Thinking of coming back to arch...

Crooksey · 2008-10-19 17:05:25

For the last two years I was using arch linux as my desktop OS, with nothing other on my desktop computer and found it great. Then six months ago my system went really "tits up", programs stopped working, updates began causing system lockups and all the rest. So a few months ago I went back to Gentoo, everything is Gentoo like, if that makes any sense.

Now that my job has changed I no longer require the use of a Desktop Environment has become useless for me, going back to an openbox setup. Now my Gentoo installation was so bloated that I would be re-installing it as I have far to many programs on there and I cant be bothered to sort it all out, to mention the mess of my root file system.

But before I do re-install Gentoo, I just wondered if anyone has noticed an improvement in Arch over the last few months?

I would be using Arch64, not the i686 version, if that makes a difference.

The errors that my old arch system suffered from were:
X lockups, never had them before and have not had them on Gentoo
Openoffice stopped working, no idea why
Spell checker also stopped working

I liked Arch so much, but didn't have the nerve to keep fixing things, especially when I didn't have the time, the last thing I need is to use the system and it not being useable!

Last edited by Crooksey (2008-10-19 17:06:23)

lucke · 2008-10-19 17:22:49

For most people Arch just keeps chugging nicely; you'd have to see for yourself how it works out for you.

skottish · 2008-10-19 17:32:27

Welcome home! Install like the wind!!

I've been using 64 bit since right after I got here. Things are working great.

cu3edweb · 2008-10-19 17:47:34

I use the 64 bit and love it. I have never once had any system issues other then my own stupidness Gentoo is what I used before I came to arch.

Crooksey · 2008-10-19 18:01:12

I never had any problems before, then they just all appeared at once, that mixed with a bad day, resulted in Gentoo.

I think I may give it a go before I re-install my desktop, It could have been that after two years of messing with the same arch install, the numerous changes to the files in /etc could have caught up with me.

I can still remember everything about using arch, so its not a learning curve of getting it again, just need a reliable fast system now.

godane · 2008-10-19 18:01:56

You can always try my archiso-live system. It a live cd but it does have a install option by using larchin from larch scripts.

PS Its only 32-bit for now.

Last edited by godane (2008-10-19 18:02:38)

Crooksey · 2008-10-19 18:03:45

I still have my own arch live CD's that I made last year, its not using arch once thats an issue, its using it day in day out in a high demand enviroment, thats when problems started to occur, may also be coupled with user error, but when I started -Syu'ing, thats when the main problems began.

daf666 · 2008-10-19 18:17:04

Crooksey wrote:

But before I do re-install Gentoo, I just wondered if anyone has noticed an improvement in Arch over the last few months?

From the problems you describe, it seems like you had issues related to your personal hardware or configuration, obviously if everyone else would have had the same problems, they would all hop on.

Crooksey wrote:

I would be using Arch64, not the i686 version, if that makes a difference.

I am not sure why to install 64bit OS if one has <= 4GB ram..? other than QA..?

dsr · 2008-10-19 18:44:12

Crooksey wrote:

The errors that my old arch system suffered from were:
X lockups, never had them before and have not had them on Gentoo
Openoffice stopped working, no idea why
Spell checker also stopped working

I use the i686 version of Arch, but I've never had X lockups. Were you using the same driver that you use(d) on Gentoo? OpenOffice.org is up to version 3.0.0 now, and it works well for me. I say give Arch another go. You can always go back to Gentoo if you have problems. The time saved with binary package management will be more than worth the extra day configuring Arch.

daf666 wrote:

I would be using Arch64, not the i686 version, if that makes a difference.
I am not sure why to install 64bit OS if one has <= 4GB ram..? other than QA..?

Aren't most CPU instructions considerably faster on x86-64?

Last edited by dsr (2008-10-19 18:44:56)

Misfit138 · 2008-10-19 19:00:54

dsr wrote:

Aren't most CPU instructions considerably faster on x86-64?

