convince me

rudi · 2004-02-18 15:44:35

Hi there,

I'm just curious, why should i migrate to Arch linux? I've read some reviews and it sure sounds promissing. I haven't tried that many Distro's, only SuSE, Redhat, Fedora, Mandrake and Slackware. Slackware was my main distro for a long time and really did the job satisfying for me. After a HD crash wich wiped out my Slackware installation i experimented with those other distro's because i hadn't tried a "user friendly" distro before. At the time i'm running Fedora but i really want to go back to Slackware, or try one more distro, Arch.

So the bottomline is: how does Arch compare to Slackware.

Greets Rudi

Mr Green · 2004-02-18 15:57:12

Hi

Its up to you...what you want...Arch is a very good distro if you want to learn about linux & your system...

If you want to safe then just dual boot if you have the room....I cannot comment about slackware ...but coming from Mandrake to Arch was a journey of surprise & delight...

Mr Green

terrapin · 2004-02-18 16:01:32

Well, I don't think anybody here will try to "convince" you to try Arch. It is entirely up to you whether you want to try Arch or not. Those who use Arch believe it is a great distro with many great features.

As a former Slack user, I prefer the way Arch handles application installs and dependency checking. Which by the way are done through "pacman". Also Arch is more minimalistic then Slackware.

rudi · 2004-02-18 16:14:56

terrapin wrote:

As a former Slack user, I prefer the way Arch handles application installs and dependency checking. Which by the way are done through "pacman". Also Arch is more minimalistic then Slackware.

Those where the points wich really drawn my attention to this distro. I hate it when a distro comes loaded with packages you dont need! Also the minimalist part is the thing i like.

Furthermore, does it makes a difference if i wait until the 0.6 release, or can i just download the 0.5 release and upgrade using pacman. Does the kernel upgrade to 2.6 and KDE upgrade to 3.2 work flawlesly?

Thanx so far for the information

sarah31 · 2004-02-18 16:16:26

well you seem conflicted. either you want try it or you don't you have to convince yourself. don't give up a functioning system just for the new trend.

you could possibly dual boot if you like i know lots of people that run one distro as their main distro on one partition or drive while testing various other distros on another partition/drive.

in the end i doubt there is anything i can say that would absolutely convince you that you want to run arch or not. i don't know you or your needs desires.

robot5x · 2004-02-18 16:37:22

rudi wrote:

Furthermore, does it makes a difference if i wait until the 0.6 release, or can i just download the 0.5 release and upgrade using pacman. Does the kernel upgrade to 2.6 and KDE upgrade to 3.2 work flawlesly?

If you do a base install of 0.5 and do a proper system upgrade (ie.read the forums and make sure you're aware of how to do this, and the issues) then you have 0.6.
Kernel upgrades and KDE are very easy with pacman - again, there are a few issues with KDE particularly (I think) so check the forums and read what people are doing...
The only way you'll know if you like it is to try...

terrapin · 2004-02-18 16:49:21

I would recommend the FTP install over the 0.5 cd install if you have the ability. I just completed a build this weekend from FTP and after modifing the /arch/setup file was able to bypass the 2.4 for the 2.6 kernel and didn't have to deal with the other messier package upgrades. Also if you do the FTP install you have the latest and greatest with worries about upgrading to 0.6 because you will already have it.

LB06 · 2004-02-18 19:29:15

The way to go is probably just a basic 0.5 install (only base). Then comment release and uncomment current in /etc/pacman.conf and do pacman -S pacman and pacman -Suy.

I really liked Slackware: good performance, simple, stable, etc. But guess what, I found out Arch was even more simple and faster.

skparkes · 2004-02-18 19:47:37

In my experience, I liked slack alot. I like arch even more, because it's similar to slack, but it has pacman. Also, the startup scripts are even easier to edit in arch then slack. There is just the one: /etc/rc.conf.

Later,

Isamoor

rudi · 2004-02-18 20:28:47

sarah31 wrote:

you could possibly dual boot if you like i know lots of people that run one distro as their main distro on one partition or drive while testing various other distros on another partition/drive.

The problem is i don't have enough HD space for a dual boot system. I need linux for my daily work so that's why i make a big deal out of this

sarah31 wrote:

in the end i doubt there is anything i can say that would absolutely convince you that you want to run arch or not. i don't know you or your needs desires.

