is arch for me?

anaconda · 2008-12-10 12:54:59

I have read a lot about Arch, and it sounds really really good
BUT
one question:

How well does Arch work if you download updates only once every 2-3 months? (like I prefer to do?)

I know that with a rolling distro you are supposed to download small updates often to keep the system up-to-date..
But when I get the system working like I want, I just don't want to break it too often (lazy me ).. like the hassle with updating a kernel, and needing to reconfigure vmware and nvidia drivers etc.. (especially if the new kernel doesn't provide anything I feel I need to have..)

Would installing all updates from the last 2-3 months at the same time mean almost like reinstalling the whole system? Or does the rolling updtes work well with gaps of several months between updates? And how much would I need to download every 2-3 months (about) ?

lucke · 2008-12-10 13:05:24

People successfully update a few years old systems. It's just important to follow the newspage and pacman's post-install messages.

The amount depends on what you have installed and what gets updated in the meantime, it can be a few hundred mb if you update things like openoffice or kde, much less if you use lightweight stuff.

Last edited by lucke (2008-12-10 13:06:14)

Rumor · 2008-12-10 13:08:20

If you don't do any updates, there is no reason your system will not continue to work as well as it currently works. How often you update and which packages you choose to update is entirely up to you.

I update one of my Arch machines once a month, perhaps a bit less. The only difference I notice between that computer and the one I update weekly is that the download takes longer. It is often as much as half a gigabyte of packages being updated. I rarely run into conflicts with my nvidia drivers on either machine.

VirtualRider · 2008-12-10 13:09:30

I'm a "once-a-day-updater" so i can't tell you something about problems occurred in mid-term updates. But as long as i use Arch (about 6 months) i updated the kernel (just this morning) and nvidia drivers a few times and i didn't break my system by that once. If i remember correctly i had to fix two problems in this time. Both ot them were solved within 5 minutes by a single command (in the forum or in the news a solution could be found quasi immediatly).

I suggest to try arch on an extra partition and see if it matches your update-behaviour.

dav7 · 2008-12-10 13:42:33

I don't have much diskspace available so I generally only update when I need to. So if I want to install some piece of software, and it requires newer versions of for example a library, and that library pulls in all the updated programs that depend on it (worst case scenario), I'll install it all.

Said update bursts are a few weeks apart at least. On my less-intensively-used systems I update even less, and they keep trucking on just fine.

-dav7

bgc1954 · 2008-12-10 14:57:22

I have an old 350 Mhz Intel system in my basement that only gets updated every few months and even with the new xorg update, I didn't have any problems on that one--amazing. My laptop and upstairs desktop get updated daily to weekly, depending on my mood, I guess, and no major deal-breaker problems so far. There are some major updates on certain packages, like xorg, which tend to be more problematic for some than others. It all seems to depend on your own equipment. Solutions are readily available on the forum, though.

Xi0N · 2008-12-10 15:04:47

I actually changed from Ubuntu to arch for two reasons:

1: Tired of the childrengarden's distro (dont want to mean any bad thing about this distro, i like it still )
2: I have version-illness.... i need to have everything up-to-date, if not, i cannot sleep well at night

About the childrengarden's issue: Starting with Ubuntu made me pass through the most difficult stages of the management of the system... the installation was fast and easy, and it just leaves you an standard system everyone can use: With arch, i want to improve my *nix knowledgements, and also has a great community (every day growing more and more) ready to help you with any issue.

Is arch for me?: That is the question im asking myself this days - that's why im giving it a try... and, until now... i really think it's worth to have a try....

Well, this is just my opinnion...

Last edited by Xi0N (2008-12-10 15:05:00)

thayer · 2008-12-10 16:23:44

How well does Arch work if you download updates only once every 2-3 months? (like I prefer to do?)

It should be fine, more or less...see below.

I know that with a rolling distro you are supposed to download small updates often to keep the system up-to-date..
But when I get the system working like I want, I just don't want to break it too often (lazy me ).. like the hassle with updating a kernel, and needing to reconfigure vmware and nvidia drivers etc.. (especially if the new kernel doesn't provide anything I feel I need to have..)

That's half true. With a rolling release you are *able* to download small updates *as often as desired* to keep the system up-to-date. The principals of rolling updates do not dictate that you should update early and often, however for reasons of security and bug fixes, it does make sense to do so.

Would installing all updates from the last 2-3 months at the same time mean almost like reinstalling the whole system? Or does the rolling updates work well with gaps of several months between updates? And how much would I need to download every 2-3 months (about) ?

This really depends on what kind of software environment you need, but even in the most extreme cases it shouldn't be anything at all like reinstalling the whole system. As a matter of fact, sometimes waiting between updates can actually save you time. For example, OpenOffice is a big package and when a new version is available it means downloading 100+ MB. Sometimes, a bug fix will be implemented shortly after the initial release and so it will mean another 100+ MB download. By waiting 3-4 weeks after a large package has been updated, it can actually save you the hassle of downloading the first or second releases of that package.

Of course, there is a downside to waiting so long. The longer you wait between updates, the more updates there will be, potentially increasing the number of problems arising from the updates. It is also more difficult to detect and/or troubleshoot such problems when several packages are updated at once.

For example, let's say you run an update and a single package, a new mouse driver is available. You install it and the next time you start the computer you realize the mouse isn't working--this is relatively easy to troubleshoot because you just installed the mouse driver.

Fast forward two months and now when you run an update there are 150+ MB of updates, including a new kernel, mouse drivers, xorg server, and initscripts. Upon the next reboot the keyboard doesn't work....what now? Is it due to the kernel update, the xorg server, input drivers, or initscripts? You can see where this is going...

Last edited by thayer (2008-12-10 19:45:57)

dunc · 2008-12-10 19:29:55

thayer wrote:

Of course, there is a downside to waiting so long. The longer you wait between updates, the more updates there will be, potentially increasing the number of problems arising from the updates. It is also more difficult to detect and/or troubleshoot such problems when several packages are updated at once.

Not only that, but even once you track it down to a particular package, you don't know if the problem first appeared with the very latest version, or at some other time during the period when you didn't update. And if you have to take the last resort and downgrade, you might not have the last "working" version (a bit of hacking about with ABS could probably get round that, but it's more trouble than is necessary).

But despite all the problems mentioned in this thread, I'd still urge the OP to give it a try. The great thing about a rolling release is that there's no "correct" frequency for updates. Just find what suits you and stick to it.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-12-10 12:54:59

is arch for me?

#2 2008-12-10 13:05:24

Re: is arch for me?

#3 2008-12-10 13:08:20

Re: is arch for me?

#4 2008-12-10 13:09:30

Re: is arch for me?

#5 2008-12-10 13:42:33

Re: is arch for me?

#6 2008-12-10 14:57:22

Re: is arch for me?

#7 2008-12-10 15:04:47

Re: is arch for me?

#8 2008-12-10 16:23:44

Re: is arch for me?

#9 2008-12-10 19:29:55

Re: is arch for me?

Board footer