You are not logged in.

#76 2013-12-30 20:40:19

ggeo
Member
Registered: 2013-12-30
Posts: 8

Re: Should I go Arch?

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.

Offline

#77 2013-12-30 20:49:33

drcouzelis
Member
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 3,523
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

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. smile

Offline

#78 2013-12-30 21:10:35

ggeo
Member
Registered: 2013-12-30
Posts: 8

Re: Should I go Arch?

Thanks ! smile

Offline

#79 2014-02-11 11:39:00

Henrikx
Member
From: https://bbs.archlinux.de/
Registered: 2014-02-06
Posts: 15

Re: Should I go Arch?

drcouzelis wrote:

Arch Linux takes a lot of time to learn. smile

The structure of Archlinux is very logical and therefore to learn well.
Example:
Package build - Arch vs Debian. ffmpeg / libav
PKGBUILD: Clear structure, easy to understand.
The learning effort is not very high.
https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit … ges/ffmpeg

Debian:
Ever tried a  to build a Debain package from a source file, with libs, devs, etc.

ffmpeg -Debian (dget -u http://packages.debian.org/de/wheezy/ff … .10-1.dsc)
http://packages.debian.org/de/wheezy/ffmpeg

More than 30 files!!

90 percent of Debian users have no idea of the package building.
Because it is too complicated and requires too much time to learn.
To understand Arch Linux takes less time..

Last edited by Henrikx (2014-02-11 11:42:42)

Offline

#80 2014-02-11 14:18:58

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,544

Re: Should I go Arch?

1. 90% of all Arch users have no clue how to write their own PKGBUILD either.
2. 10% of all Debian users probably are 100% or all Arch users (quantitatively).

Last edited by Awebb (2014-02-11 14:19:13)

Offline

#81 2014-02-11 16:10:59

Henrikx
Member
From: https://bbs.archlinux.de/
Registered: 2014-02-06
Posts: 15

Re: Should I go Arch?

I think you're wrong with : 90% of all Arch users have no clue how to write their own PKGBUILD either.

Online survey might give an answer...

Offline

#82 2014-02-11 16:28:04

drcouzelis
Member
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 3,523
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

Henrikx wrote:

I think you're wrong

It's OK, regardless of what percentage of users of what operating system know how to do what, your point is still valid: creating packages in Arch Linux is simpler than creating packagen in Debian.

Citation: It's easier for me. smile

Offline

#83 2014-02-12 17:11:21

sitquietly
Member
From: Moscow, Tennessee
Registered: 2010-07-12
Posts: 216

Re: Should I go Arch?

Henrikx wrote:

...The structure of Archlinux is very logical and therefore to learn well.
Example:
Package build - Arch vs Debian. ffmpeg / libav
PKGBUILD: Clear structure, easy to understand.
The learning effort is not very high.
https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit … ges/ffmpeg

Debian:
Ever tried a  to build a Debain package from a source file, with libs, devs, etc.

ffmpeg -Debian (dget -u http://packages.debian.org/de/wheezy/ff … .10-1.dsc)
http://packages.debian.org/de/wheezy/ffmpeg

More than 30 files!!...

I agree.  I nitpick once in a while in this forum at faults in the Arch packaging, but Arch Linux is built
on a strong base of decisions made by Judd Vinet (the original KISS principles). 

The only distro that can compete with Arch for "packaging sanity" is Gentoo.  The Gentoo libav
"source" package for libav-9.11 consists of a single file, the ebuild, consisting of only 316 lines (including
header and comments).  However Gentoo is not as straightforward (KISS) as Arch in that Gentoo
ebuilds hide a lot of complexity in their ebuild classes.  For example, that libav ebuild starts out with
a line

inherit eutils flag-o-matic multilib toolchain-funcs ${SCM}

 
I often find that in order to understand a Gentoo ebuild I have to read the ebuild class scripts
that it uses.  With Arch Linux there is neither hidden complexity nor apparent simplicity.  The mess
is right there in the PKGBUILD for the world to see.  big_smile

Last edited by sitquietly (2014-02-12 19:30:18)

Offline

#84 2014-02-13 10:59:11

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,544

Re: Should I go Arch?

As a sidenote, Debian seems to have decided to use systemd from now on (according to LWN), so "I dislike Fedora but want to use systemd" might be an oboslete reason to use Arch in the foreseable future.

Offline

#85 2014-02-15 08:59:36

od808
Member
Registered: 2014-02-15
Posts: 1

Re: Should I go Arch?

hello!

about a mounth ago i decided i want to dive into the linux world...
so i installed ubuntu,fedora and mint on a virtual box on my mac.
I tried to learn some terminal commands, install various applications, shell themes, conky etc… nothing really Serious, just figured out my way in the new os.    since then i ditched ubuntu and fedora and stayed with mint which was my favorite of the 3, very clean and "straight forward".
so by now i ended up with a nice desktop, that fits my needs and that is able to run my favorite programs but I don’t feel I really learnt something serious… I feel that I would like to go deeper.
I read about Arch, and it seems like this is the place where the real magic happens,
I know that arch is only recommended for experienced users, but I think that by installing arch by myself and customize it for my needs while encountering problems will force me to read more, try more and eventually learn more, does it make any sense?
Maybe im a linux "noobie" but im quiet experienced with windows and osx, and not afraid of
new things,  and since im going for a virtual machine nothing can really go wrong, apart from me wasting my own time.
What do you guys thing, is this a good idea?

