Why I always have to go back to Arch?

skwo · 2011-10-06 12:10:17

Hi there!
A little story about me. I discovered Linux a long ago (6-7 years ago) while I was interested in computer security and hacking, and got a hint the 1337s uses Linux (or any other unix based system), so I decided to try it (I choose for Linux because it was the most popular *nix based system atm).

My romance with Linux started with Mandrake (today Mandriva) and included distributions like Red hat (it wasn't enterprise oriented that time and AFAIK there were no Fedora yet), and the lovely Gentoo. Its funny tough, Ubuntu wasn't that popular at the time (I even remember how I was on an open lecture in University about open source and Linux, and I got a free CD of Ubuntu and no body heard about it before )

Anyway its stopped there for few years and I got back to Linux about 2 years ago, with Ubuntu on my desktop machine.
My nature is to discover and be different. If everybody uses Ubuntu, I must use something else (even now, I'm on Xubuntu).

This nature lead me to replace Ubuntu with Arch. This was the first time I encountered a very similar distribution to Gentoo, that were optimized to i686 and did not require you to compile every package (for instance I installed Gentoo like 2-3 times from scratch [those were beautiful Friday evenings-nights :romantic-smiley:]) and I remember how compiling Xorg took me hours (and when I say hours I mean hours, something like 6-8 hours).

Then I got back to windows since my old PC died and I got a new one and a laptop.

This leads us to nearly today. Right now I'm using my laptop as my main computer at home and at work (the desktop PC had a motherboard issue that was replaced under warranty. While they were fixing it, I switched to use my laptop).

I started with Ubuntu, simply because it works! But I hated Untiy and I switched to Xubuntu. But you do remember my nature right? This lead me to switching to Arch.

A few days of configurations and I got stable up and running system. Then I came to work and had some issues (especially with keyring) and they blocked me from working, instead I needed to fix them. Then I said "This is it! I need a machine that works!".
I removed Arch, installed Xubuntu and promised my self never to do this pointless Distro_name->Arch->Distro_name path, because well, it ends the same way always.

But you do remember my nature right? So right now I'm standing in front of a decision whether to go back to Arch or not. I must say I really like the rolling release scheme, I'm in love with pacman (its a lot more superior than apt-get or yum IMHO), I like the way you can customize Arch.

But Archs customization is also its weak point, you have to devote hours or reading and configuring to get a stable and running system. And sometimes (especially if you use your laptop for work or for studies or both) you need to have a running system and you don't want to mess with cups just because its 2 A.M. and you need to print your project to submit it in 5 hours (yes you must take care of it at a lot earlier point than 5 hours before deadline )

Ubuntu is nice, but its bloated. It doesn't even give you the option to select what packages you want to install (unlike Fedora for example). Its comes with (IMHO) stupid meta packages like ubuntu-desktop, xubuntu-desktop so its nearly impossible to try gnome3, xfce, openbox on the same system without breaking something.
Ubuntu simply works, but as soon as you need something deeper, you are screwed.

I don't really ask sort of a question here, but I know many of you use Arch (I'm on bbs.archlinux.org doh -.-' ) as your everyday system, so I would like to know how do you handle its configuration, what you do when something breaks and you don't have the time to fix it (you are at work, hitting the deadline of your university project or whatever). Maybe you will be able to convince me why I always want to get back to Arch and what I need to do to choose it as my the one and only distribution. Maybe you will be able to suggest me another distro that fits my needs. Or maybe you want to tell me how sucky I'm.
So simply go on and post, this is why I created this topic.

Thanks you for your time

bernarcher · 2011-10-06 13:02:24

Moving to Arch Discussion.

