Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

The Keeper · 2008-09-13 10:55:11

I've been long considering taking a plunge into Arch. I really like the concept of rolling release system, so much actually that I would like Arch to replace Ubuntu on any computer I've had the pleasure to replace Windows with.

But there are some questions that have crept up and I could find an answer from wiki and quick search on the forums.

- As some packages have version numbers in them, what happens when a new version replaces it? Is pacman smart enough to upgrade to the newer version? For example, there are gstreamer-0.10 packages, what would happen when gstreamer-0.12 comes along? Another example would be openjdk6 package being eventually replaced with opendjk7. Can pacman upgrade those?

Obviously in a rolling release system the package manager should be able to do it. Just making sure if this is really the case. Now to the second part of this question; can pacman upgrade such packages without requiring user input? I assume pacman is able to keep system up-to-date without user input under normal conditions?

- What would happen when some major component of basic desktop usability is replaced by another? One such example would be PulseAudio as it eventually replaces ESD. Once that happens, would it require manual configuration to work properly?

My questions are mainly related to a scenario where I replace existing linux or Windows installation with Arch. Users of the computer(s) do not know how to maintain their operating systems. Can I expect Arch to work after many years without my assistance if I set it up to automatically update every now and then? Or should I expect Arch to "break" something through updates that would need me to go and check what had happened and fix it?

Thanks in advance.

Vintendo · 2008-09-13 11:00:17

1. Yes

2. You have to execute the pacman -Syu command , sometimes the config files change and you have to take care of that, at that moment or after the upgrade, but normally you just can get a cup of coffee

Allan · 2008-09-13 11:03:27

It is not recommended to blindly update with Arch. It is always important to read the pacman output for important messages - e.g. updated configuration files which the user needs to merge. If you pay attention to these things, then Arch is not very likely to break your system on an update despite being a rolling release and bleeding edge system.

Packages with version numbers in them may require user intervention of some sort. Using your example of gstreamer0.10 - when gstreamer0.12 comes out, software which depends on it will pull it in as a dependency where needed. So you may get away with no interaction.

The Keeper · 2008-09-13 11:48:15

Allan, so basically you're saying that Arch is unsuitable for "set-up and forget about it" scenarios, like on family members computers? I won't have the time to play administrator to up-to five computers, especially when said computers aren't located in my own home.

Allan · 2008-09-13 12:03:40

Essentially, no. You could install it and not update but then you don't have a rolling release system and will miss upgrades with security updates etc. But as you are just starting with Arch, I would not recommend setting up on others computers which you need to "support" without a bit more knowledge. Non-rolling releases are good for relatives computers that you just want to leave alone. In all honesty, it might be best to stick with Ubuntu for those computers.

.:B:. · 2008-09-13 14:09:38

The Keeper wrote:

Allan, so basically you're saying that Arch is unsuitable for "set-up and forget about it" scenarios, like on family members computers? I won't have the time to play administrator to up-to five computers, especially when said computers aren't located in my own home.

That's where SSH comes in. My mom's computer is on a slow connection and all I do is SSH in, run an update, and download the new packages locally, then install them when i'm over there.

So with SSH and a decent internet connection you should be just fine, with a secure SSH setup at least.

KimTjik · 2008-09-13 15:33:58

As B says SSH is a good option, and why not use x11vnc if someone needs help with the desktop. That's what I do to keep my mother-in-law's computer up to date, even though she lives on the other side of the sea, in another country.

Nowadays serious issues seem rare. A year ago, or more, I remember that an epidemic of kernel panics occured with one update, but besides that I've never experienced anything that wouldn't be possible to solve by a SSH session. Hence I simply wait to update her computer until I've tested it and checked whether any serious issues have been reported with the new kernel + in her case nvidia drivers.

If you really want a very solid and stable system though, then something like CentOS would be good: rare and conservative updates, which aren't likely to brake the system. The backside of using a non-rolling distribution happen for example if the user prefer to use communication protocols like MSN. A non-rolling distribution doesn't always keep on updating its software, so suddenly the user can't log in to his/her account. Thus you'll be needed to fix it the non-standard way.

Whatever you choose you'll end up with a mixed bag of pros & cons. Choose what's seems easier for you to live with. I would suggest you don't do anything revolutionary about your family's stack of computers, but first of all gave Arch some time on your own system. That way it'll be easier to decide (I'm actually been using Arch for a year on some friends computers, mainly because that's what's easiest for me; to switch my mother-in-law's computer to Arch was the most risky operation so far though - you don't want to get on bad terms with her - but it has been a very smooth ride, even when I took the decision to ditch KDEmod 3 and install KDEmod 4).

Last edited by KimTjik (2008-09-13 15:35:51)

jacko · 2008-09-13 15:44:21

install arch on your computer, run it for a couple months and then make the decision on whether to keep it and also migrate your other systems to it.

If you don't have the time, then by all means, stay with ubuntu. Arch does take some learning and that learning curve can be steep at first. Nothing no other ex-ubuntu user hasn't gone through though. I being one of those ex-ubuntu users myself.

biggest change you will encounter is the need for the cli, if you are scared of the cli then by all means stay with ubuntu.

Last edited by jacko (2008-09-13 15:45:12)

Skofo · 2008-09-13 18:31:44

What's so wrong with just using Ubuntu on non-techie's computers? 'buntu is just about the userfriendliest thing you'll find, everything is easy and straightforward to do. There's also a better chance that your relatives will want to venture out by themselves and install a package they want with Synaptic instead of pacman/yaourt, and giving them a way to install packages easily is a very good thing, since it is their computer, after all. If I were a non-techie, I personally wouldn't stand having a computer where I can't do anything myself and where I have to have everything set up and locked down by someone else. Plus, with Ubuntu most hardware already works out of the box and it's pretty much already ready to use, which decreases the workload for you.

