Should I move to an "easier" distro?

Rognon · 2009-07-17 02:03:49

Hey there fellow archers,
I've been using Arch for quite some time now and I used to love it (but I'm not saying that I hate it right now). I really liked (and still do) the fact that it allows the user to have complete control over its system and that it's a really lean distro. I used to enjoy spending time configuring and playing around. It really helped me learn a lot about Linux. Nowadays however, I've got a busier life and spending 3 hours trying to solve problems with automount and keyboard not behaving correctly (like I just did) instead of actually getting things done is not as fun as it used to. The idea of switching to a distro where I would only have to do some minimal configuration has been sitting in the back of my head for a couple of months, but now, after having spent 3 hours just trying to get my computer to work correctly, I'm almost ready to do the switch.

However, I don't want to switch to something like Ubuntu or Debian just to find out that I was much better of with Arch. So I was wondering if any of you have any experience with those distro. I would like to know what to expect if I was to go from Arch to Ubuntu (or Debian maybe) and if it's worth it. Or maybe you could just convince me to stay

Thanks,
Rognon

smurnjiff · 2009-07-17 02:07:58

Backup everything, switch to Ubuntu, test it, make a decision.

Dusty · 2009-07-17 02:10:40

Try Ubuntu, you can set it up and use it pretty quick.... My guess is you'll think its great for a week or so, then go try to customize something that should be easy and isn't. You'll end up spending 3 hours setting up stuff you really wish you weren't spending the time on there too, its just a different set uf stuff.

Edit: I've done this at least half a dozen times, its not like I'm a dedicated Archer.

Last edited by Dusty (2009-07-17 02:27:22)

Rognon · 2009-07-17 02:11:18

Backup everything, switch to Ubuntu, test it, make a decision.

Or course, that would be the logical thing to do. However, I was trying to get some feedback from other Arch users who might have gone through the situation that I'm going through right now.

Last edited by Rognon (2009-07-17 02:11:53)

Skripka · 2009-07-17 02:45:46

By reports, *buntu Jaunty tends to run quick and speedy...the catch being that due to the near total lack of transparency, maintaining a system can be at best annoying with how things are hidden.

Try it you might like it...Unfortunately compiling source code on *buntu can be really annoying; it may not be an issue as most software is at least compiled for *.deb

sand_man · 2009-07-17 03:04:19

The main thing I don't like about Ubuntu is the measures it takes to protect the user from making stupid mistakes.

Rumor · 2009-07-17 03:25:41

Yes, I understand where you're coming from. I get frustrated because I cannot make Xiphos run on Arch. So twice in the last few months I've jumped. Once to Fedora which kernel panicked after installing and once to Ubuntu only to grow frustrated with trying to change some settings by editing xorg.conf and seeing no appreciable results.

I come back to Arch because it's what I know.

I guess my experience is that no other distro is as easily configurable to the way I like it. I don't tweak a lot. I tend to run with pretty vanilla settings, but they are MY vanilla settings, not some settings that have been predetermined for me.

Even though the grass looks greener beyond that fence over there, each field has its own defects and it does not take long for the grass in the Arch field to look greener than the grass you were eying a few weeks ago.

Peasantoid · 2009-07-17 04:09:52

It's really not worth the frustration that will soon begin to manifest itself. Stick with Arch if at all possible.

sand_man · 2009-07-17 04:21:50

To the OP: What kind of problems are you coming across anyway? I don't find myself spending a lot of time fixing things. 99% of the time Arch just works.

1LordAnubis · 2009-07-17 04:25:43

^^what they said, but I would stay away from debian if I were you; its what I used before Arch. I would compare it by saying Arch is like debian, except without the dependency issues

jasonwryan · 2009-07-17 04:48:45

I still run Debian on an old laptop and I would recommend you at least trying it. It is possible to do a relatively (compared to any distro but Arch) minimal install and it is _extremely_ stable. So, yes, you will need to spend some time configuring it to get it exactly the way you want it, but once you are done that is it.

One of the things that set me looking into Arch was that I had tinkered with my Debian install to the point it was perfect and I was bored with not having any little 'projects' to do...

Flag · 2009-07-17 05:07:52

Why don't you split your harddisk and stay with Arch on one partition with eg Ubuntu on a second, make it dual boot and off you go. I have this setup for years now, not with these two distros all the time, but it is very satisfactory. At th moment Arch is my no. 1 with Ubuntu 9.10 as second ( just to play around with )

stefan1975 · 2009-07-17 06:07:44

why not try an LiveCD of ubuntu/mint/opensuse and see if you like it. From what i hear the new Mint is pretty good, like an ubuntu with all the extras already installed (codecs) and not brown. I personally am pretty fond of fedora (11) myself, but that is also a lot of work at times. OpenSuSe has a long lifecycle and is pretty stable with lots of GUI tools as well.

