On switching to arch linux

graysky · 2012-01-30 23:47:38

Original post - http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.ph … 7-41-OP-RL
And the blog - http://mikethecoder.com/post/1656275196 … arch-linux

SS4 · 2012-01-31 00:08:50

The blogger had a problem on his machine and has extrapolated it to everybody's machine. Not everyone has non-standard hardware but overall I wouldn't say it's unfair.

graysky · 2012-01-31 00:18:28

Yeah... Plus a number of the downsides that he pointed out I see as upsides

Last edited by graysky (2012-01-31 00:20:06)

kcirick · 2012-01-31 01:06:32

A lot of people seems to have problem with the Arch installer... Why, I wonder? Like the majority of the article was dedicated to how to install, and "Don't skip steps in beginner's guide!". Frankly, I didn't read the Beginner's guide until I was well past the installation steps

To me, things do work out of the box in Arch. It boots up, and I can interact with my computer. One of the reason I found Arch was because when I was trying to install Ubuntu, the installer wouldn't recognize my graphic card, so I couldn't install it. With Arch's text-based installer, I didn't have that problem. I feel like people have prejudice when they learn that something isn't "just one click away" or "there is no gui for that".

hadrons123 · 2012-01-31 01:26:26

Finally, a downside of Arch pushing software updates to the repos so quickly is the potential for stability issues.

I never had any issues with this, maybe becoz i use a 5 yr old dell.But there are people at the bbs who have issues with something with the hardware all the time after update.

jasonwryan · 2012-01-31 01:37:50

"potential for stability issues..." is little more than an unsubstantiated slur.

Almost all of the "issues" on these boards are one form of PEBKAC or another.*

*If the thread title has an exclamation mark, unjustified uppercase or the word "Help" in the title then it is definitely PEBKAC...

meph · 2012-01-31 02:26:22

So, basically,

"First of all, nothing works out of the box" is listed as a downside
"a downside of Arch pushing software updates to the repos so quickly is the potential for stability issues" is listed as a downside
and finally, funniest of all, "You also have to make lots of choices yourself." is listed as a downside

I don't want anything to work out of the box. Anything. I want it to work exactly the way I set it up, which means it won't be out of the box.
I want a rolling release, bleeding edge distro. Arch even *without* testing repo gives me that.
And again, finally, even considering the thought that giving options is a downside is simply ridiculous. Can someone explain me that logic? Even going for an operating system that gives you no options whatsoever IS making a choice.

ngoonee · 2012-01-31 02:46:31

Am I the only one who sees the difference between 'potential downsides' and 'downsides'? 'Nothing works out of the box' IS a downside if your expectations are different. 'Making lots of choices' is ALSO a downside if you're lazy or simply do not care enough about your machine to make such choices (for example, I don't tweak my car, I just use it. Having a car which forces me to make choices from the ground up is a downside to ME).

I like Arch, but its not for everyone. The blogger seems to understand that, and intends to make sure readers are very clear about what they may face trouble with. Less unsubstantiated expectations, all the better for the Arch community. Enough help vampires and trolls find their way here as it is....

KingX · 2012-01-31 03:10:22

It's the windows/ubuntu/fedora effect where after installation you get (and expect!) a graphical environment all ready for point-n-click. I can understand where he is coming from, but what I don't understand is why does he feel he *HAS* to use or switch to Arch. I mean if ubuntu/mint etc. work fine for you and you like that sort of philosophy then stick to it. No need to bash the other dsitros.. I am curious what his reaction would've been had he tried gentoo or crux where he would have to compile a kernel during install.

Axalon · 2012-01-31 04:00:22

kcirick wrote:

A lot of people seems to have problem with the Arch installer... Why, I wonder?

I don't know, I'm not sure if I'll ever understand it. Well, I can understand being intimidated by the part where you have to look through and edit some configuration files if you're not used to that sort of thing, but everything else is fairly simple. I've heard people talk about how frightening the Slackware installer is, but I thought it was extremely simple.

bernarcher · 2012-01-31 04:11:14

Just to remind everybody. The answers are mostly already in here.

Yes, this has become trivial knowladge to any convinced Archer. But it should be shown to everybody who bothers about installing Arch the first time.

meph · 2012-01-31 09:49:21

ngoonee wrote:

Am I the only one who sees the difference between 'potential downsides' and 'downsides'? 'Nothing works out of the box' IS a downside if your expectations are different. 'Making lots of choices' is ALSO a downside if you're lazy or simply do not care enough about your machine to make such choices (for example, I don't tweak my car, I just use it. Having a car which forces me to make choices from the ground up is a downside to ME).
I like Arch, but its not for everyone. The blogger seems to understand that, and intends to make sure readers are very clear about what they may face trouble with. Less unsubstantiated expectations, all the better for the Arch community. Enough help vampires and trolls find their way here as it is....