Offline

#86 2014-02-15 09:15:15

jasonwryan
Forum & Wiki Admin
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 19,383
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

Merging with the "Should I Go Arch" thread...


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Github

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

#87 2014-02-15 12:10:45

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,544

Re: Should I go Arch?

Awebb wrote:

As a sidenote, Debian seems to have decided to use systemd from now on (according to LWN), so "I dislike Fedora but want to use systemd" might be an oboslete reason to use Arch in the foreseable future.

And now this.

What's next? Windows switching to pacman? Soon, everything will be Arch and then there will be no reason to use Arch but Tacos.

Offline

#88 2014-02-15 12:36:54

fsckd
Forum Moderator
Registered: 2009-06-15
Posts: 3,575

Re: Should I go Arch?

@Awebb: Windows will switch to systemd. But on there dbus will remain in userspace. Also your "this" link is broken.

@od808: Go for it!


aur S & M :: forum rules :: Community Ethos
Resources for Women, POC, LGBT*, and allies

Offline

#89 2014-02-15 13:10:57

Trilby
Forum Moderator
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 14,220
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

od808 wrote:

I know that arch is only recommended for experienced users, but I think that by installing arch by myself and customize it for my needs while encountering problems will force me to read more, try more and eventually learn more, does it make any sense?

That makes perfect sense - and arch may be the right place to learn, as long as you are ready (and looking for) some challenges.

I'm not sure if arch is recommended only for "experienced" users.  I do know some recommendations say for "competant" users.  I'd argue there is a difference.  Competance may be from experience, or it may be from an ability/willingness to learn.


InterrobangSlider
• How's my coding? See this page.
• How's my moderating? Feel free to email any concerns, complaints, or objections.

Offline

#90 2014-02-15 13:16:48

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,544

Re: Should I go Arch?

fsckd wrote:

@Awebb: Windows will switch to systemd. But on there dbus will remain in userspace. Also your "this" link is broken.

It originally was intended to point to an article, claiming that Marc Shuttleworth accepted honourable defeat regarding the upstart<>systemd question in Ubuntu.

Offline

#91 2014-02-15 14:50:06

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,422

Re: Should I go Arch?

awebb :  http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316

od808 : it sounds like you did your homework, go for it !


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#92 2014-02-18 02:35:31

paulnblacklock
Member
Registered: 2014-02-17
Posts: 4

Re: Should I go Arch?

IsSuE wrote:

Running Arch for quite a few years now, never had any serious downtime that was not fixable withing half an hour.
Just one thing to remember: never --force !

hah, that's funny... I ended up "--force" my Arch install just 2 days ago when I decided to move from Ubuntu. Had I not, I would probably still be there trying to figure out how to correct the install errors. I couldn't find a definitive answer in google (aka the Arch forms and wiki) and honestly I was afraid I wouldn't get much help anyway if I posted in the forums because, I kept reading posts that pretty much said if you can't figure it out perhaps Arch isn't for you. Heh...not that I would have been able to ask the question anyway given that silly bot registration requirement and I thought I hated CAPTCHAs.

Offline

#93 2014-02-20 02:06:52

HungGarTiger
Member
From: nz/auckland/
Registered: 2012-06-27
Posts: 186

Re: Should I go Arch?

paulnblacklock wrote:
IsSuE wrote:

Running Arch for quite a few years now, never had any serious downtime that was not fixable withing half an hour.
Just one thing to remember: never --force !

hah, that's funny... I ended up "--force" my Arch install just 2 days ago when I decided to move from Ubuntu. Had I not, I would probably still be there trying to figure out how to correct the install errors. I couldn't find a definitive answer in google (aka the Arch forms and wiki) and honestly I was afraid I wouldn't get much help anyway if I posted in the forums because, I kept reading posts that pretty much said if you can't figure it out perhaps Arch isn't for you. Heh...not that I would have been able to ask the question anyway given that silly bot registration requirement and I thought I hated CAPTCHAs.

That doesn't bode well for the future of your install my friend, I'm curious about what you felt the need to "--force" as this install process is simply just a matter of following the guide.

On a side note: I don't think I've ever read someone saying "If you can't fingure it out, then it's not for you"... Maybe you meant more along the lines of "If you're having trouble following the guide..." as it is all spelled out pretty simply. But again if people have legitimate questions and have taken the time to try and solve them on their own, before coming here, the response is almost universally positive.


