you a feather stuffed mattress. It isn't painless, but it is enough to prevent the landing from overcoming the thrill of the fall. I do disagree about DIY, though. With either Arch or DIY, following the directions precisely has about the same chance of producing a working GNU+Linux, just as not following them has about the same chances of failure and frustration. Compilation does take hours however, and if your goal is to have a working system as fast as possible, Arch is for you. If you mean to learn how the system is put together, DIY is your best bet. Just don't do your build testing on the same machine as your workstation, since your DIY won't be readily usable very quickly, and some mistakes can screw the installed host OS as well as the DIY build. I have built my own bootable, runable DIY system from source code several times without very many errors at all; however, until I have a build system design I am comfortable with depending on, I use Arch on my workstation.

liquibyte · 2008-08-20 00:20:58

One thousand words...

Arch Linux

#1 2008-08-18 07:05:05

Why should I switch to Arch?

#2 2008-08-18 07:40:11

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#3 2008-08-18 07:43:00

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#4 2008-08-18 07:45:36

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#5 2008-08-18 08:27:28

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#6 2008-08-18 08:34:44

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#7 2008-08-18 11:35:12

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#8 2008-08-18 11:45:51

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#9 2008-08-18 12:49:27

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#10 2008-08-18 19:43:26

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#11 2008-08-18 20:24:47

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#12 2008-08-18 21:03:46

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#13 2008-08-18 21:22:40

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#14 2008-08-18 21:37:44

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#15 2008-08-18 21:50:12

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#16 2008-08-18 22:15:13

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#17 2008-08-18 22:47:13

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#18 2008-08-18 23:09:15

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#19 2008-08-18 23:23:57

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#20 2008-08-19 01:40:25

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#21 2008-08-19 03:56:03

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#22 2008-08-19 07:33:55

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#23 2008-08-19 12:57:52

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#24 2008-08-20 00:07:10

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

#25 2008-08-20 00:20:58

Re: Why should I switch to Arch?

Board footer