You are not logged in.

#151 2017-03-08 13:34:41

Lemongrass
Member
From: Central Europe
Registered: 2017-03-03
Posts: 59

Re: Should I go Arch?

I installed Arch. So far it's really good. smile I mean the unused half of my system is missing, and everything is the newest version. big_smile Thank you for your reviews. I especially like the "tweak to the core" thing.

I have a few problems (mainly autostart xfce4 and wireless), but I can start them manually, so I guess I try fixing these on my own first.

Last edited by Lemongrass (2017-03-08 13:38:51)

Offline

#152 2017-03-08 18:56:49

olegabrielz
Member
From: Norway
Registered: 2015-12-23
Posts: 255

Re: Should I go Arch?

Lemongrass wrote:

... I have a few problems (mainly autostart xfce4 and wireless), but ...

About autostart xfce:
Here is a couple tips if you want to keep it simple:
xinitrc
Autostart X at login
Automatic login to virtual console

Regarding the wireless issue:
Try following the guideliness on the wiki. If that doesn't solve it just open a thread in the support section of the forum.

Enjoy


Be aware of my Newbie Powers

Offline

#153 2017-06-14 06:50:36

curiousmitchell
Member
Registered: 2017-05-08
Posts: 20

Re: Should I go Arch?

Hey folks, I'm a new Archlinux user switching from Ubuntu. So far, I love it! The documentation is amazingly detailed. Impressed also with the speed my laptop now possesses, after streamlining my system to what I actually need. Am rocking Kde's Plasma on my 2012 model Dell Xps 13 ultrabook. Have used the plasma-desktop group, and installed only what I needed on top of this. Have suspend & hibernate working using LUKS for whole disk encryption, with a backup partition for config files. This is my third install of Arch on the same machine now - have been a bit trigger happy on reinstalling botched attempts to get the hang of it.

Currently my laptop is backed up to my server running Nextcloud (Ubuntu 16.04), as well as synced to my desktop pc (Ubuntu 17.04). I'm looking at switching both of those machines to Archlinux. My desktop machine and server are both for production use, and  need minimal (if any) downtime.

My question is this - is this advisable, and can I create a system where my laptop is updated first (not critical - can live without it if needed), then the other 2 machines if all goes well? Generally I'm updating my laptop every couple of days - usually through Kalu notifying me of updates. Is this an advisable use of Arch? (i.e., using it for a production desktop and server?) Is it possible for me to create a stable system doing this?

Loving the project, and keen for your advice. Thanks in advance!

Offline

#154 2017-06-14 06:55:04

jasonwryan
Anarchist
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 28,151
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

Yes, there are plenty of people here that use Arch as their main machine. I have used it at work for the better part of five years and not experienced any time lost to breakage (tinkering is a time sink I'd prefer not to contemplate).


Merging with the Should I Go Arch thread...


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Surfraw

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

#155 2017-06-14 08:58:38

curiousmitchell
Member
Registered: 2017-05-08
Posts: 20

Re: Should I go Arch?

jasonwryan wrote:

Yes, there are plenty of people here that use Arch as their main machine. I have used it at work for the better part of five years and not experienced any time lost to breakage (tinkering is a time sink I'd prefer not to contemplate).


Merging with the Should I Go Arch thread...

Thanks jasonwryan - glad to hear it! Will see how I go.

M

Offline

#156 2018-06-22 16:59:45

RickDeckard
Member
From: Acworth, Georgia, USA
Registered: 2016-02-19
Posts: 59

Re: Should I go Arch?

If you like a challenge, use it by all means.  Just keep up with security advisories, read up on common sense package upgrading, and be very patient when something breaks - as it will.

Offline

#157 2018-08-19 04:29:02

NamanSood
Member
Registered: 2018-08-18
Posts: 4

Re: Should I go Arch?