What i want in a distro is to fully customize the install. I want control over my system. Furthermore speed is important. Also a good package managment. There are numorous more things that are important ofcourse and what i've read so far i'll give this one a go. :mrgreen:

LB06 · 2004-02-18 21:05:14

rudi wrote:

What i want in a distro is to fully customize the install. I want control over my system. Furthermore speed is important. Also a good package managment. There are numorous more things that are important ofcourse and what i've read so far i'll give this one a go. :mrgreen:

This is exactly what Arch will give you. So go for it.

cartridge · 2004-02-18 22:56:33

i used to love slackware and i tryed alot of new distros after ir and stoped at arch linux.
the good thing for a slack user is:
you can compile your kernel without bothering about kernel packages, if you dont like a package you can rebuild it with your needs and make a package, without breaking the tree, the packages are not SUPERULTRAMODULAR like in redhat and debian, cause that sux.
Its BSD like, so you will be more in home, since slackware is BSD like too, infact they try to look like BSD-leet, there is no /etc/init.d I HATE INIT.D and RUNLEVELS !! GOD KILL SYSV FOUNDER,
everything is easy and simple, directorys are well organized, i like the idea of /opt, pacman works great, i686 binarys, no compiling for 12390141 hours, NO DEPENDECY HELL ! thats the best thing.
great comunity, quick answers in the forum, and bug tracker is great.
at least try it, or you´re a fool with all the respect.
i tryed more than 30 distros and BSDs and im with arch now.
Slack,Debian,RedHat, Fedora, Gentoo, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Peanut, Crux(very nice), YOPER, Conectiva(BLOARGHH), Sourcerer, SourceMage, Mandrake, OneBase Linux, Icepack and stuff...
and i guarantee, arch may not be the oldest, mature, but is a promising distribution with a great idea and philosophy.
sorry about my english

farphel · 2004-02-19 00:30:09

Just a warning (although I think it's been addressed in the docs), Arch isn't really for Linux newbies. Be prepared to customize many config files, read a lot of man pages, and browse the forums. Also, the docs on the main site are a tad dated. The forums (for now) are your best bet for seeing how to overcome any problems. Arch won't hold your hand.

However, it has many worthwhile benefits such as current software, i686 optimized binary packages, and a roll-your-own system (abs) for customizing your software if you don't like the default compiles.

If you decide to give it try, post back here with your impressions.

Cheers,
farphel

scottro · 2004-02-19 01:55:11

Yeah, but he's been using Slack.

Actually, I think rc.M is easier to edit than the Arch rc. scripts, but aside from that--you will find it far smaller and, I believe, somewhat faster (subjective, no benchmarks)

The package management--I don't know how well Fedora has done with RPMS, but package management is a pleasure. Most similar, in my opinion, to Debian.

Compared to something like Fedora, I think you'll find it more to your taste (judging from the fact you were using Slack).

The install is a lot quicker--just choose base and then add packages from there.

If you were really into Fedora, I'd say, maybe not, but as you said that you very much liked Slack, I think you'll be pleased.

cartridge · 2004-02-19 04:56:57

i dont like comparing pacman with apt since their philosophy is quite different even they both being binary based.

what i hate in apt is that everything is modular
this is *VERY* annoying

rudi · 2004-02-23 15:30:42

Thanx for all the replies.
I have been testing Arch a bit now and it's a bumpy start First i had some troubles getting my ne2k driver going, and then after a pacman -Syu my system stopped. So i've installed Slackware on his good old partition and added an extra HD for experimenting with Arch.
The problem i'm now facing is that it will only boot halfways :s (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=2803)

I thought i did knew my Linux, Slackware is running like a charm, but i have some troubles with this one.
Hope i'll get all the answers on this forum because on linuxiso.org there really isn't a big Arch support.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-02-18 15:44:35

convince me

#2 2004-02-18 15:57:12

Re: convince me

#3 2004-02-18 16:01:32

Re: convince me

#4 2004-02-18 16:14:56

Re: convince me

#5 2004-02-18 16:16:26

Re: convince me

#6 2004-02-18 16:37:22

Re: convince me

#7 2004-02-18 16:49:21

Re: convince me

#8 2004-02-18 19:29:15

Re: convince me

#9 2004-02-18 19:47:37

Re: convince me

#10 2004-02-18 20:28:47

Re: convince me

#11 2004-02-18 21:05:14

Re: convince me

#12 2004-02-18 22:56:33

Re: convince me

#13 2004-02-19 00:30:09

Re: convince me

#14 2004-02-19 01:55:11

Re: convince me

#15 2004-02-19 04:56:57

Re: convince me

#16 2004-02-23 15:30:42

Re: convince me

Board footer