The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

chuckiv · 2013-11-22 18:33:21

People don't need to neccessarily understand how something works to use it. For example, if you buy a drill you can just plug it in and start drilling. You don't need to read the documentation or learn about mechanics. While it is ADVISABLE to read the manual, and doing so will make you a more powerful educated tool-weilder, it shouldn't be a built-in philosophy. Arch has made reading the manual a built-in philosophy and that is why people new to linux stay away from it.

Ubuntu makes it very easy for people to get linux up and running right away. It is noob-friendly, and this has helped popularize linux a great deal. However, it also sucks, and so it repels as much as it attracts. It brings tons of new users to linux, and then gets rid of them forever. Most never try linux again.

It is my simple wish that Arch becomes the first linux that people try. It feels like a finished product rather than something continually in development. It can compete with windows and mac and be a viable alternative for the general masses and not just something for geeks to have nerdgasms over. All that is missing is a simple graphic installer. Something a total dummy can use to get Arch up and running.

And once they are up and running, you can still promote your philosophy of learning. Just don't make it a pre-requisite for the course. Right now it's a catch-22. To use Arch you need to learn about linux but to learn about linux you need to use Arch. So all the people interested in linux go to Ubuntu, maybe try a few other main distros too, then quit. Most don't get to Arch because it has this nasty problem of perception that it's only for experts.

I have been on linux for less than a year now and I know lots of people that have been using it for 5-10 years and I can't talk them into trying Arch because they THINK it's too hard. I tell them it's not too hard, I'm a total noob and I did it, and you can too. But they are just like ehhhhh sounds like a headache I would rather just stick with xubuntu or kubuntu or whatever. So there is a huge gap between the common perception of Arch and the reality that I hope to see change in the future.

Neburski · 2013-11-23 17:54:57

chuckiv wrote:

It brings tons of new users to linux, and then gets rid of them forever. Most never try linux again.

chuckiv wrote:

So all the people interested in linux go to Ubuntu, maybe try a few other main distros too, then quit.

When people make claims like that then they're suposed to back them up with statistics or else just don't mention them.

chuckiv wrote:

It is my simple wish that Arch becomes the first linux that people try.

If it's your wish then go out and promote it to as many people as you can, don't push the work required to make your wish come true onto other people.

chuckiv wrote:

Arch has made reading the manual a built-in philosophy and that is why people new to linux stay away from it.

So what? Go read https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way , that's the philosophy for Arch and neither you (with your year of experience in Linux) nor me (~10 years of experience with Linux) have any right to tell the Arch maintainers what they need to do.

chuckiv wrote:

All that is missing is a simple graphic installer. Something a total dummy can use to get Arch up and running.

Why don't you make it yourself? Do you intend it to just install the base system or also install additional software packages to add the functionality you deem necessary? Obviously just the base system is kind of pointless because if the total dummy can't even get the base system up and running without the GUI installer then what is he going to do with an up and running Arch base system that has no GUI interface at all? If you believe the installer should offer additional software packages to be installed then what will you offer? Will you take away the immense choice an Arch base system offers you by only supporting particular packages (KDE, Gnome, ...) or will you make it nearly impossible for the dummy to actually get a decent Arch system installed by "supporting" all packages?

chuckiv wrote:

I have been on linux for less than a year now and I know lots of people that have been using it for 5-10 years and I can't talk them into trying Arch because they THINK it's too hard. But they are just like ehhhhh sounds like a headache I would rather just stick with xubuntu or kubuntu or whatever.

You seem to be under the impression that Arch is ideal for everyone, it's not. Arch is ideal for the people who like to build their own operating system without doing it in the Gentoo (compile everything yourself) or LFS (literally build everything from the ground up) style. A bleeding edge rolling release OS like Arch can be a serious headache for people who simply want their software to work and don't want to spend time figuring out the occasional package breakage so they know what they need to roll back.

My 'Arch Linux, Best Linux':

Choice, aside from the base packages I choose what will get installed and nothing else
Up to date packages in the repositories, no waiting for months/years for a particulare package to update to a more recent version.
No major upgrades once every 6 months that will inevitably break a bunch stuff, I prefer the rolling release so that breakage is usually minimal and easily fixed by a quick roll back.
Great Wiki documentation.

teateawhy · 2013-11-23 18:38:52

@ chuckiv That is not my opinion at all, and i think Neburski has already pointed this out very well.

chuckiv wrote:

It is my simple wish that Arch becomes the first linux that people try. It feels like a finished product rather than something continually in development.

arch linux is a rolling release distribution, and therefore continually in development. The amount of contribution to arch convinces me, that also the distribution itself is far from beeing "finished".
Also arch linux is not a product.

keepitsimpleengineer · 2013-11-24 01:05:56

IMHO, Archlinux's greatest feature is it's lack of boundaries, fostering growth and development limited only by the users abilities, and providing a terrific environment for that.

