The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

elieobeid7 · 2013-09-23 16:50:35

My download speed is about 1 MB/s, it decreases as you download, in few months from now I'm subscribing to new ISP, which should give me about 3 to 5 MB/s.

About one year ago, i wanted to try Arch, so i installed Archbang upgraded packman, it messed my wireless drivers, I could no longer connect to internet , i came here for help and the users told me: "Archbang is not Arch, install Arch and then Comeback and we'll help you. Besides (some users said) it is not recommended to install arch if you have a slow connection (or something like that, I can't locate the thread because the admins deleted it)".

Last Friday, i met a friend, we're both computer sciences students, so we had a small chat, he asked me what OS i have, and i said windows 7 and crunchbang (which is a debian weezy distro, isn't wheezy a rolling release as well?), and he said he has parabola which is an arch distro, so i asked him how is he able to use arch, in our country the ISP give us shitty internet speed. And he said he has 100kb download speed. I was shocked!

As it happens my windows 7 needs to be formatted, and I'm not feeling like formatting and reinstalling everything, and i lost the love for crunchbang, so i'm thinking of removing everything and installing Arch, not another distro, the real deal Arch, otherwise you won't help me, I learnt my lesson, because i like the adventure of installing it.

But the question that I'm concerned about, is there any chance that arch upgrade will mess up my system? Is the risk too high or is it worth trying?

lagagnon · 2013-09-23 16:57:55

I guess you have to decide how often you need or want to upgrade Arch. As it is a rolling distro you can upgrade at any time, but the general consensus is that "arch does not like to be ignored". In other words, it is better to upgrade frequently rather than infrequently.

Obviously the fewer packages you have installed the quicker the upgrades. Also, you obviously can be doing other things while pacman upgrades.

However, if your sole concern is that the upgrade process will be too slow for you then you are probably better off to stick with a distro that does not need constant upgrading - for instance Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.

2ManyDogs · 2013-09-23 18:24:43

elieobeid7 wrote:

i said windows 7 and crunchbang (which is a debian weezy distro, isn't wheezy a rolling release as well?)

No, Debian Wheezy is not a rolling release. Debian sid is an rolling release. There is some disagreement about whether Debian Testing is a rolling release, so I won't get into that here.

If you do decide to install Arch, please don't try to implement some kind of unattended upgrade process because your internet connection is so slow. Unattended upgrades are a recipe for disaster. You can download packages without user intervention, but at some point you need to look at what's happening and make some decisions.

Last edited by 2ManyDogs (2013-09-23 18:26:43)

drcouzelis · 2013-09-23 19:26:34

elieobeid7 wrote:

My download speed is about 1 MB/s, it decreases as you download, in few months from now I'm subscribing to new ISP, which should give me about 3 to 5 MB/s.

That is plenty fast enough. I'm in the US and my Internet speed is between 0 and 1.5 Mbps, and it's never bothered me. If I could get a slower speed for a cheaper price then I would.

But the question that I'm concerned about, is there any chance that arch upgrade will mess up my system? Is the risk too high or is it worth trying?

What do you mean by "mess up my system"? I've been using the same Arch Linux installation for four years now. Just read the news on archlinux.org, look at the names of the packages that are being upgraded before you install them, make sure you have time to fix / downgrade packages in the rare case that an update breaks your computer (don't upgrade if you don't have time to work on it), and always merge ".pacnew" files.

Zamajalo · 2013-09-23 20:37:30

I was using Arch on 512kbps connection around 2008 or 2009, I don't remember well, with no problems... Even did a full network install Downloading stuff was slow, but you can survive.

As for updates... I am updating my system on a daily basis (I think I never had update bigger than 100-120MB, after all those years using Arch), and I'm doing like that for years... Never got messed up system (just follow the announcements and read package output) and never had greater problem than reconfiguring Xorg or changing conf file or two. As drcouzelis said, make sure you have time to play in case upgrade creates mess and control pacnew files. My advice is to keep old packages in cache for some period if you can, just in case something goes wrong with newer version.