Zoranthus · 2009-07-17 06:55:57

Rognon wrote:

Hey there fellow archers,
I've been using Arch for quite some time now and I used to love it (but I'm not saying that I hate it right now). I really liked (and still do) the fact that it allows the user to have complete control over its system and that it's a really lean distro. I used to enjoy spending time configuring and playing around. It really helped me learn a lot about Linux. Nowadays however, I've got a busier life and spending 3 hours trying to solve problems with automount and keyboard not behaving correctly (like I just did) instead of actually getting things done is not as fun as it used to. The idea of switching to a distro where I would only have to do some minimal configuration has been sitting in the back of my head for a couple of months, but now, after having spent 3 hours just trying to get my computer to work correctly, I'm almost ready to do the switch.
However, I don't want to switch to something like Ubuntu or Debian just to find out that I was much better of with Arch. So I was wondering if any of you have any experience with those distro. I would like to know what to expect if I was to go from Arch to Ubuntu (or Debian maybe) and if it's worth it. Or maybe you could just convince me to stay
Thanks,
Rognon

Of course it's no fun trying to fix some annoying problem for hours and there probably is some other distro that provides some default settings that just make your machine work right away. However sooner or later you will run into other problems you wouldn't have had with arch and it's the same story all over again. At least that's my experience from using Arch at home and ubuntu at work for some years (recently switched to arch at work too ).

Arch does indeed take pretty long to set up, but once it's done it's done. When it comes to error handling however, I find the system to be very transparent. No configs hide behind weird abstractions and wizards for example, and you usually know which module does what. Once you know how to configure program xy, you know how to configure program xy on pretty much any system. This helps alot when trying to identify and fix errors. Also, the community is very helpful and qualified.

However, if you totally need stuff to work out of the box and want to spend as little time as possible with configuration probably a mac or windows are your best options..

Last edited by Zoranthus (2009-07-17 06:57:38)

fumbles · 2009-07-17 07:48:40

.

Last edited by fumbles (2020-09-26 11:39:59)

plurt · 2009-07-17 08:42:21

well if windows isn't an option, I'd advise Linux Mint. I've personally used this distro and I think it suits wanting the 'out of the box just works' experience. It's available in Gnome, Kde, Xfce and fluxbox editions.

On the other hand, archlinux should just work as well, and if you spent 3 hours fixing something unexpected, I guess that problem could pop up once in a while in every distro.

ngoonee · 2009-07-17 08:44:07

If your concern is 'fixing' stuff when they break, why not use Arch and not 'pacman -Syu'. Everything is very accessible, and you don't get breakage if the packages do not get updated...

.:B:. · 2009-07-17 09:01:21

There's no point in using Arch and not updating, just like there is with any distro. Eventually you'll get gaping security holes and you might be worse off than with an unpatched Windows installation.

To the OP: do the test, Ubuntu takes little setting up, so it shouldn't really consume a lot of time to see if that's what you want or not.

Trent · 2009-07-17 12:29:09

I notice you asked for an easier distro, and you have had lots of recommendations for what might fairly be called "newbie" distros. Which may be what you want, but I can't shake the feeling that you're really looking for something moderately customizeable but stable and well-supported enough that most of your problems will be fixed quickly. I had the same feeling with Gentoo.

If this is indeed your situation, I recommend Debian (lenny). It's quite stable, has tons of packages available, and although not as "simple" as Arch is very flexible; it can be as minimalistic or as featureful as you make it. There's a little more involved in configuration, but less in maintenance. Upgrades are few and usually minor security bugfixes, so you don't run into breakages as often as a rolling-release distro like Arch. Just my 2 cents.

Raffles10 · 2009-07-17 13:29:56

I'd also recommend Linux Mint, it includes all the proprietary codecs that Ubuntu doesn't, so if you're looking for something that 'just works' and requires very little upkeep, Mint is hard to beat. I used it extensively and liked it alot, but switched to a rolling release distro to avoid the six monthly release cycle.

flamelab · 2009-07-17 13:52:33

I'd recommend Debian (Stable). It works without problems, it is reliable, but you have to stick with its old packages. If you have used Ubuntu-like distros or even Debian itself, it will be very easy for you to install it (it is quite easy) and configure it.

It is my second most favorite distro after archlinux.

Last edited by flamelab (2009-07-17 13:52:45)

Rognon · 2009-07-17 16:04:03

Thank you very much for all your answers. They were really eye opening.

First, to the ones who mentioned Windows, or MacOS, that's pretty much out of the question I want a free OS which is built on good technologies and I don't want to pay extra for some funky brushed metal look.

I also really liked that quote:

Even though the grass looks greener beyond that fence over there, each field has its own defects and it does not take long for the grass in the Arch field to look greener than the grass you were eying a few weeks ago.

I guess it's true that every distro has it problems and looking back, I have to say that in the 3 years I've been using Arch, I have not encountered too many...

I've also realized that maybe Ubuntu is not the thing for me. I don't need (and like) to be protected against myself anymore (well, mostly) and I might find it a bit too "newbie" oriented for my liking. I think I'll install it (along with the other distros you guys mentioned) in a wm and play with them a bit to get a better idea though.

For the ones who experienced it, what are your thoughts on non-rolling distros? I have been using rolling-release systems for so long (Arch, Slackware-current, SourceMage) that I don't remember how it's like to upgrade.

As for the problems I'm currently struggling with, I'll just post them on another thread when I get home. I'll link to it from this thread if you are interested.

madalu · 2009-07-17 16:44:43

As much as I applaud the Ubuntu and Mint efforts to bring Linux to the
masses, if you're doing anything beyond basic web-browsing,
word-processing, and email, Linux will always involve some amount of
configuration (either sooner or later). So will Windows and Mac for
that matter, though you are less likely to have hardware issues with
those two. (I vastly prefer Arch Linux to Mac OS because even though I
occasionally have to fix a hardware issue, I find it much easier to
install up-to-date command line tools on Arch.)

My preference will always be for the distro that makes configuration
simple and transparent. Right now that is Arch.

Most user-friendly distros try to ship a complete desktop environment,
in which a lot of the configuration is done via GUI tools (usually
Gnome). For instance, I've used Ubuntu, and I've spent far more time
trying to clear away all the custom configuration than I spend
configuring things during an Arch install. Since I prefer to get down
to the command line as soon as possible, I find the default setup in
Ubuntu quite frustrating.

I would opt for Debian or Fedora rather than Ubuntu, only because they
don't dumb down the system as much. Presto in Fedora 11 is really
nice!

While Debian stable is great for rock-solid use, the farther you get
away from the release date, the less likely it is going to work with
new hardware, so you'll spend even more time getting that video card,
wifi interface, etc. to work.

Rognon wrote:

For the ones who experienced it, what are your thoughts on non-rolling
distros? I have been using rolling-release systems for so long (Arch,
Slackware-current, SourceMage) that I don't remember how it's like to
upgrade.

Rolling release systems like Arch are great for modular systems. Since
basic configuration is done from a minimal command line base, you can
easily swap out elements (different desktop environments, for
instance) without worrying about breaking the whole system. But
rolling-release systems require competent users --- you have to know
how to put the system together yourself. I really like the fact that
Arch uses more-or-less vanilla packages; I feel like I'm using the
product exactly as the developers coded it.

Non-rolling release systems are great for delivering a polished final
product. But for control-freaks, they can be frustrating, because
everything is locked together really tightly --- thus making it a
little more difficult to configure or to try out the latest version of
a particular package. Though I have no empirical evidence, I'd suspect
stable releases lead to more obsolete bug reports for upstream
developers, since users often run out-of-date packages or because the
distro has introduced a custom patch. But then again, the Ubuntu and
Fedora developers also generate a lot of patches that get adopted
upstream.

Rognon · 2009-07-17 23:32:18

If any of you is interested, here are the problems I've been struggling with and which I've mentioned in my post: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=76205

Dusty · 2009-07-18 00:07:24

One thing to keep in mind is that the people responding here are all archers. Of course were gonna say you'll prefer Arch in the long run. ;-)

Dusty

Arch Linux

#1 2009-07-17 02:03:49

Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#2 2009-07-17 02:07:58

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#3 2009-07-17 02:10:40

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#4 2009-07-17 02:11:18

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#5 2009-07-17 02:45:46

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#6 2009-07-17 03:04:19

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#7 2009-07-17 03:25:41

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#8 2009-07-17 04:09:52

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#9 2009-07-17 04:21:50

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#10 2009-07-17 04:25:43

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#11 2009-07-17 04:48:45

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#12 2009-07-17 05:07:52

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#13 2009-07-17 06:07:44

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#14 2009-07-17 06:55:57

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#15 2009-07-17 07:48:40

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#16 2009-07-17 08:42:21

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#17 2009-07-17 08:44:07

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#18 2009-07-17 09:01:21

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#19 2009-07-17 12:29:09

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#20 2009-07-17 13:29:56

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#21 2009-07-17 13:52:33

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#22 2009-07-17 16:04:03

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#23 2009-07-17 16:44:43

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#24 2009-07-17 23:32:18

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#25 2009-07-18 00:07:24

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

Board footer