Archlinux is unlike like some other distributions in pursuit of the ubiquitous, plentiful, occasionally whimsical dilettante computer user with "appliance" thinking, where the decisions made for ease•of•use and such narrow down and construct boundaries.

I use dilettante in the strict and positive sense. To wit: a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge. Some of these dilettantes are very bright and committed to other things, and I learn from them in such areas as brain surgery, space exploration, paranormal, &c, where I am definitely the dilettante.

Retired now and in regular daily contact with newbies (as it were) has brought this idea home.

I now enjoy both the Archlinux community, and especially enjoy having systems perform extremely well that support what my friends call my "idiot•syncrasies" (aka hobbies and pastimes). ⇛ The Arch Way

chuckiv · 2013-11-24 04:20:39

why so defensive and confrontational guys? lol don't take things too seriously, life is short

i'm not a programmer but if i was i would make the same type of simple graphic installer as other main distros with options for gnome and kde and xfce or whatever. keep it simple and have a walkthrough explain how to use pacman and yaourt to customize your system and add extra features

i know that "technically" Arch is not stable, but in reality, it really is. It's wayyyy more stable than ubuntu fo shizzle ;p
and windows isnt a rolling release but it sure as hell feels like it with all the updates, security patches, etc. not to mention how easy it is to get viruses and have all kinds of issues that the user cant fix on their own without doing just as much research as is required to maintain an arch system

it's time to stop thinking of arch or linux as something that is just for fun to tinker with. it CAN BE an amazing "product" and can be ideal for everyone and can be delivered better than it is now

but hey thats my opinion and you all have yours, theres really no point in quoting eachother and arguing over it. give it a rest

oh, and, of course, Arch is the best!

Last edited by chuckiv (2013-11-24 04:29:27)

digitally404 · 2013-11-24 13:00:31

Thank you to all the contributors and maintainers of Arch Linux!

I just downloaded and installed this distro the other day after mulling it over for a week or so. I wanted to expland my linux flavours after experiencing CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, and Mint.

I've got to say, I was a little leery of arch and it's "minimalistic base install mantra", but after running through the very well written and full documented Beginner's Guide (not to mention all the other well documented wikis!), I'm happy to say that I have a configured system EXACTLY how I use it. No extra fluff, and it runs very snappy

In the processs I've learned a lot more about linux than I knew before... This, I'm also thankful for

Thus far, I'm very impressed, especially with pacman. I believe I'm an official convert, and I'll likely be arching for years to come.

Thanks again to all arch contributors!

My life has just been made that much better

Last edited by digitally404 (2013-11-24 13:03:18)

Gulver · 2013-11-25 08:06:36

"Arch, the Edgiest Linux" is probably the most fit slogan. Go go arch

shaunsingh14 · 2013-12-12 04:05:10

It seems like every time I take a hiatus from Arch Linux, I end up spending five hours to get everything up and running with varying degrees of success. I was 14 when I heard about Arch Linux, 15 when I started experimenting with it, and 17 when I started taking it seriously.

* ?? June, 2011 (first time messing with Arch): I was on Debian 6.0 and I was trying to get an Arch system up and running on VirtualBox. Unfortunately, I basically just copy/pasted instructions from the wiki with no real consideration for what I was doing. I did get up to installing X11, however I just installed LXDE and just called it a day. The next day, when I booted that VM and initialised X . . . nothing happened. I ragequit at that point and just went back to my Debian installation. A few times after that, I tried doing a netinstall on VirtualBox but the installation medium kept giving me errors (I think this was when linux-3.x finally entered [core].). So I just abandoned the idea after that for a while.

