Why do you use Arch linux?

soniX · 2007-01-17 22:13:28

simple reason: It works!

Martyr · 2007-01-17 22:40:20

Rolling release, AUR, abs, i686 optimised.

You can run this distro in so many ways.... read up and step in as noob, go full throttle and run pacman testing, edit all you like and actually understand what the system does...

And there's just something about this philosophy which breaths through the forums and wiki's - KISS, DIY, the hacker way, I daresay the UNIX way: do one thing, and do it well.

Arch is everything I ever wanted out of a distro.
_________________
When in doubt, use brute force.

picpak · 2007-01-18 00:09:45

This post here at the Ubuntu Forums really sums up everything I love about it. Two weeks later I read it I switched.

Pajaro · 2007-01-18 08:35:47

AUR + speed + up to date.

The ubuntu people simply made a big mastake trying to make "the distro" when they chose debian.

Is there any ubuntu based on arch?

Snarkout · 2007-01-18 15:55:27

I came for the Rolling Release, I stayed for the jiggy-juggas...erm...I mean ABS and AUR. And the community kicks ass.

@FUBAR:

I'm in a similar boat laptop-wise, so I hear what you're saying. What's a Frugalware -stable type of person, though?

magnum_opus · 2007-01-18 18:42:30

at this point?
momentum and familiarity. Arch was the first distro that ever came close to just working, there was vector linux too but at the time slapt-get or swaret or whatever wasn't in the default install.
these days it's just what i know and it doesn't piss me off enough to bother switching to anything.

Stalwart · 2007-01-18 19:32:38

Arch sucks less than other distros. I like the ability to adjust everything "under the hood" easily. With my buggy hardware it really helps

palandir · 2007-01-19 14:47:03

- Up to date but stable
- Speed
- Very simple (I was a long-time Slackware user, I need that. Systems with the complexity of Debian or Windows scare me... I like to tweak and understand stuff, that's why I need simplicity)
- Really awesome package manager. The best IMHO (Runner-up would be aptitude I guess).
- PKGBUILD concept, ABS and AUR are great as well, it's very easy and fast to create custom packages
- Big package repositories (well it's not Debian but MUCH bigger than I expected from a relatively unknown distribution)
- "The best from all worlds"
- Nice community

Millzee · 2007-01-19 18:12:59

I was never a "distro hopper" (about 5-6 years using Mandrake, after a brief try of Red Hat 7.2, before switching to Arch), though am I very interested in the variety of Unix-like operating systems out there, so my choice was largely based around the various philosophies of the distributions. At the time I switched, Gentoo and FreeBSD were also appealing. The main two reasons I switched are pacman and the vast level of configuration and customization from a simple base that Arch offers. It's simple, it's fast and it's efficient and while I intend to try other systems on my second hard drive (mainly Gentoo, FreeBSD and OpenSolaris). I believe Arch will remain the primary OS on my hard drive.

I would even recommend it to new Unix users who are willing to sit down and learn over the "easier" distributions like Mandriva because they'll learn so much faster and be comfortable with the system so much quicker using it.

Bebo · 2007-01-19 20:20:45

- BSD-style initscripts!!!
- Install once - then follow the current
- Easy package management: Pacman, AUR, PKGBUILDs

Valheru · 2007-01-29 06:29:09

Because Gentoo compile times take too damned long

Last edited by Valheru (2007-01-29 06:29:25)

plut0nium · 2007-01-29 08:13:07

Valheru wrote:

Because Gentoo compile times take too damned long

+1

coming from Gentoo, i got tired of these fscking long compile times... for very low performance improvement
and imho, Gentoo does not follow the KISS principle for a long time ago

from my point of view, Arch is just somewhere in the middle of Gentoo, Debian and Slackware (with a touch of FreeBSD) and combines all benefits of them: optimization, binary packages and simplicity, without the disadvantages

onearm · 2007-01-29 09:17:51

Apart from the things already said (Simplicity, KISS, i686 optimization etc.), because it's the only distro which I ever tried that has done what I thought impossible: improving the old good Slackware.

Birdman · 2007-01-29 13:03:39

onearm wrote:

Apart from the things already said (Simplicity, KISS, i686 optimization etc.), because it's the only distro which I ever tried that has done what I thought impossible: improving the old good Slackware.

I second this. Arch to me is an optimised bleeding edge Slackware that is easy to use.

Gullible Jones · 2007-01-29 22:16:16

Excellent package manager, nifty initrd setup, and the AUR all factor in, but what I really like is the sanity that other distros are too often lacking: initscripts that aren't a complete jumble, and a repository structure and updating policies that actually make sense.

sash · 2007-01-30 04:44:32

I'd like to say that along with everything else already said, rc.conf got me hooked. One single place where most services can be configured so easily--it's a stroke of a genius.

smarcher · 2007-01-30 04:54:12

1) Best package management

2) It is the fastest distro, makes any comp feel like a champ, have tried it on a Celeron and now run it on an Athlon64 bit.

3) Rolling release

Zoranthus · 2007-01-30 10:23:33

All that + great user base.

kjs · 2007-01-31 17:56:53

Everything works really well!
-Easy to install
-Zippy bootup
-Clean scripts
-Easy to keep up to date: Pacman -Syu

I've tried other distro's and have even switched and then came back to arch. Only what's with the "Wow starts now" windows vista add on the home page?

funkmuscle · 2007-01-31 19:23:26

Hey,

ArchLinux is such a fast OS, why not speciality release for Audio and Video? In other words, ArchLinux would be a perfect Digital Audio/Video workstation.
Gentoo, Utunbu, SuSe's JackLab all have speciality release for just that purpose. I think that ArchLinux is faster and runs audio apps better.

TheRo3121 · 2007-02-02 18:48:26

I have to say, I've found Arch to be more of a Linux learning experience than any other derivative of Linux I've used (In this order: Mandrake (before it was Mandriva), OpenSUSE, Fedora Core, Ubuntu, Gentoo (for some reason I was quickly turned off), Arch (was afraid of it at first), Xubuntu, CentOS, SimplyMepis, Arch (afraid no longer)). This migration of distros (except for two) has been done in the span of a year and a half or two. Like many other Arch users, I've come to enjoy the fact it was so lightweight and efficient and if problems arise you can read the forums or the wiki like I've been doing as of late, and problems often disappear. Patience and reading Pacman output carefully also seem to help... LOL

Last edited by TheRo3121 (2007-02-02 18:51:41)

bigben · 2007-02-03 12:11:07

Hi, I'm a new Arch user. I got an old laptop and decided I wanted something that would install and upgrade faster than Gentoo, which is what I use on my desktop and home server. I had seen Arch recommended elsewhere, and indeed I am pleasantly surprised at the qualities of this distro. I really like the simple, straightforward, user-in-charge approach.

Deranger · 2007-02-03 22:12:48

I use Arch because it's a fairly minimal distro with simple and elegant design without much tweaking. In addition, I like to have the latest software.

Last edited by Deranger (2007-02-03 22:13:28)

Valheru · 2007-02-11 02:48:15

I'd just like to add that I really liked Gentoo - the compile times and the bloat that the Python scripts caused eventually caused me to switch to Arch. I'd used Arch before, when a ~x86 install of KDE trashed my HD, but it was too immature for my tastes back then. This time around I discovered the AUR, so everything is peachy. I also write my own PKGBUILD's now, so the lack of packages isn't a problem any more. I would like to see a lot more packages in the community repository though, that is one thing that Gentoo still wins at IMO - the sheer amount of installable packages.

normc · 2007-02-11 04:22:13

I find it easy to use and I'm able to get all my hardware working (after a bit of tweeking>

Arch Linux

#26 2007-01-17 22:13:28

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#27 2007-01-17 22:40:20

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#28 2007-01-18 00:09:45

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#29 2007-01-18 08:35:47

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#30 2007-01-18 15:55:27

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#31 2007-01-18 18:42:30

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#32 2007-01-18 19:32:38

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#33 2007-01-19 14:47:03

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#34 2007-01-19 18:12:59

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#35 2007-01-19 20:20:45

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#36 2007-01-29 06:29:09

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#37 2007-01-29 08:13:07

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#38 2007-01-29 09:17:51

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#39 2007-01-29 13:03:39

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#40 2007-01-29 22:16:16

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#41 2007-01-30 04:44:32

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#42 2007-01-30 04:54:12

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#43 2007-01-30 10:23:33

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#44 2007-01-31 17:56:53

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#45 2007-01-31 19:23:26

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#46 2007-02-02 18:48:26

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#47 2007-02-03 12:11:07

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#48 2007-02-03 22:12:48

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#49 2007-02-11 02:48:15

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

#50 2007-02-11 04:22:13

Re: Why do you use Arch linux?

Board footer