Hey Everyone,

I'm currently in my first year in High school in CSE branch. I heard it was fruitful if someone mastered in a particular field, it would help him/her to land a good job that they loved. A friend of mine suggested me to go for mastering Linux ( using Arch ) but another friend of mine suggested me to not do so as it may be overshadowed by other OS.
I wanted to know whether I should go for it or not. If I do, What are the future prospects of learning Linux and how popular is it in today's market.

Thank you in advance

Last edited by NamanSood (2018-08-19 04:29:18)

Offline

#158 2018-08-19 04:33:41

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 22,380
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

Is this really different from your previous thread which you've not yet followed up on at all?

If your inspiration is intellectual curiosity or a desire to learn about how computers actually work, linux - and arch in particular - would be very useful.

If your goal is to learn tools that will get you a big paycheck, linux is not what you want.  Not that knowledge gained from using linux couldn't help someone be successful in a career, but if the motivation is not for the knowledge itself, linux, and most certainly arch, is not likely for you.  Learn Swift, or whatever new fad tool replaces it for "app" development", or get some MS certifications instead.

Last edited by Trilby (2018-08-19 04:43:20)


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#159 2018-08-19 04:37:24

jasonwryan
Anarchist
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 28,151
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

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


Generally speaking, if you have to seek a lot of assurance/handholding before even deciding to install Arch, it is the wrong choice.


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Surfraw

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

#160 2018-08-19 15:29:15

ewaller
Administrator
From: Pasadena, CA
Registered: 2009-07-13
Posts: 16,853

Re: Should I go Arch?

Trilby wrote:

If your goal is to learn tools that will get you a big paycheck, Linux is not what you want.

Although I agree with you in general, I disagree with you on this point.  Yes, Windows is fully entrenched in corporate desktop IT and Linux seems to have no chance of displacing it -- something about using the lowest common denominator.  But, Windows is all but dead in embedded systems and the market is huge.  Using Broadcom or Microchip chips, it is now possible to bring up Linux based embedded systems on extremely low cost hardware (Think routers, raspberry pi, etc...) and can form the basis for many products and applications -- consumer, entertainment, appliance, space, model aircraft, automotive, security, home automation, etc...  It used to be that many of those where code running on bare metal or, sometimes, based on an RTOS.  Increasingly they are running Linux and provide an enormous market.  And it is hard to find good people who can develop for these architectures.

There used to be Internet jokes poking fun at the notion of Unix Powered Toasters, but times change.  In some experiments I performed this week, using an ARM chip with an internal flash memory using a Linux kernel and Busybox as an Init system, system was up and running in less than 1 second after the application of power.


Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing
---
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Offline

#161 2018-08-19 16:02:15

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 22,380
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

What should happen and what does happen often have very little resemblance.

I didn't say linux shouldn't be driving business, nor that it doesn't have potential to.  Really my point was that if one's goal is to learn skills to make money, they do not have the proper mindset to learn linux.

Even if (big if in my mind) learning about linux would make someone competitive in the job market, going in to "learn linux" in order to make money will almost certainly fail.  It is the wrong mentality to start with.

In any industry there are the people who know exactly what kind of skills will be useful.  Then there are the people who make hiring decisions.  If you are in a company where there is any overlap in these two sets of people, be happy and stay there.

Last edited by Trilby (2018-08-19 16:03:31)


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#162 2018-08-19 16:06:13

ewaller
Administrator
From: Pasadena, CA
Registered: 2009-07-13
Posts: 16,853

Re: Should I go Arch?

Trilby wrote:

I didn't say linux shouldn't be driving business, nor that it doesn't have potential to.  Really my point was that if one's goal is to learn skills to make money, they do not have the proper mindset to learn linux.

Fair enough.  Kind of cart before the horse.


Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael Faraday
Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing
---
How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Offline

#163 2018-08-19 18:12:11

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 5,323

Re: Should I go Arch?