It's not that what I have problem with. You really are correct about this, Arch can't be for everyone, and that's fine. It's the article subtext that bothers me. It's cleverly written, but also heavily biased. All those "downsides" actually are features, which just aren't cut for everyone. Sure, why not explain that someone can think of them as an annoyance and a downside, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. But then, to stay objective, you'll also have to say why those features are made that way, and what people could see them as an upside. Otherwise a linux user, which never heard of Arch, will see all those features that the devs worked very hard on as their incompetence. That's exactly the impression I would have from such an article. Giving half of the picture isn't really fair, is it?

ngoonee · 2012-01-31 09:53:35

meph wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
Am I the only one who sees the difference between 'potential downsides' and 'downsides'? 'Nothing works out of the box' IS a downside if your expectations are different. 'Making lots of choices' is ALSO a downside if you're lazy or simply do not care enough about your machine to make such choices (for example, I don't tweak my car, I just use it. Having a car which forces me to make choices from the ground up is a downside to ME).
I like Arch, but its not for everyone. The blogger seems to understand that, and intends to make sure readers are very clear about what they may face trouble with. Less unsubstantiated expectations, all the better for the Arch community. Enough help vampires and trolls find their way here as it is....
It's not that what I have problem with. You really are correct about this, Arch can't be for everyone, and that's fine. It's the article subtext that bothers me. It's cleverly written, but also heavily biased. All those "downsides" actually are features, which just aren't cut for everyone. Sure, why not explain that someone can think of them as an annoyance and a downside, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. But then, to stay objective, you'll also have to say why those features are made that way, and what people could see them as an upside. Otherwise a linux user, which never heard of Arch, will see all those features that the devs worked very hard on as their incompetence. That's exactly the impression I would have from such an article. Giving half of the picture isn't really fair, is it?

Which I would argue is a good result from Arch's perspective. The blogger is fair ENOUGH to state what he considers downsides (and why), which allows readers to draw their own opinions. Anyone who can't draw their own opinion from what he's written probably would struggle with Arch and/or not fit in with the community.

.:B:. · 2012-01-31 10:06:12

jasonwryan wrote:

*If the thread title has an exclamation mark, unjustified uppercase or the word "Help" in the title then it is definitely PEBKAC...

Amen to that!

Zazzman · 2012-01-31 10:19:17

As a recent convert to Arch, I might have some relevant input: this is one of the blogs that convinced me to switch to Arch.

It was up front about the install process, and it linked to the extraordinary ArchWiki - on the thorough Beginner's Guide, no less. Once I saw the latter via the former, I was done with Ubuntu and Sabayon. I understood my own needs, desires, capabilities, and temperament to see that those warnings didn't apply to me. In fact, those warnings pointed to exactly what I wanted.

So, I played around in a vm. I read, I practiced, and I installed and set up Arch repeatedly in that vm, with the goal of trying to do it all from memory. Then I learned about elinks - so I could browse the Arch Wiki without first setting up my X server.

I learned more about Linux during that week in a VM with the ArchWiki than during several years with beginner distros. That's not to say the other guys didn't have any value - they taught me what I could do, and what I wanted. Arch delivered.

meph · 2012-01-31 18:10:58

ngoonee wrote:

meph wrote:
ngoonee wrote:
Am I the only one who sees the difference between 'potential downsides' and 'downsides'? 'Nothing works out of the box' IS a downside if your expectations are different. 'Making lots of choices' is ALSO a downside if you're lazy or simply do not care enough about your machine to make such choices (for example, I don't tweak my car, I just use it. Having a car which forces me to make choices from the ground up is a downside to ME).
I like Arch, but its not for everyone. The blogger seems to understand that, and intends to make sure readers are very clear about what they may face trouble with. Less unsubstantiated expectations, all the better for the Arch community. Enough help vampires and trolls find their way here as it is....
It's not that what I have problem with. You really are correct about this, Arch can't be for everyone, and that's fine. It's the article subtext that bothers me. It's cleverly written, but also heavily biased. All those "downsides" actually are features, which just aren't cut for everyone. Sure, why not explain that someone can think of them as an annoyance and a downside, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. But then, to stay objective, you'll also have to say why those features are made that way, and what people could see them as an upside. Otherwise a linux user, which never heard of Arch, will see all those features that the devs worked very hard on as their incompetence. That's exactly the impression I would have from such an article. Giving half of the picture isn't really fair, is it?
Which I would argue is a good result from Arch's perspective. The blogger is fair ENOUGH to state what he considers downsides (and why), which allows readers to draw their own opinions. Anyone who can't draw their own opinion from what he's written probably would struggle with Arch and/or not fit in with the community.

I'm not sure that this reader's opinion will always accurately reflect what that his own personal experience with Arch would be. I have a feeling that the article could actually discourage even people who would otherwise try and be happy with Arch. But you have a point there. Someone who gets discouraged enough to not even try on his own, based on one blogger's article, probably wouldn't fit in anyway. I guess I was just judging it from a different standpoint, more from the journalist's point of view. Though I'm not one Just my personal opinion, that's all.

GogglesGuy · 2012-01-31 20:09:42

Nothing new here really. As with most Linux distribution reviews, they seem to be heavily focused on the install procedure, something you may only do once in a blue moon (at least with rolling release distributions).

litemotiv · 2012-01-31 20:18:35

jasonwryan wrote:

Almost all of the "issues" on these boards are one form of PEBKAC or another.*

For some reason i always read IPECAC when someone writes that, but i guess the connotation is the same...

jgreen1tc · 2012-02-01 19:40:18

Since my goal in using arch isn't to make as many people use arch as possible, I found the blog slightly entertaining, even though I had already made up my mind. Good to see someone else's opinion.

Edit: autocorrect errors

Last edited by jgreen1tc (2012-02-01 19:40:53)

marxav · 2012-02-01 19:53:27

Two days ago I made an install through PXE, for the first time, on an Acer netbook. And let me tell you, I was extremelly impressed how installing Arch can be smooth. I could hardly believe it.

blackout23 · 2012-02-13 11:44:08

I just had a wonderful arch moment this morning. Yesterday I decided to not run the whole pacman -Syu but update some of the outdated packages manually with pacman -S grep for example. I'm having a bandwidth limit when I'm at university so I didn't want to download everything. At first everything looked like it worked like a charm.

This morning udev posted some errors during boot up related with grep. Result was that no moduls were loaded and I could not use my touchpad and keyboard and gnome login manager started in fallback mode. After a few minutes I decieded to add "ro 3" to my Kernel Line in syslinux so I would boot to console. So I logged in and tried to run pacman -Syu but this didn't work because it couldn't resolve the hostname. I realized that I would have to load "forcedeth" my nvidia ethernet module manually. So I added it to Modules in rc.conf and restarted. This time I could run pacman -Syu and restart with everything beeing back to normal.

The only reason I was able to tackle this problem was, because Arch requires you to learn the basics of linux. It might take a few weeks until you understand why and how everything works but you will get so much more out of your OS in return. With every other OS I would have probably just formated and reinstalled everything lossing all my data.

kc3 · 2012-02-28 17:24:02

Oh Linux Today, such a dissapointment lol, well the guy is just tried to get people prepared for it I guess. I remember first time I attempted an install of Arch I was a little intimidated (it's one thing to use the terminal to setup your computer, it's another to *only* be able to use the terminal) and switched right back to my old Ubuntu install, I first started with Mandrake, switched back to Windows than to Ubuntu a number of years later. The install is why I went from Ubuntu to Slackware BUT after I got it figured out an Arch install really doesn't take all that long, it's completely worth it

Bellum · 2012-02-28 20:07:20

Eh, seems fair to me. It wasn't supposed to be a full in-depth review, just potental arch gotchas.

Arch Linux

#1 2012-01-30 23:47:38

On switching to arch linux

#2 2012-01-31 00:08:50

Re: On switching to arch linux

#3 2012-01-31 00:18:28

Re: On switching to arch linux

#4 2012-01-31 01:06:32

Re: On switching to arch linux

#5 2012-01-31 01:26:26

Re: On switching to arch linux

#6 2012-01-31 01:37:50

Re: On switching to arch linux

#7 2012-01-31 02:26:22

Re: On switching to arch linux

#8 2012-01-31 02:46:31

Re: On switching to arch linux

#9 2012-01-31 03:10:22

Re: On switching to arch linux

#10 2012-01-31 04:00:22

Re: On switching to arch linux

#11 2012-01-31 04:11:14

Re: On switching to arch linux

#12 2012-01-31 09:49:21

Re: On switching to arch linux

#13 2012-01-31 09:53:35

Re: On switching to arch linux

#14 2012-01-31 10:06:12

Re: On switching to arch linux

#15 2012-01-31 10:19:17

Re: On switching to arch linux

#16 2012-01-31 18:10:58

Re: On switching to arch linux

#17 2012-01-31 20:09:42

Re: On switching to arch linux

#18 2012-01-31 20:18:35

Re: On switching to arch linux

#19 2012-02-01 19:40:18

Re: On switching to arch linux

#20 2012-02-01 19:53:27

Re: On switching to arch linux

#21 2012-02-13 11:44:08

Re: On switching to arch linux

#22 2012-02-28 17:24:02

Re: On switching to arch linux

#23 2012-02-28 20:07:20

Re: On switching to arch linux

Board footer