Varg · 2011-10-06 15:28:16

skwo wrote:

But Archs customization is also its weak point, you have to devote hours or reading and configuring to get a stable and running system. And sometimes (especially if you use your laptop for work or for studies or both) you need to have a running system and you don't want to mess with cups just because its 2 A.M. and you need to print your project to submit it in 5 hours (yes you must take care of it at a lot earlier point than 5 hours before deadline )

This is not the weak point, it's the strong point. You configure Arch and make it run just the way you want it to. Sure first time you install Arch you need to do a lot of reading and you'll spend a couple of hours trying to install ( I failed 2 times when I first tried it ). Once you get to know the system, how configuration works, it'll take you half an hour to get a system up and running. When you need to finish an essay due to tomorrow it's not a good idea to install Arch or any OS for that matter. Try it when you have some spare time.

Ditching something because everybody else does it is a bad habit imo. You should use what suites you best: Arch, Ubuntu, Xubuntu,.....Who cares ?
Doing something just because everyone else does it, now that's a different story

Keeping the system stable is pretty easy. Just check what you update. I update daily, or even multiple times a day but when I have a lot of work and I see something as kernel updates, graphical drivers, big DE/WM updates, etc. then I'll wait till I have more time. Oh and only clear the package cache when you are sure that everything works fine, in case something does break it's easy to downgrade.

Last edited by Varg (2011-10-06 15:33:24)

MrCode · 2011-10-06 16:34:41

Keeping the system stable is pretty easy. Just check what you update. I update daily, or even multiple times a day but when I have a lot of work and I see something as kernel updates, graphical drivers, big DE/WM updates, etc. then I'll wait till I have more time. Oh and only clear the package cache when you are sure that everything works fine, in case something does break it's easy to downgrade.

+1…this is pretty much how I handle things. I'm always a bit leery of a new kernel or NVIDIA kernel module update. Xfce/other DE stuff I'm not too worried about.

My rule-of-thumb is basically: expect breakage, be relieved when/if you don't find it.

…oh, and deal with it if you do (be it via config tweaking, downgrading, etc.).

kilgore70809 · 2011-10-08 02:11:30

Well,

I sound a lot like you. I went from Windows to Mac to Ubuntu to Arch... The progression makes sense.. Escaped one problem to a cleaner system and so on. I grew tired of paying for software that I wasn't using to it's full worth, etc..

I have been on a PC since 1981.. only it was a 6502 Apple ][... then to MS-Dos on a 386 and so on... Linux CLI is not far off from the old config files, bat files, etc.. i used to have to play around with..

If you are obsessed with modifying your machine and tinkering.. You need to have two machines or Dual Boot to your stable/NEVER play with it image.. and one to play with.

I like Arch linux because I get to build what I want, the users are very informative and not rude. The IRC gets a lot of NOOB questions, but no one blasts them for it. In a lot of ways, it's more helpful than Ubuntu. I am glad Ubuntu is out there with a turnkey approach because Windows has stagnated and not everyone has the $$ for an iMac. So it's a great advertising tool to say hey LINUX can do 99% of what an average homeowner needs..

BUT...

If you start installing non-debian builds into Ubuntu, you can enter a world of pain. I have no idea if there is a Linux framework that everyone is supposed to follow or if every branch can make up some of their own rules, but it blows. I have had a few problems with Arch on some new setups, BUT... it's always dependencies that for the most part are easy to get installed through Pacman...

I'm also not sure of the inner turmoil or political reasons as to why Ubuntu went to Unity.. Which, I don't find to be half bad, but it was kind of thrown out there, half baked. Of course the same thing can be said about Arch on some things, but if you don't want to change, you don't have to upgrade!

I have only been on Arch for a couple of months and it's already on my 2 main machines.. My webserver is an Ubuntu server, and I just don't have the energy to change it... I run Awesome on the Laptop and XFCE on my i5 desktop... I just add programs as I need them with Pacman or Packer..

The load time is fantastic, memory usage is stellar, and I run 3 to 4 Virtualmachines at the same time.... Never crash or lockup.

I doubt I'll ever load Ubuntu on another machine ever again, unless it's for a novice user.

Vive Arch Linux!

jgreen1tc · 2011-10-11 17:47:25

skwo wrote:

Hi there!
*snip*
I don't really ask sort of a question here, but I know many of you use Arch (I'm on bbs.archlinux.org doh -.-' ) as your everyday system, so I would like to know how do you handle its configuration, what you do when something breaks and you don't have the time to fix it (you are at work, hitting the deadline of your university project or whatever). Maybe you will be able to convince me why I always want to get back to Arch and what I need to do to choose it as my the one and only distribution. Maybe you will be able to suggest me another distro that fits my needs. Or maybe you want to tell me how sucky I'm.
So simply go on and post, this is why I created this topic.
Thanks you for your time

I have only ever used Arch Linux, and haven't been doing so for too long. But I find that it's most stable when kept up to date. I update every day unless I see something major being updated and I have to finish work for some of my classes or do my work study in college. I wait to do major updates on the weekends so if something does happen, I have time to fix it. I also mess around with different window managers and things like that on the weekends when I have down time. During the week, when I have class, I just do the little updates that don't affect much and I don't get any breakage other than some Firefox/Thunderbird add-ons not being compatible any more. No big deal, I just wait until they release the new version. But the only major breakage I experience is when I experiment with my window managers like I said (trying to migrate to ratpoison instead of kde+compiz).

That's the only tips I can give you but hopefully they help. If you are experiencing breakage that negatively affects your work, maybe a different distro is better for you? I wouldn't use something that held me back.

SS4 · 2011-10-11 18:06:51

skwo wrote:

Hi there!
A little story about me. I discovered Linux a long ago (6-7 years ago) while I was interested in computer security and hacking, and got a hint the 1337s uses Linux (or any other unix based system), so I decided to try it (I choose for Linux because it was the most popular *nix based system atm).
My romance with Linux started with Mandrake (today Mandriva) and included distributions like Red hat (it wasn't enterprise oriented that time and AFAIK there were no Fedora yet), and the lovely Gentoo. Its funny tough, Ubuntu wasn't that popular at the time (I even remember how I was on an open lecture in University about open source and Linux, and I got a free CD of Ubuntu and no body heard about it before )
Anyway its stopped there for few years and I got back to Linux about 2 years ago, with Ubuntu on my desktop machine.
My nature is to discover and be different. If everybody uses Ubuntu, I must use something else (even now, I'm on Xubuntu).
This nature lead me to replace Ubuntu with Arch. This was the first time I encountered a very similar distribution to Gentoo, that were optimized to i686 and did not require you to compile every package (for instance I installed Gentoo like 2-3 times from scratch [those were beautiful Friday evenings-nights :romantic-smiley:]) and I remember how compiling Xorg took me hours (and when I say hours I mean hours, something like 6-8 hours).
Then I got back to windows since my old PC died and I got a new one and a laptop.
This leads us to nearly today. Right now I'm using my laptop as my main computer at home and at work (the desktop PC had a motherboard issue that was replaced under warranty. While they were fixing it, I switched to use my laptop).
I started with Ubuntu, simply because it works! But I hated Untiy and I switched to Xubuntu. But you do remember my nature right? This lead me to switching to Arch.
A few days of configurations and I got stable up and running system. Then I came to work and had some issues (especially with keyring) and they blocked me from working, instead I needed to fix them. Then I said "This is it! I need a machine that works!".
I removed Arch, installed Xubuntu and promised my self never to do this pointless Distro_name->Arch->Distro_name path, because well, it ends the same way always.
But you do remember my nature right? So right now I'm standing in front of a decision whether to go back to Arch or not. I must say I really like the rolling release scheme, I'm in love with pacman (its a lot more superior than apt-get or yum IMHO), I like the way you can customize Arch.

tl;dr

But Archs customization is also its weak point, you have to devote hours or reading and configuring to get a stable and running system. And sometimes (especially if you use your laptop for work or for studies or both) you need to have a running system and you don't want to mess with cups just because its 2 A.M. and you need to print your project to submit it in 5 hours (yes you must take care of it at a lot earlier point than 5 hours before deadline )

That is the strong point. Arch's customisation allows me to use it on the craptop and on the desktop. I prefer to see it as an investment of time to get a system I want instead of one a developer thinks I want (don't get me wrong open source devs do an amazing job!)