* Late December 2011 to early January 2012 (Christmas break; first time I had a fully-functional Arch installation with a GUI and everything): I watched a distro review on YouTube out of sheer boredom and then I decided to actually give it a shot at this point. I went down to the library, printed out a copy of the Beginner's Guide, and burned a new installation medium. I had to do some checking around because my wireless adapter (at the time) required proprietary firmware (rt2800usb; I believe the wiki mentioned that the module was integrated into the kernel following the 3.x upgrade). I started the base install at 6am, and after 5-10 minutes I had the base install working (man, I miss the AIF ). I ended up wasting a lot of time backtracking and doing the same things over and over again because of a failure to read the Beginner's Guide thoroughly. I skimmed through portions of it and screwed up multiple times editing files and entering commands. When I finally realised my errors, my base system was borked to high heaven (Although I miss rc.conf, I do NOT miss the nit-picky daemon load order). So I re-formatted everything, re-installed the base system, and then finally paid close attention to everything that the Beginner's Guide had which applied to me. After all that was taken care of, it ended up only costing me around 30 minutes (compared to the 3 hours and 45 minutes spent before). By the time the 5-hour mark passed, I had GNOME and NetworkManager running. I took care of Firefox, LibreOffice, browser plugins, and such the next day. I ended up going to sleep after that.

* 09 December 2013: It's been a while since I was last involved in anything Arch-related. Around August of 2012, I bought a laptop and I ended up completely neglecting my Arch install on my previous PC. Around January/February-ish, I tried migrating my bootloader from GRUB Legacy to GRUB 2.0 just because I was feeling reckless. Unfortunately . . . I forgot that I haven't updated my Arch install in almost six months. So when I had GRUB up and running, I borked my system (a culmination of many issues, the primary one being that I never migrated to systemd). So I just used a Linux Mint 12 disc I had lying around to install that, then upgraded to 13 from there. Recently, my laptop's screen frame ended up breaking so I decided to send it to the shop. So while I'm waiting on a new frame to be delivered to the shop, I ended up going back to my Mint machine. I got nostalgic, so I decided to re-install Arch. Printed out a new copy of the Beginner's Guide, then went on with Parabola since I had a new wireless adapter shipped which was "freedom-friendly." Once again, I wasted 5 hours. The Arch scripts weren't as daunting as I thought they were, so they weren't the cause of my delays. This time it was over pacman-key failing to recognise one package. It took me about 2 hours to realise I just had to refresh the keys . . . . After all that was taken care of, the rest of my delays were caused by the lack of local mirrors. Eventually, I had Parabola up and running with GNOME and everything. I ended up getting sick of Parabola (mostly because of the lack of local mirrors) and went with a regular Arch install. Strangely enough, I ended up wasting ANOTHER 5 hours but this time it wasn't over a failure to RTFM, but this time it was over a GRUB package issue (something I never had an issue with in Parabola). I kept getting syntax issues when I tried to generate grub.cfg. I installed syslinux over GRUB at that point, got a basic LXDE environment going, and then decided to peruse the forums to see if anyone else got the same issues I had. Thankfully, I wasn't the only one, so I took note of the known workaround, and then reinstalled everything again THIS TIME, with no errors.

***

All of my experiences aside, I truly do enjoy Arch Linux. Outside of Slackware, Arch would probably be the closest to what I would consider a completely "default" GNU/Linux system. I love the level of control that I have compared to Mint (which is actually quite nice, because getting an administrative task taken care of without a GUI was the logical equivalent of trying to find a straw of hay in a needle stack). The rolling release model also never ceases to amaze me (GNOME shell has come quite a long way), and I REALLY missed the AUR/yaourt. Pacman > dpkg/apt/apt-get/aptitude/Synaptic any day in my book. I also really missed that rewarding feeling of fixing something that went awry. I need an element of unpredictability. Sure, I'll hate it when I have to go into system configuration files or go with a dirty workaroundin the short term, but in the long run, it keeps my system administration skills from completely dying down. Systems like Slackware, Debian, et al. just work WAY too well for my taste and in the case of Debian (and derivatives thereof), if something goes horribly wrong . . . it's next to impossible to fix. On Arch, the transparency of the system really makes it easy to take care of system problems should they ever arise (and they usually do arise every one to two months).

In other words . . . Arch Linux is the perfect backdrop to the utter chaos that GNU/Linux was spawned from.

(suggestion for admins: "Master Archer" for forum rank pls)

Arakis · 2013-12-20 12:12:00

My way to arch:

In February this year, i tried Arch for the first time. I got it up without problems, but i had huge problems with my tripple monitors and two graphic cards (2 monitors --> card1, 1 monitor card2). And even the RDP-client sucked (maybe my fault), and even sound was a problem (creative x-fi). After some days, i gave it up and rolled back to my windows installation.