There is money in Linux skills, it's just not easy money. Windows money is the kind of salary you get for working magic in front of tech illiterate business people, because it's the standard and it runs everywhere. Linux money is the kind of cash you get for working magic in front of other wizards.

Offline

#164 2018-11-14 17:42:32

wayne6260
Member
From: Amarillo
Registered: 2018-07-10
Posts: 4
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

As a person that has assembled Arch from the bottom up and is my sole OS, the answer to your question is no.

You are still saying you "finally" are not dependent on windoze and you've been using Linux for a whole month. You mentioned Ubuntu. All of these indicators point to the answer. Arch is not for newbies. Get used to other distros. Be comfortable for a year or two or three. In the end, you might want to come back to Arch, which is not easy to install for a new comer, but not difficult to maintain for someone comfortable with the command line interface.

For the record, I've been using Linux since year 2000 and only figured out how to install Arch this year. And I'm happy.

Don't use Arch if you still have Microsoft in your memory. Don't use Arch in your first month of Linux. Use Linux only for about 5 years. Then think about Arch.

More important for you is experiment with desktop environments. Which do you prefer? Gnome? Mate? Cinnamon? KDE Plasma (my choice)? Budgie? Openbox?

Last edited by wayne6260 (2018-11-14 17:44:54)


I am cleverly going to say, right here and now, that I have nothing clever to say!

Offline

#165 2018-11-14 18:26:30

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 22,380
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

wayne6260 wrote:

Use Linux only for about 5 years. Then think about Arch.

Using any one of the popular Linuxes for 5 years would definitely have driven me away from linux entirely.  I was DOS and BASIC programming kid.  I dabbled with programming for Windows - I was very motivated, but never made much progress (I did a lot with visual basic, but never understood much of anything).  Then I switched to linux - I think I had a few months at most with crunchbang (debian-based) before I got too frustrated with it and nearly gave up on linux entirely.  I tried a few others but was immediately turned off by the *buntus and other popular distros.  I dabbled in slitaz for a bit and quite liked much about it, but it's future was tenuous.  I then installed arch (~9 years ago) and never looked back.

So I had no where near 5 years of linux experience before coming to arch.  I may have had 5 months ... maybe.

Last edited by Trilby (2018-11-14 18:27:35)


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#166 2018-11-14 18:48:17

bheadmaster
Member
Registered: 2017-10-27
Posts: 43

Re: Should I go Arch?

Agreed. I'm one of those people who can't stand too much unneccessary complexity. I've used Ubuntu and several popular distros for a few months, but Arch was the only one that "made sense" to me. Indeed, being new to the whole GNU/Linux world and jumping straight into Arch was overwhelming, but I feel like I know my system more "intimately" now smile


.............|
............/  GNU
........../
__---'''             o  LINUX

Offline

#167 2019-01-22 20:04:24

scharkalvin
Member
Registered: 2019-01-22
Posts: 3

Re: Should I go Arch?

Right now I'm on the fence about using Arch Linux, at least on my 'main' machine.  I'll probably put it on a 'spare' so I can 'kick the tires'.  I've been a Linux user since 1996, and I've installed Slackware (from floppies!), Redhat (before they went 'pro'), Debian and Gentoo back in the 'prehistoric' days.  Back then there were no GUI installers, and I had to compile my own kernel (no 'smart' auto config stuff in the kernel back then).  I've run Debian Testing for awhile too.  More recently, I've gone to Ubuntu, and Linux Mint.  Now Mint has dropped KDE, and once my 17.3 install ages out of LTS I will have a decision to make.

I have some bad memories of Gentoo going belly up after a FSCKed config file during an upgrade.  That's probably the only thing that worries me about Arch.  Gentoo's problem was putting in hooks to configure every little detail, including the kitchen sink, with deadly conflicting options in those config files to trip you up.   Part of that was the ability to customize the system to run best on a given CPU.  It was a build from source distro, and config files let you tweak EVERY option in GCC.  At least Arch is strictly x86-64 (optimized for what? Intel-AMD?)

Reading about others complaining about Ubuntu major upgrades going south makes me laugh.  Linux Mint cautions you NOT to attempt this and do major upgrades by re-installing the system from scratch.  That's why I have my home partition on a separate disk drive from the OS.  I upgrade the system and leave my user directory alone.  Some application config files will need to change, but these things don't crash the system.  I also keep all my data files, email cache, etc across upgrades that way.  (I DO back up my user partition onto an external drive first, but I've never needed to use that as a result of the upgrade).

I guess what I need to know about Arch for system maintenance, is what to look for in config files that are critical for not borking the system so bad it won't even boot.  (That happened to me only once on Gentoo).  Also info on correct procedure for keeping the system up to date (at least from kernel and system level security patches).

I've got an older AMD Phenom quad core system gathering dust.  It's got 8gb of ram and a Raptor drive (for the system / boot partitions).  Should be good enough to experiment with.

Offline

#168 2019-01-22 20:30:11

romstor
Member
Registered: 2018-08-18
Posts: 30

Re: Should I go Arch?

scharkalvin wrote:

... with deadly conflicting options in those config files to trip you up.

This may not be a complete answer to your concerns, but Arch doesn't touch your config files on package upgrades. If config file is updated (has new or removed old options) it is saved as *.pacnew in the /etc/ or some other folder. It is YOUR job to vimdiff and sync the changes manually (deleting .pacnew file afterwards) (more at Pacman -> Pacnew and Pacsave). In my experience, 99% of the time the config files are completely backwards compatible. I.e. even if you don't notice that new *.pacnew has landed, you are most likely to be fine until such time that you need the new feature or have time to do the merge.

Pacman tells you whenever new *.pacnew files are created, but you can also run system-wide find and address them one-by-one. I personally like this approach very much because I can see new features in config files and can go a learn about latest and greatest features in the new releases. This is also an aspect that makes Arch less of an option for beginners, but that doesn't seem to apply in your case.

Also, did you read System Maintenance section on Arch Wiki? I think it has everything you want to know.

Last edited by romstor (2019-01-22 20:43:32)

Offline

#169 2019-01-22 20:52:46

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 7,244

Re: Should I go Arch?

What romstor posted hints at another issue, that if the change is required, it's still your job to do it. E.g. if there's a new required option in a config file, you could encounter breakage that way. Very rare though.

scharkalvin wrote:

I guess what I need to know about Arch for system maintenance, is what to look for in config files that are critical for not borking the system so bad it won't even boot.  (That happened to me only once on Gentoo).  Also info on correct procedure for keeping the system up to date (at least from kernel and system level security patches).

Just update semi-regularly . Once a week is quite safe, on some of my servers its less often. These only have a subset of the packages on my main machines which are updated every few days. And the set of packages which are on my servers and not on my main machines is mostly nil.

There's ancillary things which can help, like reading the front page news for breaking changes, subscribing to the ML or reading these forums to catch user complaints when something breaks (rare and normally hardware-specific if not PEBKAC). None of this is strictly necessary though.

Of course keeping a thumb drive handy for boot issues is always a good idea. I used to do that, but the thumb drive install went out of date from lack of use....


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#170 2019-01-23 19:55:17

scharkalvin
Member
Registered: 2019-01-22
Posts: 3

Re: Should I go Arch?

Thanks for the replies.  So I dug out my "ancient" AMD Phenom X4 970 machine and tried to get it going.  Had to reseat things before it would 'POST'.  One of the disk drives (the raptor) was dead and didn't get discovered by the bios.  Murphy's law.  Wouldn't boot off of a flash drive with Arch ISO  (or any other ISO for that matter), so I burned the image onto a DVDR.  It booted into the start screen and I ran the memory test.  Had at least one bad location in 8gbs of DDR3.