Ubuntu is nice, but its bloated. It doesn't even give you the option to select what packages you want to install (unlike Fedora for example). Its comes with (IMHO) stupid meta packages like ubuntu-desktop, xubuntu-desktop so its nearly impossible to try gnome3, xfce, openbox on the same system without breaking something.
Ubuntu simply works, but as soon as you need something deeper, you are screwed.

Bloat is the price you pay to have a distro that works out of the box.

I don't really ask sort of a question here, but I know many of you use Arch (I'm on bbs.archlinux.org doh -.-' ) as your everyday system, so I would like to know how do you handle its configuration, what you do when something breaks and you don't have the time to fix it (you are at work, hitting the deadline of your university project or whatever). Maybe you will be able to convince me why I always want to get back to Arch and what I need to do to choose it as my the one and only distribution. Maybe you will be able to suggest me another distro that fits my needs. Or maybe you want to tell me how sucky I'm.
So simply go on and post, this is why I created this topic.
Thanks you for your time

My arch setup is relatively simple, I set cron jobs to back up files with rsync and keep important config files backed up too. I am lucky by the fact I have a laptop I can use if the desktop breaks and vice versa but the sensible solution is to upgrade after work is done.

I keep coming back to arch because of pacman and the AUR. No package manager comes close.

hadrons123 · 2011-10-11 18:31:28

being different makes you feel great.
its actually subjective feeling and it has no relation with arch or any other distro.
now its arch tmrw it might very well be BSDs or slacks.

so it boils down to 'you' mostly, and less of the operating system.
you dont just break your system unless you poke it.
when u have time to poke your system on a day when a big essay is coming up it means you really not that interested in that essay that day, than your system.

But coming to arch, its same as any other system.just becoz it has bleeding edge packages doesnt mean its going to crash more often.
you should learn how to downgrade pacakage when some upgrades doesnt work the way you wanted,and u dont flush your package cache befora an upgrade and obviously as other people have commented,always do an kernel or video driver, DE upgrade only when you have time.
this applies to not just arch.everything... windows XP upgrades and patches are the worst.win 7 is better.
you can install win7 in 30-40 mins.fedora in 5 mins.but does it matter?
u are not supposed to be installing anything on a big essay day no matter what OS you have.(as others have commented).

no one can or could ever possibly guarantee that every upgrades would work, or for that matter can predict a boot failure too.
arch is for select groups who wants to be on the edge,if arch way doesnt suit your work environment choose something that has the least resistance.

you can buy an extra harddrive for your laptop or desktop and install arch or xubuntu, what ever you want as a back up OS and get it running in less than 3-5 mins.u might definitly need an usb-external kit to access your data on your old hard drive.
other people have suggested that you can dual boot.but in situations where your boot loader is corrupted its not really an ideal solution.

Permezae · 2011-10-11 18:32:18

MrCode wrote:

My rule-of-thumb is basically: expect breakage, be relieved when/if you don't find it.

Hehe.
I've basically decided to do an update once a month. Usually around the 1st if I can remember it. I will of course upgrade certain packages earlier if I see a new version comes out with some feature I want .

skwo · 2011-10-15 13:21:46

Thanks everyone!

RichAustin · 2011-10-15 13:47:57

To be honest, having read your post, I think Arch is totally perfect for you skwo! I also "distro hopped" constantly changing and rebuilding my system. A big part of that of course was I wanted to know how things worked. Arch was always in the corner of my eye, but to be honest I was a bit intimidated by all the talk of "you have to be a guru to use Arch" and so on. I finally took the plunge and went for it when Ubuntu fell totally off a cliff 3 times in a week and I doubt very much if I will ever change to anything else but Arch.