Trilby · 2013-09-23 20:49:50

elieobeid7 wrote:

My download speed is about 1 MB/s ... which should give me about 3 to 5 MB/s.
... But the question that I'm concerned about, is there any chance that arch upgrade will mess up my system? Is the risk too high or is it worth trying?

Do you mean 1Mb/s and 3-5Mb/s, or do you really mean MB/s (megabits, or megabytes per second?) If it really is 1 MB/s then that speed will be no issue at all. Even if you do mean Mb/s, then - as indicated above - this should still not be an issue, but it may not be the most convenient for the initial net-install, but go for a cup of coffee and let it do its thing (note: this is for the download stage of the net install, not regular updates).

As for your direct questions, arch is a rolling release, as such issues can periodically be expected with some updates. Expect breakage. But with this great community, you can also expect fixage (there's a fun new word). As long as you stay on top of updates there will never be much to download in any single update, and any issues will be easy to fix before they cause any real headaches. But if you can't work with an occasional issue to have to patch up, then arch is not the right choice.

I use arch as my sole OS on all my computers, including a work computer which is absolutely necessary for my work. But I've also accepted the responsibility of maintaining my systems while learning about what is going on in them. I've never had an issue that wasn't very quickly solved - but there are ample bumps along the way that a user who wants it to "Just work" would likely be very unsatisfied.

So in short: expect breakage; expect fixage.

sekret · 2013-09-23 20:55:50

*lol* You think THAT is slow

Last edited by sekret (2013-09-23 20:56:13)

frank604 · 2013-09-23 22:08:37

There will be some updates that require user intervention/manual process. There will be some updates that bring a new version of foo.package which introduces a bug requiring you to downgrade foo.package. However, there are plenty of threads/replies about maintaining arch and what it will take so I won't repeat since you can google for that stuff.

Your internet connection seems to be a minor issue depending on perspective. As to your question if arch is too risky or worth it, the only one who can answer that for you is yourself.

Just do it and experience it, at least in virtualbox first. Good luck and fire away!

jasonwryan · 2013-09-23 22:17:46

Merging with the Should I Go Arch thread...

Texas · 2013-09-23 22:55:13

satanselbow wrote:

andmars wrote:
Follow the Beginner's Guide and you'll be fine - it's what it is there for

Yes. May the wiki be with you.

Kolt Penny · 2013-09-24 05:46:08

I've been using Manjaro for less than two weeks, despite that, I already installed and uninstalled a lot of programs and made some minor tweaks here and there but I feel that it came with too much installed and it didn't give me the possibility to do a lot of stuff, plus, it came with a lot of software I don't recognize, such as Qt4 a suite. I'm not an expert in Linux but I've always been a fast learner and catch up real quick with software whereabouts. Is Arch a distro for me? (I already run it once in a VM and really liked it but I didn't have the time to give it a full try at that time).

karol · 2013-09-24 05:46:58

See https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=159877

jasonwryan · 2013-09-24 06:04:35

Merging...

jpenguin · 2013-10-06 00:57:46

I still use kubuntu on my school lappy, but have arch on my desktop annd love it! The install was really easy (used cfdisk + mkfs) and the only distro that let me use f2fs for root

allgood38 · 2013-11-04 01:09:12

Arch linux is the first distribution I'ved used that Ifeel gets better over time. As in it doesn't slowly become slower over time like windows always seemed to. I can't wait until a few years from now when I can brag about not having to reinstall the distribution.

Whats more, the flexibility of the PKGBUILD system is incredible! I've never had a doubt that there is any software I can't get working for my arch set up.

mrbadura · 2013-11-04 13:15:06

Arch Linux is Best Linux.

