A note to Arch developers

Misfit138 · 2006-12-08 17:33:53

I have fiddled with GNU/Linux on and off for a few years. I believe in the open source concept, and wanted so much to use an alternative OS. After trying about 2 dozen distros, including suse, ubuntu, kubuntu, PClinuxOS, Ark, knoppix, DSL, kanotix, slackware, zenwalk, mepis and mandriva, video Linux, Xandros, Fedora, Debian, Sabayon, Mint, Morphix, Overclockix, (the list goes on) my experiences invariably ended in frustration due to instability and unpredictable behavior. I never grew comfortable with any of them and they were all wiped after a short time as I continued searching.
Arch is the first distro that actually allowed me to 'build' my own OS from as close to scratch as is practical and comfortable.
Along the way one is forced to learn and understand a good amount of basic GNU/Linux skills and concepts which affords a much higher overall knowledge of how it works and what is actually going on. When I originally was exposed to GNU/Linux I was intimidated and confused by the heavy reliance on the command line. Arch has forced me to learn and even embrace a good bit of the command line and I no longer loathe opening a console to update, remove or install packages with pacman, or tweak configuration files.
Arch is faster, simpler, more streamlined and more stable than any other distro I have tried to date. I have stopped burning ISOs in search of the 'perfect distro'. I have found it in Arch.
Thanks to the developers and the entire Arch community.

tomk · 2006-12-08 18:44:12

You're welcome.

Thank you for an excellent post, and I hope you will continue to enjoy Arch for a long time.

marxav · 2006-12-08 18:50:57

There are lots of us like you I believe. I also tried several distributions, and still do... But Arch remains number one and runs on my 5 machines. Like you, I used to use nano, then I kicked myself in the but and tried vim. Adopted since... I have computers that are headless. And ssh -X is not always convenient. So a basic console will always have its place and that, disregarding the distribution or the desktop manager you use. If you are use to use KDE and must do something on say Gnome, you might not know where to go at first if you search for s GUI to do some config. That is why I like a console. And of course Arch, because as you said, it starts barebone and you install what you like, nothing else.

Now, I rsync one in a while (daily maybe :oops: ) with current and extra and selected packages then I can upgrades my machines locally very fast

phrakture · 2006-12-08 19:07:14

One of the things I notice with people who "get" arch, is that, in the beginning, they want GUIs and tools and things like that. This includes myself. It was hard to get the mind-set of "change this file" instead of "check this checkbox". However, the more and more you learn about the way things work, the more GUI configurations feel restrictive.
That is not to say they're a bad thing, but I'm pointing out that, while Windows-type users will find editing config files inelegant and clunky, others find the exact opposite.

Misfit138 · 2006-12-08 19:58:58

Thanks for the great responses.
I am still extremely new to Linux, and have so very much to learn, but thanks to Arch I am at least 'Linux literate' to a small degree, and can now use it as my main OS.
The first time I installed Arch, it took me 2 hours of trial and error just to get the base installed, but during those 2 hours I learned more about Linux than in the past 2 years- and this is not an exaggeration. (Incidently, the second time I installed it only took 1 hour to get a 100% fully functioning system with DE- because of how much I was taught by using it. )
I find Arch to be so fundamentally logical and elegant, and feel so comfortable with its structure that I doubt I will ever change again.
I have a pretty severe learning disability, and paradoxally, Arch, being more basic and manually configured, actually comes much more naturally to me than the so-called 'newbie distros', which seem to sacrifice some performance and functionality for what they deem 'ease of use'.
Forgive me for the long-winded posts, but I am quite thankful for and enthusiastic about your terrific distro.
Thanks again.

mrvw0169 · 2006-12-10 01:51:37

Totally agree... ArchLinux was my first linux distribution (I believe since 0.2 or 0.4... I forget now) and because of that, I've learned SO much about Linux along the way... very useful skills at the university...

I've wandered off to other distros out of curiosity, but the sheer simplicity and speed of ArchLinux draws me back... Not to mention that it really isn't that hard to install at all now.

It's way faster than any other distros and lets me "just work" while staying current with packages with (almost) no fuss...