The obvious question is "why?". The main reason is that Arch is all the distro's I could ever need because I can make it pretty much anything I want. Pacman / AUR etc is, as you said, brilliant and let's me install any combination of desktop i like. Maintenance on it is easy because I take note of what is updated, I update at least once a day, and if something goes wrong I know where to look because I know what changed. The only time Arch has fallen over is when I was an idiot!

A second, and massive in my opinion, is the Arch forums. I've used Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu forums and I can honestly say that the Arch forums are way ahead. People tend to know what they are talking about and genuinely do try to help. You get the odd one who is a bit "rtfm stupid!" but not often enough for it to be annoying. Besides, the third great reason for using Arch is actually the f********* manuals! The Wicki is way ahead of any other distro in my opinion. Fourth is the "kiss" principle, aka "the Arch way", which once you get used to it is amazingly brilliant. I rarely have to think "what the heck is that conf file called that does .... blah", because i know I only have to use a certain set of things to get more or less anything done.

So, overall, the question you should be asking is "why the heck would I not use Arch and forget every other distro?". By the way, as to your issue with maybe having a problem with a deadline and the system not working, just do more or less the same as I do. I dual boot Arch and Ubuntu. I hardly ever use Ubuntu now but i keep it up to date and set it up much the same as on Arch in terms of work. I keep all of my data in separate partitions to the main systems, with backups online. I also run a desktop PC which runs XP and Arch, and again are setup so that I can switch to them to get something done. If one system fails i can easily switch across to an alternative.

Rich

ngoonee · 2011-10-15 13:51:16

Permezae wrote:

MrCode wrote:
My rule-of-thumb is basically: expect breakage, be relieved when/if you don't find it.
Hehe.
I've basically decided to do an update once a month. Usually around the 1st if I can remember it. I will of course upgrade certain packages earlier if I see a new version comes out with some feature I want .

Your system is likely to break. Do -Syu or choose not to update. If you update packages piecemeal you WILL break things, eventually.

Permezae · 2011-10-18 20:50:04

ngoonee wrote:

Your system is likely to break. Do -Syu or choose not to update. If you update packages piecemeal you WILL break things, eventually.

Good idea. I've never had any problems upgrading certain packages in the past, but that doesn't mean there won't be a first time .
Thankfully, I've never had any problems with -Syu updates either. Still, I agree you're right, one should update everything or don't update.

Last edited by Permezae (2011-10-19 23:13:01)

OttoRobba · 2011-10-19 22:57:41

Worst case scenario, the simplest solution I can think is to have an Ubuntu live cd nearby, in case things like, you know, the printer decides to not work.

I have not been using Arch for much time (little more than a month I suspect) but so far, it has been pretty easy to care for. If I have important things to do and I see a potentially risky update (kernel), I hold back on it until the weekend when I know I have time.

I had a similar path as Kilgore: Windows -> Mac -> Ubuntu -> Arch.
Honestly, I would have a hard time going to any other OS - Arch works so well. I can be up to date without resorting to a crapton of ppas and I actually learn what does what in my system. I'm much more confident when messing with my system now.

bwat47 · 2011-11-09 20:33:23

I just installed cups, all the drivers, and system-config-printer-gnome from the get go so I haven't had any problems printing or adding printers.

I have had a similar experience to you though. I love arch, but I still keep distro-hopping, the "just works" aspect of other distros is appealing to me, but at the same time so is the arch way where I have full control. I love the rolling release and the aur, and those are the two main things that keep me coming back, and this time I think I am staying.

I've actually had more nasty bugs and stability issues with ubuntu and fedora then I have ever had with arch. And when an update does break my system its usually fixed very soon in another update. With ubuntu I am never sure if my bug will be fixed, and if it is its usually in the next version of ubuntu .

Iranon · 2011-11-09 22:49:17

For me, it was mostly Windows -> Ubuntu -> Mint Debian -> Archbang -> Arch.