I say, just let them stick with Ubuntu! Why fix what isn't broken?

You're starting to sound like one of those open-source-overlord people that can't stand seeing other people's computers with Windows and need to replace it. You have to realize that to most people, it doesn't matter how "free" something is. Most people require a hefty amount of time and energy to get used to a new OS, and it could be a little stressful for them after being made to abandon their old, comfy, familiar OS, because they were told that this new one is "better". If you did that to everyone you know again, they will start to hate you for it. Just because your blissfully ignorant family members are uninformed does not mean that your opinion on what to do with their personal computers is better, especially if you plan on turning it inside out (twice). You plan on needlessly replacing everyone's old OS with another Linux distro that you assumingly haven't even tried!, and you seem to be opposed to the idea helping people with it in case things go haywire after you set it up. That does not show good logic.

Arch Linux is for people who want to customize their Linux from it's bare bones and make everything fit perfectly for their unique needs, it is not for oblivious family members. Get over it.

Last edited by Skofo (2008-09-13 18:49:36)

thayer · 2008-09-13 18:48:51

Skofo wrote:

I say, just let them stick with Ubuntu! Why fix what isn't broken?
You're starting to sound like one of those open-source-overlord people that can't stand seeing other people's computers with Windows and need to replace it...

I don't know how you deduced such an impression from the OP, but I'd say that's a harsh over-analysis of what he is asking about. You have no idea what his reasons are--it could simply be that he wonders whether Arch is a self-maintaining distro, requiring less administration on his part.

@Keeper: As others have pointed out, Arch does require hands-on administration, perhaps more so because of its rolling nature. You would probably do well to continue using Ubuntu on your installations if time/energy is a concern.

Skofo · 2008-09-13 18:56:34

thayer wrote:

Skofo wrote:
I say, just let them stick with Ubuntu! Why fix what isn't broken?
You're starting to sound like one of those open-source-overlord people that can't stand seeing other people's computers with Windows and need to replace it...
I don't know how you deduced such an impression from the OP, but I'd say that's a harsh over-analysis of what he is asking about. You have no idea what his reasons are--it could simply be that he wonders whether Arch is a self-maintaining distro, requiring less administration on his part.

You're right, I shouldn't assume things, but judging from his attitude he might be one of the too many I've seen spiraling down the not-so-pretty path that I've described, and I thought to discourage him from it in case that is the case. It is pretty rude, though, so I'm sorry if I assumed wrong in advance.

Last edited by Skofo (2008-09-13 18:57:16)

lucke · 2008-09-13 19:01:17

From my perspective - I migrated my parents' PC from Windows XP to Arch, simply because Arch needs less maintenance in the long run.

freakcode · 2008-09-13 19:59:59

Skofo wrote:

I say, just let them stick with Ubuntu! Why fix what isn't broken?

Nothing wrong with Ubuntu per se, but with the release cycle model.

When your parents can't connect to MSN because Pidgin isn't up-to-date, or can't use Skype feature X, or some essential application is full of bugs that never gets fixed, and they're stuck during 6 months with the same crappy versions, and you go poke your head around to compile new versions from source, and everything breaks... then you will see that going to a rolling release would be less work anyway.

So don't assume that Ubuntu "just works" and people recommending Arch are zealots. Your mileage may vary.

The Keeper · 2008-09-13 20:03:00

The reason why my family members computers are running linux is because those computers were assembled by me and never had a windows license to start with. They don't really care what OS they are using as long as it gets the job done. From my perspective linux is much better option than Windows, Windows setups would need my attention a lot more often than linux would. As a matter of fact, those computers were initially running XP but I got fed up with it because they always managed to botch up XP in a way or another. XP licenses were available from my workplace to be installed at home machines. These licenses weren't meant for relatives, so that was one reason to switch away from XP.

The only problem I have with Ubuntu is that I have to upgrade them from one release to another myself. I was hoping Arch would do better than Ubuntu in that regard, but apparently this is not the case. My family members don't know how to install software, they don't even want to learn. So whether it is Ubuntu or not, I have to install everything they need anyhow. I don't mind how difficult it is to set up initially as long as it means I have to invest less time on maintenance later.

I guess it isn't so bad to upgrade my relatives Ubuntus every ~6 months, as I already have an apt upgrade script running every time a computer is rebooted or shut down which takes care of all software and security updates for me. It was probably wishful thinking I could do away with those manual dist-upgrades every six months with Arch.

Oh well, thanks for your inputs everyone.

Misfit138 · 2008-09-13 22:11:29

Skofo wrote:

What's so wrong with just using Ubuntu on non-techie's computers? 'buntu is just about the userfriendliest thing you'll find, everything is easy and straightforward to do.

I strongly disagree.
My impression of Ubuntu is of gratuitous workarounds and long, spread out release cycles that could potentially fix some issues while regressing in other functionalities.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-09-13 10:55:11

Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#2 2008-09-13 11:00:17

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#3 2008-09-13 11:03:27

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#4 2008-09-13 11:48:15

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#5 2008-09-13 12:03:40

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#6 2008-09-13 14:09:38

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#7 2008-09-13 15:33:58

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#8 2008-09-13 15:44:21

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#9 2008-09-13 18:31:44

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#10 2008-09-13 18:48:51

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#11 2008-09-13 18:56:34

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#12 2008-09-13 19:01:17

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#13 2008-09-13 19:59:59

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#14 2008-09-13 20:03:00

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

#15 2008-09-13 22:11:29

Re: Several potentially stupid questions about Arch

Board footer