I have it running on my file server, my raspberry pi, my phone, and most recently, my chromebook(natively with SeaBios hack), which i use for mobile audio recording/editing in Ardour, with full jack support using cadence and the rest of the kxstudio suite. it's made my modest C7 into a true workhorse. Best of all I've been able to maintain a high level of stability.

chuckiv · 2013-11-09 03:17:59

I know this is troll bait but I'm going to have to say that after trying 20+ distros that Arch really is the best. Ubuntu has too much bloat that you have no idea what its doing and bugs arise and its hard to pin down the cause because only god knows what the hell process is doing what. On Arch I know EXACTLY what my computer is doing, at all times. Also, the Ubuntu forums is filled with the blind leading the blind. After copy/pasting a few commands I was f*cked. Never have I had anything on an Arch wiki or forum lead me astray. I'm still a total noob and I just followed the Arch beginners install guide and had kde up and running in a couple hours. And I have no idea what I did I simply followed instructions and googled if I hit a wall.

But you know what, the extra time it took to install Arch is nothing compared to all the time I wasted with other distros.

I would really like to see this reputation for Arch being for "experts" only changed. But perhaps the Arch community enjoys feeling elitist?

It is my strong belief that people wanting to try linux should START with Arch. The beginners install guide can be trimmed all the way down to a few commands devoid of explanation and get anybody up and running without too much trouble. Honest to god I had more trouble setting the time on my VCR back in the day than installing Arch. It's not that hard and what is happening is that all these distros aimed at the average joe is putting a bad taste in peoples mouths and a lot of people just give up on linux before getting to Arch.

My initial experience with linux left me feeling that it was buggy and incomplete and not cutting edge and well thats just the way it is with open source, it cant be as good as a commercial product. It's just for the nerds and the tinkerers.

But Arch is bleeding edge AND super stable. I would really like to see Arch branded as the goto linux distro for ANYBODY that wants simply the best. It doesnt have to be just for experts or geeks. ANYBODY wanting THE BEST should just go straight to Arch.

And I cant even fathom the amount of Ubuntu users that think Arch is beyond them when in fact they are only a misperception away. Sure an ubuntu install is click click click but if copying a few commands in a terminal makes me an expert linux user then I have to lolz. I dont really see how Arch is any more difficult than Ubuntu. In fact I found Ubuntu more difficult because unity is a pretty complex beast. Sure it was easy to install but Arch was easier to customize by far.

WonderWoofy · 2013-11-09 03:40:06

chuckiv wrote:

The beginners install guide can be trimmed all the way down to a few commands devoid of explanation and get anybody up and running without too much trouble.

This is exactly what we don't want. You can seriously fuck your installation up by blindly issuing commands that you are copying and pasting. The idea of Arch being for competent Linux users (notice I didn't say "experts") is that you either know your way around a Linux system a little or you are incredibly willing to learn. It is the hope that by using Arch Linux for a while, newer users will start to gain an understating of what they are doing.

chuckiv · 2013-11-09 05:07:04

Oh come on theres no real harm in messing up an install. I think I'm going to type up an install guide for x86_64 EFI that probably 90% of people can blindly follow on a machine that isnt ancient. I will call it Arch install for dummies. I'm sure people will love it, and I hope that we can change this perception that funnels all the new linux users to Ubuntu because Arch is "too difficult"

WonderWoofy · 2013-11-09 05:22:12

You're missing the point. It is not really terrible to screw up an install for many people. But having no desire to drive to understand what you are doing is undoubtedly going to get you into trouble with Arch Linux. If you (or anyone else) continues to blindly copy and paste instructions like that is going to break something eventually. For some, their machine is a means to an end, and breakage isn't something that they can afford to happen at any given time.

I think that leading people down that path is actually potentially doing them more harm than good. For some it may be the case that they get their feet wet and want to learn more, and those are the ones who will find success. But for those who have the expectation that they are going to be able to administer an Arch Linux system like they do ubuntu are going to fail.

This is like those that we see around here who are so excited to have installed Arch Linux and this it is so great that they install it for all their friends. Part of understanding how your system works, and therefore how to fix it, is by going through the process yourself. You are simply taking away the potential to learn from those "users".