I like simplicity and transparency. Many things meant to improve user-friendliness just confuse me further. I'm not sure what wastes more time - starting from the primordial soup or struggling with excessive automation and broken features. I just find the latter less educational and more irritating.

I'm very happy with Arch so far, although I may take Slackware, Gentoo or the BSDs for a serious test drive when I have the time.

Janarto · 2011-11-09 23:12:53

I would say that arch takes some time to get started with as you need to do your installation carefully.
But after this first step, it's really good.

there are two things that make me want to use something else than arch

1 - Some packages that are not in the repo and not even in aur (or badly, etc) . I'm not complaining considering arch remains the best distro out there for me, but still it's sometimes rather annoying and it's still somewhat a weak point

2 - Some windows specific software. I tend to use vbox in those cases, but it's painfully slow and unconfortable. So I tend to use another computer at work for my office 2010 / mapinfo stuff

3 - I really care to choose linux-friendly hardware, but I understand that it may be discouraging when you need some specific driver that is not supported in arch (even if I feel like this is the right way to go)

But I frequently gives a try to ubuntu and fedora, but i'm not convinced, things feels more convenient, easier to figure out when using arch.

So sacrifice 2/3 hours to install your os and getting it tweaked, then you're in for a nice ride

Last edited by Janarto (2011-11-09 23:15:00)

bwat47 · 2011-11-09 23:22:55

Janarto wrote:

I would say that arch takes some time to get started with as you need to do your installation carefully.
But after this first step, it's really good.
there are two things that make me want to use something else than arch
1 - Some packages that are not in the repo and not even in aur (or badly, etc) . I'm not complaining considering arch remains the best distro out there for me, but still it's sometimes rather annoying and it's still somewhat a weak point
2 - Some windows specific software. I tend to use vbox in those cases, but it's painfully slow and unconfortable. So I tend to use another computer at work for my office 2010 / mapinfo stuff
3 - I really care to choose linux-friendly hardware, but I understand that it may be discouraging when you need some specific driver that is not supported in arch (even if I feel like this is the right way to go)
But I frequently gives a try to ubuntu and fedora, but i'm not convinced, things feels more convenient, easier to figure out when using arch.
So sacrifice 2/3 hours to install your os and getting it tweaked, then you're in for a nice ride

regarding point 1, I've found arch to be one of the best distros in regard for finding software I need in the repos. Ubuntu/Debian are great in this respect too, but I always find other non debian based distros severely lacking here (especially fedora)

Janarto · 2011-11-10 05:55:49

Fedora is fine for me with the CCRMA package, but for example it's not really easy to use supercollider with arch

Awebb · 2011-11-10 07:16:21

I recently had to use different versions of Ubuntu at work (or I still have to). I say "have to", because I needed an internet machine NOW and not in an hour. I installed Ubuntu 11.04, the only CD I found and installed it. 20min later I was browsing the relevant pages. However, I didn't really have time to install something I like, so I kept Ubuntu. I somehow fiddled with that left panel, so it doesn't come up anymore, I configured Compiz, so it has sane settings (Grid shortcuts e.g.). In the end, all I use on this machine is Firefox, Thunderbird and ClamAV. I'm glad I know how to use the Terminal, an update broke Nautilus. No time to fix this, so bash must help.

But, as a matter of fact, the moment I have a lazy afternoon, I'll install Arch or Gentoo. Even if it's just a www terminal, I can't stand all those workarounds I have to come up with, to make the system usable for me.

SS4 wrote:

tl;dr

Indeed, the attention span on generation Twitter isn't very high. Just read the first three words of each paragraph. It's written blog style, so the first three (sometimes five words) give you a good impression of what's in the paragraph. This way you don't need to make remarks that make you look like a victim of the modern commercial white noise the internet has become.

n0stradamus · 2011-11-10 19:27:21

ngoonee wrote:

Permezae wrote:
MrCode wrote:
My rule-of-thumb is basically: expect breakage, be relieved when/if you don't find it.
Hehe.
I've basically decided to do an update once a month. Usually around the 1st if I can remember it. I will of course upgrade certain packages earlier if I see a new version comes out with some feature I want .
Your system is likely to break. Do -Syu or choose not to update. If you update packages piecemeal you WILL break things, eventually.