But than the hate to windows become bigger and bigger (with the release of win8 and the microsoft busines plan), i gave it another try in august. My strict rule: Even if nothing works correctly, try to stay at least 14 days without windows. That was hard 14 days. But i was successfull. I got "everything" to work now (i connected now all three monitors to one card). Now, i understood most of the internal things, and can even execute complex tasks in arch. I even wrote an own AUR package ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/autologin-on-boot/ ). I want never change back to windows (where its possible). The only software i still use in a virtual box is Visual Studio for C#/Mono development (sorry, MonoDevelop is not powerfull enough) and Financial Accounting software (there is no "good" software for linux, for german financial accounting, that has customization for german financial/taxial rules/laws).

Since August, an update brokes my Arch installation 3 times: grub update (bug), systemd (my own fault, wrong fstab) and "no input for mouse/keybaord" on my netbook(i needed to reinstalled it...).

Now, i'm using Arch
- on my main computer
- my raspberry pi chess computer ( https://github.com/Arakis/TamaniChess )
- my netbook (i'm using when i'm at the customers)
- my whifes notebook
- my data server
- my webserver (live/production)
- main computer at one customer of me (wants only surf in the internet, and using skype).
- VPN-Dialin virtualbox at onother customer
- i brought two brothers away from windows, now to arch
--> one is able to maintain it himself
--> the other has got a "ready to use" installation of me - he's missing "nothing", expect some windows games (but 50% of them are running via wine)

And the best: My neigbours wanted to give their netbook away (with win7): It was "sooooo slow". I installed them an ready to use arch (i simply mirrored my arch main installation via rsync), and now they are absolutly happy. Its absoluty fast, and even their child have fun with child learning apps like http://gcompris.net/index-en.html

I hope, i will bring a lot of more people to arch

Greetings,
Sebastian

Last edited by Arakis (2013-12-20 12:16:53)

mrunion · 2013-12-20 13:16:37

Welcome aboard, Arakis! Kudos to your persistence!

ggeo · 2013-12-30 17:12:30

Hello,

I wanted to ask.
I use sabayon linux whicj is rolling distro.And I use KDE.
If I use arch linux will I get some other advantages?Because I will again use KDE.
We say that arch is light and fast distro.But I will install a lot of packages (and as I said KDE) .Will I have any differences from using sabayon?

Thank you!

drcouzelis · 2013-12-30 17:27:56

You can decide for yourself. You already know about Sabayon Linux. Just read about Arch Linux and maybe try it for yourself. Also, Arch Linux works great in VirtualBox.

You can read about Arch Linux compared to other operating systems here:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … tributions

Is there a reason you want to stop using Sabayon Linux? Is there something you don't like about it?

jasonwryan · 2013-12-30 17:37:01

Merging with the 'Should I Go Arch?' thread...

ggeo · 2013-12-30 17:57:48

Is there a reason you want to stop using Sabayon Linux? Is there something you don't like about it?

I am about to buy a laptop and I just wanted to try sth else.Generally,I am satisfied with sabayon but what if arch is more fast for example?

Inxsible · 2013-12-30 18:52:52

ggeo wrote:

I am about to buy a laptop and I just wanted to try sth else.Generally,I am satisfied with sabayon but what if arch is more fast for example?

Don't change something that you are satisfied with. "More fast" is subjective --- as compared to what??

ggeo · 2013-12-30 19:48:59

Don't change something that you are satisfied with. "More fast" is subjective --- as compared to what??

That is what I am thinking.Also , I was just thinking of using sth else.
But as I can see ,installing some packages (that are not in repositories) needs additional work.And I think I don't have the time for this right now..

MALsPa · 2013-12-30 20:23:22

ggeo wrote:

I use sabayon linux whicj is rolling distro.And I use KDE.
If I use arch linux will I get some other advantages?Because I will again use KDE.
We say that arch is light and fast distro.But I will install a lot of packages (and as I said KDE) .Will I have any differences from using sabayon?

I'm running both distros here. One thing that stands out, updates with pacman are a lot faster than with Entropy (equo commands, Rigo). On the other hand, you'll probably have to get used to the AUR if you want to be installing a lot of packages in Arch. Both are great distros, and both can be fast -- for example, I use Fluxbox a lot in Sabayon, so it's very light and fast in that case. I'd say I like Arch better right now, mainly because I like the package management better.

ggeo · 2013-12-30 20:40:19

I'm running both distros here. One thing that stands out, updates with pacman are a lot faster than with Entropy (equo commands, Rigo). On the other hand, you'll probably have to get used to the AUR if you want to be installing a lot of packages in Arch. Both are great distros, and both can be fast -- for example, I use Fluxbox a lot in Sabayon, so it's very light and fast in that case. I'd say I like Arch better right now, mainly because I like the package management better.