Edit: Besides, the people who write those types of guides tend to be the ones who don't have a great understanding of their system, so are typically not a good idea to follow in the first place. You complain about the "blind leading the blind" in the ubuntu forums, but you come here and attempt to perpetuate the same.

Last edited by WonderWoofy (2013-11-09 05:23:50)

chuckiv · 2013-11-09 06:09:08

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_Guide

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide

so you are claiming that these are not good to follow?

All people need are simple install instructions and pacman/yaourt cheat sheet really. Sorry to burst your bubble but it's not rocket science.

WonderWoofy · 2013-11-09 06:17:18

chuckiv wrote:

so you are claiming that these are not good to follow?

I think I'm going to type up an install guide for x86_64 EFI that probably 90% of people can blindly follow on a machine that isnt ancient. I will call it Arch install for dummies.

No. I am claiming that your proposed "Arch install for dummies" is not good to follow.

I know this is troll bait...

Sorry to burst your bubble but it's not rocket science.

It would seem that came here to troll....

chuckiv · 2013-11-09 06:34:37

my guide would be same as those but assuming x86_64 and EFI and just telling the user how to partition

my point was that Arch would be a much better experience for first time linux users than Ubuntu

It actually feels like a finished product. And a lot of that credit does go to KDE really. But the whole Ubuntu/Unity experience I have seen turn several people away from linux completely that used to be very interested. And its a shame that they never tried Arch because it was perceived as not for beginners.

WonderWoofy · 2013-11-09 06:52:10

If you hang around these forums for a bit, you will see that beginners are more than welcome. We have a newbie corner and everything. The problem arises when beginners come with the idea that asking for help here is going to be like asking for help on the ubuntu forums. We don't hold hands here, we don't spoon feed info. If a user comes here with the strong desire to learn and shows that they are making a serious effort at working towards understanding their system, the community will happily guide them in the right direction.

From what you have posted so far, you first mention that installing Arch is not hard because you can just about copy and paste the commands. You mention that the beginners guide could be "trimmed down to a few commands devoid of explanations". Then you mention that you are going to make an install guide for dummies.

Do you see why I would think this is a bad idea with a system that doesn't make any promises to hold your hand?

ewaller · 2013-11-09 15:42:51

Okay guys, this is starting to sound like Gulliver's travels; two kingdoms agree that soft boiled eggs are great for breakfast, and then go to war over whether it is proper to open the egg from the big end, or the little end [Which, by the way, is the source of the terms big-endian and little-endian where it came to the battle over byte order in memory, but I digress]

We all like Arch. It is no more difficult than any other Distribution to install, but it requires research.
Beginners are welcome here.
Users new and old will get told what to do if they fail to show initiative.
All support effort is welcome, even in the form of a new guide.
Support here is going to refer people to the official documentation; it is the only documentation we can ensure is correct.

Back to our original Arch is Best thread....

Last edited by ewaller (2013-11-09 15:44:47)

Arch Linux

#826 2013-09-23 16:50:35

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#827 2013-09-23 16:57:55

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#828 2013-09-23 18:24:43

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#829 2013-09-23 19:26:34

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#830 2013-09-23 20:37:30

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#831 2013-09-23 20:49:50

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#832 2013-09-23 20:55:50

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#833 2013-09-23 22:08:37

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#834 2013-09-23 22:17:46

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#835 2013-09-23 22:55:13

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#836 2013-09-24 05:46:08

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#837 2013-09-24 05:46:58

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#838 2013-09-24 06:04:35

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#839 2013-10-06 00:57:46

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#840 2013-11-04 01:09:12

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#841 2013-11-04 13:15:06

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#842 2013-11-09 03:17:59

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#843 2013-11-09 03:40:06

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#844 2013-11-09 05:07:04

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#845 2013-11-09 05:22:12

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#846 2013-11-09 06:09:08

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#847 2013-11-09 06:17:18

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#848 2013-11-09 06:34:37

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#849 2013-11-09 06:52:10

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#850 2013-11-09 15:42:51

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

Board footer