No.
Not nearly most. In fact, very few. x86-64 is not the beast that many had hoped it would be.

dsr · 2008-10-19 19:08:51

Ah, okay. So is daf666 right that you should use the i686 version of Arch on a 64 bit machine if you don't need 4+ gigs of RAM?

Crooksey · 2008-10-19 19:25:23

I have 4GB, as it stands.

The problems occured out of no-where, a few updates with no file changes and my problems all appeared.

Yes, I was using the same driver and xorg.conf on Gentoo and Arch, only had the lockups on Arch, its worth a go I suppose.

SiC · 2008-10-19 21:06:36

With the 64bit version of arch, you do get performance improvements with things like video encoding, and obviously the ability to address >3GB of RAM, which is why I have it on my desktop. I have had no problems with regards to running it, apart from a problem with a recent kernel upgrade rendering my external USB drive unusable, but that was the same on the i686 version too. The big things are problems with getting flash to work simply in firefox, and a few other quirks, but for the most part it is fine.

If you have less than 3gig of ram though then I would recommend using the i686 version. It's just a bit easier to manage.

Crooksey · 2008-10-19 21:12:51

I have used Linux for the last 5-6 years, its not a case of knowing what I need, this thread was more related to arch's stability.

skottish · 2008-10-19 21:18:43

daf666 wrote:

From the problems you describe, it seems like you had issues related to your personal hardware or configuration, obviously if everyone else would have had the same problems, they would all hop on.

I tend to agree. I think that whatever happened to your system back then, it was probably a bit of bad luck with your hardware at that particular time. I haven't had any significant problems with 64 bit Arch. This system was built with 64 bit Linux in mind though.

SomeGuyDude · 2008-10-20 06:11:17

SiC wrote:

If you have less than 3gig of ram though then I would recommend using the i686 version. It's just a bit easier to manage.

I'm running 64-bit with 2GB, and honestly all I've noticed is that the temp stays cooler and my RAM use is high. It's not bad, but I've not really noticed anything that would inspire me to tell someone to go 64-bit. Also, there's no 64-bit version of Wine, which became one gigantic headache.

That said, Arch itself is an absolute breeze, and I'm far from savvy (you can look at my post history for proof of that).

Llama · 2008-10-20 14:44:20

A year of using Linux taught me, that you have to have other reason than a breakage to change to another distro . As to the Arch: I rather marvel, how it takes punishment and cavalier treatment from the user. I agree: there's a lot of new versions of config files in the upgrade flow. Guess what I do with them? Just ignore , unless install script tells me explicitly to do something. So in case of a sizable breakage after an upgrade (it has yet to happen) I'm going to pay a bit of attention to them, for a change...

Last edited by Llama (2008-10-20 14:53:44)

Crooksey · 2008-10-20 18:18:31

It wasnt just one break, errors kept appearing, think it may have also been some of the repo's I was using and aur-get'ing alot of things.

Re-installed today after work, just setting it up now.

SomeGuyDude · 2008-10-20 18:53:45

Did you enable testing? I admit my Arch experience is pretty light (meaning I'd use it for a weekend here and there until about 10 days ago when I permanently switched), but I don't believe I ever had any breakage, just me not knowing WTF I was doing.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-10-19 17:05:25

Thinking of coming back to arch...

#2 2008-10-19 17:22:49

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#3 2008-10-19 17:32:27

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#4 2008-10-19 17:47:34

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#5 2008-10-19 18:01:12

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#6 2008-10-19 18:01:56

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#7 2008-10-19 18:03:45

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#8 2008-10-19 18:17:04

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#9 2008-10-19 18:44:12

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#10 2008-10-19 19:00:54

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#11 2008-10-19 19:08:51

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#12 2008-10-19 19:25:23

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#13 2008-10-19 21:06:36

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#14 2008-10-19 21:12:51

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#15 2008-10-19 21:18:43

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#16 2008-10-20 06:11:17

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#17 2008-10-20 14:44:20

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#18 2008-10-20 18:18:31

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

#19 2008-10-20 18:53:45

Re: Thinking of coming back to arch...

Board footer