Thank you!You really answered to some of my thoughts.

drcouzelis · 2013-12-30 20:49:33

ggeo wrote:

But as I can see ,installing some packages (that are not in repositories) needs additional work.

That is not a good reason to not use Arch Linux. Most packages are in the main repositories. The few that aren't can be easily and quickly installed from the AUR (once you understand how to use it).

And I think I don't have the time for this right now..

That is a good reason not to use Arch Linux. Arch Linux takes a lot of time to learn.

ggeo · 2013-12-30 21:10:35

Thanks !

milesrout · 2014-01-16 10:20:35

I'll tell you right away why arch is best: it's really, really easy to add new packages without having to set up repos etc.

That's what's best. For those few packages that aren't in the AUR, you can use abs/makepkg/etc. with a handwritten PKGBUILD. You get dependency management, paksave'd stuff if/when you uninstall (I assume, I haven't tried this), the ability to uninstall at all, etc.

bishudash · 2014-01-27 21:24:49

Ill be honest. I dont like where most desktop environments are going these days. I switched to Arch because I do believe it should be simple and I do believe the computing experience should be more rewarding to people who invest time in gaining the knowledge and the patience to work with the system. Arch is the best for me because it let me understand more about the internals and helped to realize the potential to other types of environments like tiling managers and even today everyday I experiment with something new. I cant switch to any other OS unless I absolutely have to.

grandtheftjiujitsu · 2014-01-28 18:31:44

During my first install (about 6 months ago) I was pretty nervous because I had been using Mint for about a year and the idea of a cli-only install was completely mortifying. I most definitely copy and pasted everything from the wiki and had no idea what VirtualBox was, but I was up for a new challenge. However, since then it seems like I'm always researching on the wiki, $ man ...[something]..., or adding to my tinkering to-do list.

Sure, I still use a lot of GUIs and a Cinnamon DE, but the point is that one's setup with Arch is precisely the way they desire it to be -- it has to be, Arch makes you make it your own. After making plenty of bonehead moves and having to recover from them, I'm (usually) not afraid to grind things out in the console -- or at least poke and prod around to investigate things.

As far as The Arch Way - I'm all about openness and freedom; I find myself very irritated with other systems (even ones I've installed myself) that won't allow the kind of fine-tuning that Arch does. Of course, that leads back to being "user-centric." I don't know if I can fully say that I live up to the KISS principle, I plead guilty to taking the easy GUI road on somethings, but try to at least have a reason for doing so other that "I'm too lazy to figure out how this works...". However, it seems like I'm frequently looking for ways to simplify and de-clutter my configs. Learning is progress. Party on Wayne... Party on Arch!

eviljim · 2014-02-05 02:40:33

I had always distro-hopped among several Debian-based distros - Debian Lenny, Wheezy, Trisquel, Mint, Bohdhi, etc... and I realized that I was wasting a lot of time, just tweaking them. Using the installed base system was never good enough me... I always spent hours re-configuring things and installing/ uninstalling different File managers, window managers, terminal emulators, etc... I also started to get tired of the radical changes that were introduced in every major distro upgrade (Unity, Gnome 3, etc...). For some reason, the thought had never occurred to me to use anything other than a Debian or Ubuntu-based distro. I had become very comfortable with the apt package manger.

I had heard a lot about Arch Linux over the years because regardless of what distro you are are using, the Arch wiki is prbably the single most useful GNU/Linux resource on the web. I often found the answers that I needed there and I started to feel that maybe Arch was really worth looking into. I was a little intimidated by the installation (as most newbies are...). The idea of installing the bootloader seemed scary for some reason. So, I chickened out and installed ArchBang. I was immediately impressed by Pacman and loved having access to up-to-packages. I was also impressed by Archbang's speed and lightness.... but something just didn't feel right...

Then, I read The Arch Way and that was when I knew what I must do...

I took a day and just read the entire Beginner's Installation Guide and I booted the install medium a few times to practice the commands. The next day, I went ahead with the installation and 30 minutes later, I was running the "real" Arch. Then, about 20 minutes after that, I was running spectrwm and had most of my preferred base system completely set up. It was actually one of the quickest installations I have done. The only issues that I have had into were very minor and the answers were found in the Arch Wiki and/or Forums.

The irony, is that despite having to install everything from scratch, I have spent a lot less time tweaking my Arch system because I haven't had to undo someone else's configuration first. Is it possible that I have actually been freed from the life endless tweaking and tinkering?

...probably not

saif · 2014-02-08 18:38:04

Hello all...!

I am a linux newcomer and I enjoy spending tons of hours of my life installing new distros, and no, I am not doing it on a virtual machine. I am constantly formatting my main harddrive (thank god chrome sync, google drive and dropbox exist). Somehow I still enjoy it.

I have tried arch for the first time 4 years ago and I have to admit it was as harsh as rewarding to make a clean install out of it. Too bad once I was happy, I longed for games and had to go back to windows. Later, I have tried many distros just for fun and to escape a little bit from my pc videogames addiction. But while suffering different distros rigidness and not being able to fully exploit my somewhat mid-high end desktop, I ended back in windows, again and again.

These days I tried OpenSuse (one of the most I like, in fact), but over and over I step into silly problems that should have been resolved by now (such as eclipse sdk crashing on kde by default, xorg stability issues, hard-to-find common libraries, etc) and other things such as a lack of centralized solution center and community or a lack of centralized system configuration place, they were really tiny bits but together they were sufferable as one progressed deeper into adaptability and day to day usage, which forced me by time to roll over the rolling release and have tons of mixed repositories doing different things and having different versions of a library, while missing some others.

Cant review all of them here but another of the interesting distros I have tried recently was Debian, that one did grew up lastly. But it comes so late and old that it was a pain in the arse to get it working with my somehow new hardware. The old kernel and very, very stable repositories are great, but they are exaggeratedly outdated, realizing how fast are things progressing (from hardware to applications that need modern libraries in order to work properly).

But well, it was all a maneuver to still avoid my love-hate relationship with ol'good ARCH. Yes, there was Manjaro but im sticking with this philosophy, even if I was still under windows. So, after two or three whiskeys, I gathered courage to try the arch with the new systemctl modular service system, and as the night went on, things were amazingly rewarding. It was difficult to chose a DE, but considering I have moderately a good hardware, I couldn't stick to an old-looking boring environment, so I picked gnome 3. I know, its fancy but I am enjoying how clean my screen is. All I do is press the winD button and got everything in there, working flawlessly in a minimal customized setup.

One things I most enjoyed was installing xorg and videodrivers my self. Installing fglrx proprietary drivers from the first time directly from the terminal before running X the first time was one of the things I most enjoyed, it was the eureka moment when everything launched at first-shot. My powerful videocard makes it a little difficult for my consciousness since I am not playing games here, but I need to avoid it, and here linux is ready to serve (even though somehow steam is already installed on my new system). Then I learned how to untar files and build my packages, that was another huge eureka moment.

Now here I am, everything works so flawlessly I could stick into my monitor screen all day long. A centralized community, a customized installation and a package manager that rocks.

I hope to stay here for a while. Now I only need to learn programming in order to be able to contribute someday. Dunno where to start though...

Simply, ARCH keep it up
Saif

Arch Linux

#851 2013-11-22 18:33:21

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#852 2013-11-23 17:54:57

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#853 2013-11-23 18:38:52

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#854 2013-11-24 01:05:56

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#855 2013-11-24 04:20:39

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#856 2013-11-24 13:00:31

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#857 2013-11-25 08:06:36

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#858 2013-12-12 04:05:10

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#859 2013-12-20 12:12:00

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#860 2013-12-20 13:16:37

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#861 2013-12-30 17:12:30

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#862 2013-12-30 17:27:56

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#863 2013-12-30 17:37:01

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#864 2013-12-30 17:57:48

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#865 2013-12-30 18:52:52

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#866 2013-12-30 19:48:59

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#867 2013-12-30 20:23:22

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#868 2013-12-30 20:40:19

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#869 2013-12-30 20:49:33

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#870 2013-12-30 21:10:35

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#871 2014-01-16 10:20:35

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#872 2014-01-27 21:24:49

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#873 2014-01-28 18:31:44

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#874 2014-02-05 02:40:33

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

#875 2014-02-08 18:38:04

Re: The Official Unofficial 'Arch is Best' Thread

Board footer