Thanks developers!

kawa · 2006-12-12 10:15:26

Misfit138 wrote:

Arch is faster, simpler, more streamlined and more stable than any other distro I have tried to date. I have stopped burning ISOs in search of the 'perfect distro'. I have found it in Arch.
Thanks to the developers and the entire Arch community.

For some strange reason, as I was distro hunting, I would come across Arch and I never bothered to try it. I had downloaded Rubix and I thought I would try it only to run pacman and I saw the repos were down and it had been discontinued. Pacman kinda intrested me and I thought why not go for Arch the daddy of pacman!

To add icing to the cake, I saw a link to base-0.7.2-20061119-i686.iso which was just what I needed (a small iso) and to add the cherries, I could add just what I needed and as I speak, I am having no problems at all with Arch. (Only had a pacman issue which was not a pacman problem but problems with my ftp connection)

I am now running Arch on GNOME 8)

tomk · 2006-12-12 11:18:31

Actually, you're running GNOME on Arch - but let's not nitpick.

Thanks for another good post - glad you're enjoying it.

Zoranthus · 2006-12-12 11:49:20

That pretty much sums up my own experience as well.

Arch made me learn what I had to know.. and that wasn't much or hard at all. Where's the difference between memorizing the name of a config file and the name of some abstract configuration utility? Plus almost all config files work in the same way and are accessible by the same very efficient unix tools (cat, grep,...) while config utilities differ greatly among each other in design, usability and responsiveness.

sokuban · 2006-12-12 12:57:39

Same with me. I finally configured Arch really well and the other day I went back into ubuntu and was like... O_o, where is my rc.conf!!

At first I wanted GUI tools and stuff, and I still do, but after you learn how to use the commandline, using it is much easier than the GUI. I want to learn how to use the commandline for everything.

Arch is great becuase it makes it easy to do things. I think I am sticking with Arch forever.

My one complain is that it needs better documentation. >_<

I still have a lot more to go on my road to LInux, I'll stick with Arch, until I go back to Canada, when I promised myself I would get Linux From Scratch during summer vacation.

Thank you to all the Arch developers.

kth5 · 2006-12-12 13:05:49

sokuban wrote:

My one complain is that it needs better documentation. >_<

Yup, back in the times of the good old phpwiki everything was more or less fine, ever since someone made the move to mediawiki the contents of the wiki are kind of inaccesssible. All I usually find is outdated or incomplete stuff...

Misfit138 · 2006-12-12 13:48:16

kawa wrote:

For some strange reason, as I was distro hunting, I would come across Arch and I never bothered to try it.

You know, I avoided Arch too. I was sticking with the more newbie friendly distros, because I doubted my ability to learn much more. Whenever someone recommended Arch, it was always in the context of 'being hard to install, and for advanced users' which intimidated me.
Also, on distrowatch, Arch is described as being aimed at 'competent' users, which was scary as well. However, both of these factors added to my overall satisfaction with successfully installing and using Arch.
I can certainly appreciate the simplicity and stability of Arch. Everything I try to do 'just works', and that is saying a lot for someone as inexperienced with it as myself.
The installation was challenging, but intuitve, and the conf files have very helpful tips in their comments sections. (eg, Cheat code for 1024x768 framebuffer mode in /boot/grub/menu.lst....available default wm's are commented in ~.xinitrc...helpful tips in comments of /etc/rc.conf,........)

Arch just fits like a glove.

sokuban wrote:

My one complain is that it needs better documentation. >_<

I plan on doing my best to help improve it.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-12-08 17:33:53

A note to Arch developers

#2 2006-12-08 18:44:12

Re: A note to Arch developers

#3 2006-12-08 18:50:57

Re: A note to Arch developers

#4 2006-12-08 19:07:14

Re: A note to Arch developers

#5 2006-12-08 19:58:58

Re: A note to Arch developers

#6 2006-12-10 01:51:37

Re: A note to Arch developers

#7 2006-12-12 10:15:26

Re: A note to Arch developers

#8 2006-12-12 11:18:31

Re: A note to Arch developers

#9 2006-12-12 11:49:20

Re: A note to Arch developers

#10 2006-12-12 12:57:39

Re: A note to Arch developers

#11 2006-12-12 13:05:49

Re: A note to Arch developers

#12 2006-12-12 13:48:16

Re: A note to Arch developers

Board footer