Jup, these statements pretty much describe my experience with Arch.
If some important work is due - refrain from updating your system!
I once had to hold a presentation and I updated my laptop the day before. Then, thinking everything would be fine I switched it off and only turned it back on again when I was setting up for my talk. And, hooray, the radeon driver had been upgraded and apparently it was not compatible with my fairly old chip anymore, so the first thing the people saw was my X server greeting them with a nice pink image. Luckily I remembered how to downgrade packages, so it wasn't too much of a holdup. Since then I have been updating more modestly

eDio · 2011-11-12 11:28:19

For me Arch is not just about being different.

I'm on Ubuntu for 2 weeks already. And I really fond of it's solidness. Unity, imho, provides great experience. All stuff just works.
End even MS Live Meeting (which I need sometimes) works in Firefox (it has never worked in Arch. At all).
Canonical has brought significant improvements: fonts, utouch, software centre with ability to buy applications, ubuntu one... I've already installed the latest Ubuntu on 3 different configurations. Each time it took not more than 30 minutes. And I never had any troubles.

But all this shininess just dims for me if I can't install scrobby for submitting mpd playing statistics to last.fm

fsckd · 2011-11-12 17:27:31

n0stradamus wrote:

If some important work is due - refrain from updating your system!
I once had to hold a presentation and I updated my laptop the day before. Then, thinking everything would be fine I switched it off and only turned it back on again when I was setting up for my talk. And, hooray, the radeon driver had been upgraded and apparently it was not compatible with my fairly old chip anymore, so the first thing the people saw was my X server greeting them with a nice pink image. Luckily I remembered how to downgrade packages, so it wasn't too much of a holdup. Since then I have been updating more modestly

I've been in that situation. While writing my thesis a kernel update made X unusable. I downgraded and did not upgrade for month. Since then I've had ARM in my mirrorlist.

ngoonee wrote:

Permezae wrote:
MrCode wrote:
My rule-of-thumb is basically: expect breakage, be relieved when/if you don't find it.
Hehe.
I've basically decided to do an update once a month. Usually around the 1st if I can remember it. I will of course upgrade certain packages earlier if I see a new version comes out with some feature I want .
Your system is likely to break. Do -Syu or choose not to update. If you update packages piecemeal you WILL break things, eventually.

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 61#p802661

skwo · 2011-11-13 13:27:29

Back to Arch, feeling at home again

yoyostevo · 2011-11-13 20:45:24

Was using Arch with Gnome3. Tried out FreeBSD, then went to Ubuntu to try out Unity again. Now back to Arch with i3wm and having fun again.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-10-06 12:10:17

Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#2 2011-10-06 13:02:24

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#3 2011-10-06 15:28:16

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#4 2011-10-06 16:34:41

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#5 2011-10-08 02:11:30

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#6 2011-10-11 17:47:25

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#7 2011-10-11 18:06:51

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#8 2011-10-11 18:31:28

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#9 2011-10-11 18:32:18

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#10 2011-10-15 13:21:46

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#11 2011-10-15 13:47:57

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#12 2011-10-15 13:51:16

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#13 2011-10-18 20:50:04

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#14 2011-10-19 22:57:41

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#15 2011-11-09 20:33:23

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#16 2011-11-09 22:49:17

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#17 2011-11-09 23:12:53

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#18 2011-11-09 23:22:55

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#19 2011-11-10 05:55:49

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#20 2011-11-10 07:16:21

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#21 2011-11-10 19:27:21

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#22 2011-11-12 11:28:19

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#23 2011-11-12 17:27:31

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#24 2011-11-13 13:27:29

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

#25 2011-11-13 20:45:24

Re: Why I always have to go back to Arch?

Board footer