So I crossed my fingers and started to do the install.  Deja-vu all over again.  Hadn't had this much 'fun' since Deban 2.0 or Gentoo (IIRC Arch is much easier than either of these old dogs).  Upon rebooting after figuring out how to install GRUB I had no network. Where the hell did ifconfig go?  It got replaced with ip address and ip link.  WHY?  (Because, he's on third and I don't give a darn).  A quick Google search showed where to look, eth0 was getting renamed to something else.  Reconfigure DHCPCD and reboot.  Yeah ping works!  Now trying to figure out getting Xorg and KDE installed.  Do I need to get just the window manager running naked on Xorg first, or throw everything in there and try to get to the KDE login screen?  Can I start KDE from the command line?  What packages might I be missing after only installing 'base' (plus xorg, and drivers)?   I'm in uncharted territory now, doing things with stone knives and bear skins for the first time in over twenty years.  Good for the gray matter though.

Last edited by scharkalvin (2019-01-23 19:57:23)

Offline

#171 2019-01-24 02:48:46

eschwartz
Trusted User/Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2014-08-08
Posts: 2,853

Re: Should I go Arch?

Well, for an OS that does not install a DE by default, all you need to do is install the package that provides the DE itself. In the case of KDE, see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/KDE#Installation

But KDE doesn't have a login screen, desktop environments are what comes after you login. If you are instead/also asking how to get a graphical login screen, see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Display_manager


Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

Offline

#172 2019-01-24 04:06:59

romstor
Member
Registered: 2018-08-18
Posts: 30

Re: Should I go Arch?

scharkalvin wrote:

Where the hell did ifconfig go?  It got replaced with ip address and ip link.  WHY?

Because progress... You're in for a treat when you'll learn about systemd...

scharkalvin wrote:

A quick Google search showed where to look

... yeah, why bother reading the installation guide on Arch wiki (you know, the primary documentation for the distro you are trying to install) and clicking on the link about networking setup. It's not like thousands of knowledgeable and experienced people spent their time to ELI5 it for you. Random dudes(ettes) on the intertubes are way, way more correct and trustworthy!

sharkalvin wrote:

I'm in uncharted territory now, doing things with stone knives and bear skins for the first time in over twenty years.  Good for the gray matter though.

The territory is well charted but you need to read the chart in the first place. Happy you are enjoying the process!

Offline

#173 2019-01-24 06:41:43

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 5,323

Re: Should I go Arch?

scharkalvin wrote:

I'm in uncharted territory now, doing things with stone knives and bear skins for the first time in over twenty years.  Good for the gray matter though.

He thinks the telekinetic enhancers are stone knifes! :-)

Offline

#174 2019-01-24 18:42:34

scharkalvin
Member
Registered: 2019-01-22
Posts: 3

Re: Should I go Arch?

Actually, I don't recall seeing anything in the installation guide about needing to reset the network conf after rebooting.  Strange that the install image was able to set up dhcpcd correctly, but not the final installed image.  OTHO, I might expect to have to jump through some hoops to initially get WIFI up as closed source drivers often are required (Ubuntu has some of these in the install image, but ....).   Google search showed I was not alone with the issue, got LOTS of hits on forum posts here and on Redit, etc.   

Yeah there was quite a bit of talk about systemd when almost everyone decided to switch to it (not Slackware though ...).  Almost started a revolt on Debian as I recall.   I'll have to read the documentation on it.

Is there a quick and dirty way to see if Xorg is working before pulling down the KDE stuff?  I did try startx, don't think I saw any error messages (some warnings though).  Screen stayed dark though...  IIRC, the old X11 install left a large cursor up when you started it without any window manager running.

Last edited by scharkalvin (2019-01-24 18:43:31)

Offline

#175 2019-01-24 19:42:37

jasonwryan
Anarchist
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 28,151
Website

Re: Should I go Arch?

This isn't a support thread.


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Surfraw

Registered Linux User #482438

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB