Arch on Distrowatch

cactus · 2006-07-07 20:34:48

What are you talking about?

oh wait..dusty already asked that one..
:shock:

audaly · 2006-07-07 23:38:10

Moo-Crumpus wrote:

I think it is the rolling releases. As Arch is "just" arch there is no "Ah - Arch 2006 is released, adds feature this and that" hype, so no one is fed.

+1

pauldonnelly · 2006-07-08 04:52:12

Arch is popular enough that I see it mentioned around the net pretty frequently. Not so much as the big distros, and nowhere near as often as Ubuntu, but it happens.

deficite · 2006-07-08 16:57:06

Dusty wrote:

What are you talking about? Arch is too popular. Already I have to browse through not one, but *two* pages of unread posts every day. I want the good ol' days back where I knew every single poster and read every single post.
And there were lots of stupid questions repeated because there was no documentation.....
Dusty

I wish this argument would just die. Everytime I read something like this I feel so unwelcome on these forums it's not even funny.

Romashka · 2006-07-11 13:43:54

iphitus wrote:

you cannot use the distrowatch stats as a measure of distro popularity, using them as such is fundamentally flawed, as they are affected by greater factors than who uses the distro.

Agree with you completely.

BTW, when http://distrowatch.com/archlinux will be updated??? The text is too old!

Here are the links:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=16767
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/New … atch_blurb

But no progress...

IMHO this must be updated!

Insane-Boy · 2006-07-11 15:27:39

Today a lot of people who use linux don't want to learn by reading .. they prefer to use graphical interfaces for all.. but i think the real *nix system are commandline based and they are better without a lot of graphical shi*z :)ArchLinux is on of the real *nix systems..

iarann · 2006-07-11 15:58:30

Penguin wrote:

Arch is too difficult for most users I think. Take a look at the most popular distros, Suse, Redhat/Fedora, Mandriva, Ubuntu they all pretty much hold your hand through the install process. Gentoo is the only one in the top ten thats more difficult to install.

I would disagree. It isn't more difficult, it just isn't graphical by default. In my experience, Arch is way easier to install and get working than Ubuntu or Fedora, and is more helpful in the process, the difference is I'm going through a text installer and heavily commented configuration files. Easier to use, even with my limited experience, but scarier. I switched to Arch because it was the first distro I installed that didn't take 2 or 3 days of tweaking to get crazy problems worked out. But a lot of people are threatened enough just using linux, they need those other distros because they don't know what piece of software does what aside from firefox. It isn't just difficulty, it's a different everything to use linux, and where Arch doesn't hold you hand is telling you which program to use. Good for us, maybe not so good for someone who never used linux before.

deficite · 2006-07-11 17:12:30

Exactly. If Arch wasn't so simple I wouldn't be using it.

bodhi.zazen · 2006-07-11 19:28:22

I just migrated to Arch after learning Linux on several distro's, most recently Zenwalk.

What I wanted is a minimal base that I could add to. I like light: Fluxbox, ROX desktop, Dillo, Abiword, vi. Use OOO, Firefox, etc for bigger projects.

Arch is fast and once installed less time consuming then Gentoo.

Why is Arch not so popular on Distrowatch? In my opinion:

1. Lack of knowledge. I could not have installed Arch 2 years ago when I migrated from Windows.

2. Lack of time/interest. Arch takes longer then say Ubuntu, PCLinux, BLAG, Zenwalk, etc to install and configure.

3. Lack of a window manager. This is related to No. 2. Personally I do to use KDE or GNOME due to bloat. Part of the reason Ubuntu is so popular is Ubuntu makes Debian easier and less time consuming then Debian. Most people are put off if there is no WM.

4. Arch lacks a easily followed install guide. I used this:

http://wael.nasreddine.com/Articles/Art … Linux.html

5. Arch needs a post install how to like these:

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Dapper
http://easylinux.info/wiki/Fedora_fc5

Personally I am very happy with Arch, but I am not new to Linux and I know how to configure the basics. Fleshing out the Arch wiki would be helpful. For example:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Cat … aintenance

This is awfully scant if you are new to Arch and want to learn.

My advice:

Consider releasing a version with a light desktop. ? IceWM, Fluxbox, XFCE, something?

Second work on the WIKI and other documentation.

(Documentation first please).

Otherwise, ? why does Arch need to be popular. I like it the way it is.

Global Havok · 2006-07-11 22:22:14

bodhi.zazen wrote:

My advice:
Consider releasing a version with a light desktop. ? IceWM, Fluxbox, XFCE, something?

No offense, but I think the worst thing arch could do is make arch boot up into a graphical desktop on first boot. And any of these can be easily installed on top of a base install.

Arch is about being light and fast, providing the very minimum needed and allowing users to expand the system to their needs. This, more than likely, does keep Arch from being as popular as Ubuntu. But this is Arch's niche, and what makes it so great.

However, I agree with you about having something similar to ubuntuguide or something for new users. For some reason the wiki seems to scare away new people.

bodhi.zazen · 2006-07-11 22:32:09

I think you mis understood me. I am not advocating arch boot up into a graphical desktop on first boot by any means. As I said, I personally like Arch as is. I am reasonably comfortable with the CLI and in fact prefer my box to boot to a CLI.

I was just adding my 2c on why I think Arch is not as popular as say Ubuntu (on distrowatch, which I though was the topic of this thread).

As far as Arch, I was looking for a distro without all the bloat and appreciate the bare bones install. I did find the install process educational and time consuming but I like the final product.

T-Dawg · 2006-07-11 22:48:15

iarann wrote:

Penguin wrote:
Arch is too difficult for most users I think. Take a look at the most popular distros, Suse, Redhat/Fedora, Mandriva, Ubuntu they all pretty much hold your hand through the install process. Gentoo is the only one in the top ten thats more difficult to install.
I would disagree. It isn't more difficult, it just isn't graphical by default. In my experience, Arch is way easier to install and get working than Ubuntu or Fedora, and is more helpful in the process, the difference is I'm going through a text installer and heavily commented configuration files. Easier to use, even with my limited experience, but scarier.

Scarier is exactly what I'm talking about. Sure arch is easier to install because it is more command line, but the problem is people, even some computer engineers/science/whatever, are scared of the command line. In this day and age we are surrounded by a vast population that are spoiled with these godamn...windows graphical interface configurators that allow you to point and click your way around. Easier for an idiot but harder for advanced users to get what they want.

neotuli · 2006-07-12 03:50:32

Give me boxen, and I will plow a field for a port to grow upon.
Give me but a request, I shall smirk and walk into the sunset.

jaboua · 2006-07-12 04:13:17

I think the reason for Arch staying low on distrowatch is that it's low on distrowatch... An evil circle. People visiting distrowatch are people looking for a new distro and will offcourse read about/check out the most popular distros first. Even if they continue down the list, they have allready donated a "hit" to the distro at the top... Users clicking on arch's distrowatch link are linux users that have allready tried the most popular distros, but want something else.

DeusExLinux · 2006-07-12 05:32:06

Honestly, i don't think ever checked out the distrowatch page before I switched to Arch. I read about it on the forums and whatnots after using various other distros for about a year. I fell in love with. At the time, I was more comfy with the GUI, but now I would much prefer having more CLI in windows and other OSs. It's easier and faster, once you learn it.

The reason Arch isn't popular with the kiddies these days is that the mass amount of new Linux users want something familiar to their precious Windows. the *buntus and Mandrivas will always win because they are faster to set up. Eventually users migrate to other distros like Arch or Gentoo.

really, How many of us started with Arch? The CLI scares the crap out of most people, it scared me at first. Now I love her, she's like a classy lady.

Insane-Boy · 2006-07-12 09:51:48

Some of us think that arch is more difficult than other distros and have more settigs to get it run.Yeah that's true but i love archlinux because of this !It give you a possibility to set-up all by your way not by way of someone else.

abhaysahai · 2006-07-12 10:45:16

Insane-Boy wrote:

Some of us think that arch is more difficult than other distros and have more settigs to get it run.Yeah that's true but i love archlinux because of this !It give you a possibility to set-up all by your way not by way of someone else.

Agreed Arch is one of the best distro. I startred with Redhat-> Mandrake->gentoo-> Arch and have stayed with Arch since. Still on my home desktop I have to use Ubuntu, reason my father wants to use Linux ( good enough) and wants to "Configure" everything on his own. Well he agreed for "very little help" from my side.

We started with Arch, I performed the install and initial KDE setup. After that he wanted to setup network with my thinkpad, download pictures from Camera, edit photo, save in USB drive, connect to printer, print fotos and list goes on.....
Well after 3 days with Arch, I saw him booting to Windows as he had to go to the local photo shop to develop the photos in USB drive and he said that on Arch Linux he could not do it.
Windows advote in form of my wife came forward dan said that Linux is only for Software Engineer (me) and I felt that my father might switch back to Win world as in Windows he does not require and help from me. He can install what ever software he needs and do most of task.
I just had a Knoppix live DVD amd I gave it to him, to just try things out. He liked it immensely and said that "this Linux" he can use.
I gave in and guided him to Ubuntu site. He himself downloaded the iso burned it in Windows ( nero) and installed it ( command line -- but the install guide is so good).
Since then his frequency of booting Windows has reduced, he boots mainly to play Windows games.

Again agreed that Arch is great, users love it -- but what to do with people who do not have anyone to guide them through the initial steps. Or people like my father who do not want to use the help. Do we want to keep the good Arch distribution only to geeks, I believe that we should share it with as many people as possible.

I think good documentation holds the key to all my questions.

Cotton · 2006-07-12 21:53:17

Arch is low on Distrowatch because its for people for whom the distribution is the main object of interest - ie a minority. They are eager to learn by experience and reading up where necessary - they are not afraid of making mistakes.

The "big" distros on the other hand are for people just starting in the linux world or those who couldn't care less about the intricacies of the OS and how to tweak every last ounce of performance from their software. They are only interested in "install & go" but they are the majority, the masses. For them, the OS is just a means to an end.

A low Distrowatch rating does not matter in the slightest - people are free to choose whatever suits their needs and preferences. It is certainly not a measure of excellence - if it was, Arch would be in the top 3.

Arch will grow in usage, mainly from recommendation amongst those "in the know". As has been stated many times on these forums, once people have found Arch, they rarely need to search for something better. And invariably, these people end up becoming contributors rather than takers.

cactus · 2006-07-12 22:52:25

wow. this thread is about as 'pat self on back' and egocentric as I can handle....

or maybe I just don't fit in around here anymore..

McQueen · 2006-07-13 05:35:06

cactus wrote:

or maybe I just don't fit in around here anymore..

It's not about fitting in...thankfully. Be you.

ihavenoname · 2006-07-17 02:14:08

Almost the reasons have already been metioned, (more than once I might add)... another reason that I don't think has been mentioned is that because Arch is supposed to be an "advanced" distro, many people (from those I have talked to) stay away because they expect the community to be very harsh (RTFM...etc.) which in some cases is true (and very sad IMHO). However I can say from experience that Fedora Forum is much the same way. Anyone who thinks Fedora is a true newbie distro hasn't really used Fedora and had to personally go through and setup things like Java or messed with Selinux. In terms of having to install such things (java, mp3, w32codecs..etc.) Arch is easier. If the aim is to try and get everybody to use Arch, we would be able to raise our level on distrowatch, but Arch may not be ready for that kind of growth. Slow and steady is the best way to grow IMO.

Dusty · 2006-07-17 02:20:17

cactus wrote:

or maybe I just don't fit in around here anymore..

Out of curiosity, where have you gone, I feel I don't fit in around here much either. We've been put out to pasture by the younger generation, my taco-sniffing friend...

Dusty

McQueen · 2006-07-17 02:29:26

ihavenoname wrote:

In terms of having to install such things (java, mp3, w32codecs..etc.) Arch is easier.

It is unfortunate that a new user can not (due to patent legislation) install most Linux distros and have things like flash, java, gfx, and multimedia work as expected right out of the box. This is a real concern, and it can often be vastly more cumbersome and difficult to set up than the actual OS installation. Which is why I often point to entities like Vector or PCLinuxOS when potential new users look for a good starting point. They both have LiveCD install disks that work very well, do not contain crippled media applications or libraries, and have things like flash and java already set-up.

Of course they are also probably in violation of a number of statutes.

Ryujin · 2006-07-17 04:25:49

I didn't vote because I don't think those are the reasons, I think it comes down to marketing and Arch's positioning strategy, Distros with higher ratings go out and get attention, they release 5-20 beta and alpha releases, they announce their releases and they make a big fuss about their new developments.
Arch has taken a very meek approach, Arch is quiet and doesn't make a big fuss about releases (because they aren't as important due to the rolling release).
Despite Arch being, in my opinion, the best distro period, it is not aggressively marketed, something that is good and bad.

tomfitzyuk · 2006-07-20 19:01:17

Niakwe wrote:

Hi guys
Just my opinion... There are 372 distros registed in distrowatch today. So the current rank of Arch is not so bad taking into account that Arch isn't under the light as often than well know distro like ubuntu, fedora... I think Arch is already recognize for its qualities.

I think that's what the thread is about. Why isn't Arch as popular as Ubuntu/Fedora?

Arch Linux

#26 2006-07-07 20:34:48

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#27 2006-07-07 23:38:10

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#28 2006-07-08 04:52:12

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#29 2006-07-08 16:57:06

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#30 2006-07-11 13:43:54

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#31 2006-07-11 15:27:39

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#32 2006-07-11 15:58:30

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#33 2006-07-11 17:12:30

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#34 2006-07-11 19:28:22

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#35 2006-07-11 22:22:14

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#36 2006-07-11 22:32:09

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#37 2006-07-11 22:48:15

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#38 2006-07-12 03:50:32

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#39 2006-07-12 04:13:17

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#40 2006-07-12 05:32:06

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#41 2006-07-12 09:51:48

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#42 2006-07-12 10:45:16

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#43 2006-07-12 21:53:17

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#44 2006-07-12 22:52:25

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#45 2006-07-13 05:35:06

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#46 2006-07-17 02:14:08

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#47 2006-07-17 02:20:17

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#48 2006-07-17 02:29:26

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#49 2006-07-17 04:25:49

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

#50 2006-07-20 19:01:17

Re: Arch on Distrowatch

Board footer