My Arch Linux review

tarantoga · 2010-02-09 21:20:20

Hi,
If someone is interested in reading a review of Arch Linux, you can find one written by me here: http://nirski.pl/2010/02/arch-linux-keeps-it-simple/ . Please feel free to comment, criticism is welcome as it is my first review of an operating system. I am currently testing a free hosting so tell me if it works for you.
tarantoga

ngoonee · 2010-02-10 02:01:10

So. Much. Text!

Sorry, didn't really read it, skimmed through. Too similar to the research papers I spend my days on, with the text wall

Acecero · 2010-02-10 05:46:15

It's a nice article, but I want to comment on one quote you made, so there is no discouragement among new users.

tarantoga wrote:

A small flaw – the repositories could be richer, package quantity is not as impressive as (for example) in Debian.

This is not a flaw. It's actually an advantage to the way Arch works. Probably 1/3 or more of packages you see in Debian are split packages such as the "*-devel" packages, which can be among the same variety of packages you would already have installed without them. In Arch, everything comes inside the package to simplify the installation/removal of packages with a more clear overhead on what's in the system. Rarely there is a need to split any, but they would all come as a dependency if needed. Every package you would ever want is in the repositories. If there is a package you cannot find, you are not limited as you already know. 99.8% of the time, they can be found in the AUR already setup with pre-made pkgbuilds and install scripts maintained by users, that can be downloaded and installed with an AUR helper (such as yaourt, packer, bauerbill, slurpy, etc.) or done manually with makepkg. If an upsupported package gains enough popular votes, it can move to the community repo maitained by a TU to make sure you get update the latest package updates possible without having to intervene with the AUR or the pkgbuilds. At the same time this would allow the Arch developers to focus more on the main repos, making sure you get the bleeding edge. When it comes to Arch, quality is always better than quantity.

Last edited by Acecero (2010-02-10 05:55:35)

Chokkan · 2010-02-10 06:30:28

Yeah, I wouldn't think of that as being a weakness of Arch. However, if you are going by 100% distro approved and out of the box, then it might be a valid comment. For me though, the dual system is really great.

tarantoga · 2010-02-12 04:55:21

Firstly, I am aware of AUR and community repository, I use them all the time (via yaourt) and I think they're great. But... from time to time, when I want to install some app that is nowhere to be found in either AUR or community. I know the basics of writing PKGBUILD, so whenever there is a need I write one unless I am out of time, then I compile & install like in Slackware (configure && make && make install). That's fair, of course at a times like this I wish that the package I am looking for was in the repository, but I can live with that. So it's not really a big deal, but I can call it a small drawback.

AUR is great and all, but:
- building packages is slower than just fetching
- sometimes source links are broken
- some links are ftp:// (nothing is wrong with that, but my admin blocks ftp traffic)

I really appreciate hard work of the community, so don't take this as a criticism. In the review I just compared availability of packages in repositories but I still prefer Arch much more over the others .

Thanks for the comments.

Last edited by tarantoga (2010-02-12 05:19:20)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-02-09 21:20:20

My Arch Linux review

#2 2010-02-10 02:01:10

Re: My Arch Linux review

#3 2010-02-10 05:46:15

Re: My Arch Linux review

#4 2010-02-10 06:30:28

Re: My Arch Linux review

#5 2010-02-12 04:55:21

Re: My Arch Linux review

Board footer