"No sympathy for the devil. If you buy the ticket, take the ride."
- Hunter S. Thompson

Offline

#94 2014-04-11 16:44:39

Tom B
Member
Registered: 2014-01-15
Posts: 89
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

For me the biggest reason to pick Arch is the rolling release model. I came from Mint but found the recommended upgrade procedure (reinstall the OS and all your packages) rather archaic. It does let you upgrade using apt but I found this didn't actually work as expected for me so looked for a real rolling release distribution and that's how I ended up with Arch.

There are pros and cons of all distributions but honestly, other than getting it installed I haven't found Arch any more difficult to use than Mint. Beyond installing I don't know why people say arch is for "experienced" users. For almost every task it's just a case of installing the required application using pacman, on Mint it was identical just using apt-get instead. The day to day experience of Arch vs Mint is minimal in my experience.

Last edited by Tom B (2014-04-11 16:48:12)

Offline

#95 2014-04-30 03:28:22

michael.heuberger
Member
Registered: 2014-04-30
Posts: 1

Re: Should I go Arch?

Hello guys

My kernel panicked while upgrading Ubuntu 14.04 and now my system is in a kind of limbo between 13.10 and 14.04, grrrr

So I am seriously considering to switch to ArchLinux or Exherbo, but haven't decided yet. Maybe you can help me and tell me your views on these questions?

1. How easy is it to install ArchLinux over an existing Linux system? What steps are needed?
2. Are there good reasons why you prefer ArchLinux over Exherbo (exherbo.org)?
3. All my remote servers run on Ubuntu. Will this pose a problem if my local machine, which serves for development, is on a different system, i.E. ArchLinux?

Looking forward to your responses! Thanks smile

Cheers
Michael

Offline

#96 2014-04-30 03:49:59

circleface
Member
Registered: 2012-05-26
Posts: 154

Re: Should I go Arch?

For point number 1, the Beginner's Guide will show you how to install arch onto your computer.

Offline

#97 2014-04-30 03:50:57

jasonwryan
Forum & Wiki Admin
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 19,383
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

Merging with the "Should I go Arch" thread...


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Github

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

#98 2014-04-30 12:06:38

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,422

Re: Should I go Arch?

michael.heuberger wrote:

2. Are there good reasons why you prefer ArchLinux over Exherbo (exherbo.org)?

I have no experience with Exherbo, but a quick glimpse suggests it's source-based and derived from gentoo.

Exherbo home page wrote:

No over-centralisation. Only widely used packages are to be in main repositories, and make the tools good enough to deal with lots of small third party repositories for random other apps.

That sounds like the exherbo counterpart of AUR, with the main difference that aur is not  a binary repo.
Personally i feel building things from source (AUR) is safer then using 3rd party repos.

------------------------------------------------

michael.heuberger wrote:

3. All my remote servers run on Ubuntu. Will this pose a problem if my local machine, which serves for development, is on a different system, i.E. ArchLinux?

That might lead to arch having newer clients then the server software expects.
Whether that will be a problem depends on upstream of the server software you run.


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#99 2014-05-03 14:33:58

BenPelcLeeds
Member
From: Leeds, United Kingdom
Registered: 2014-05-03
Posts: 1

Re: Should I go Arch?

I highly recommend switching to Arch. I took the plunge for the first time yesterday, the number one thing putting me off attempting it in the months before hand were the tails of woe of the seemingly tens of people who fail to install for every one that manages it. Don't pay too much attention to those people, they're wrong. There are many, many YouTube clips which you can follow for pretty much any type of Arch installation and in conjunction with the superb Arch Beginners Guide if you give it a little concentration you can have a clean working Arch in a good 20 minutes. 

Like many others I started off with Ubuntu (perhaps from Ubuntu 7ish onwards) dual booting with on my Windows Machine (specialist software otherwise would migrate full time). Anyhow, Unity was not for me so switched to Debian XFCE which I found incredibly stable and learnt a lot having to manually configure things, however, the price you pay for stability is old software, hence me turning to Arch. Building a system from scratch I have the very latest versions of XFCE, Plank dock, compositing is working fine and Conky and when all is done and loaded the whole thing is only taking 170Mb of memory in the RAM, this is incredible. Absolutely no unwanted software, everything is your choice, no other distro I have tried gives you such power, not even installing a clean Debian (I'm yet to try Gentoo).

Any slight hiccups I have had in these first 24 hours I overcame very quickly by scouring this and other forums as well as constantly delving into the superb Arch Wiki which again puts Debian's extensive documentation to shame. So, if you want a lightning fast system built to your exact needs and don't mind learning a little on the way then you should definitely go Arch. And this is from a man who until yesterday would not ever dream of cheating on Debian.

Offline

#100 2014-05-20 06:02:52

crozet
Member
Registered: 2014-03-29
Posts: 4

Re: Should I go Arch?

Hi all
I have a laptop with very low performance (amd a4 1200 dual core 1Ghz with radeon 8180 gpu and 4gb ram). Windows 8 works but it is very slow. I installed lubuntu (lxde ubuntu) and performance is a little better but it is still very slow when I open several programs.
Do you think installing arch with lxde or openbox will improve performance ?
Also, my laptop has a multi-touch screen, will it work with arch ?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB