review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

zenlord · 2007-04-17 09:06:07

Hi all!

Arch being my distro of choice and distrowatch being a website I visit daily to see what's happening and often to read a new review every now and then, it occurred to me that noone has reviewed the voodoo-release yet!

Others, IMHO less original distro's, get all the attention and this is really bugging me... If I was somewhat more skilled in linux, I would try to write one myself, but I think I would not be able to make it interesting to the community because of my lack of linux-knowledge...

I'll try to contact some of the known reviewers to get them to review Arch - I think Arch would benefit a great deal of some more attention. And I believe Arch really deserves this...

Zl.

STiAT · 2007-04-17 09:24:03

The problem on people writing reviews - they must be objective.
Actually, i don't think many people on the boards could do so, at least i could not really do such a review, since i'm in love with the arch distribution, and would probably write that it's a distribution made by gods hands... what could bring a lot of new users into struggle when trying arch

zenlord · 2007-04-17 09:53:07

So true.

I contacted several of the review-sites and suggested Archlinux as a new topic. I hope I didn't come over as a crybaby, but you could see a conspiracy in this: Mint and Pioneer, both derivatives of a derivative of Debian are reviewed everywhere and with every new development release, and an original distro like Arch gets none of the attention...

Zl.

Ramses de Norre · 2007-04-17 11:09:23

Wasn't Arch rather proud of being pretty unknown? It's still listed with the PRO's on the wiki (though taken into question now it seems, and also listed with the CON's )

Xilon · 2007-04-17 11:23:08

The good thing about being "unknown" (though imo it is pretty well known - I kept hearing things about it) is that there are less n00bs, but the installation process may weed out some of them any way .

Arch is a great distro, and there are a lot of things that could be mentioned. The only con I can think of is that it's "hard" to use - you need linux knowledge. I don't think it's easy to make a review about a specific release of Arch though, as the releases are just snapshots, and up until now, it's really the installer that has changed, and besides that it's only package updates. Of course there are updates Arch specific (well, not really) things like Pacman.

Ramses de Norre · 2007-04-17 11:31:37

No, the installation isn't really simple... I was used to installing stuff like ubuntu(the text-installer, I hated the GUI one) and zenwalk but arch was quite a hassle

I'm not sure if you're con is really a con, I think it's more like a precondition to use a distro like Arch. Arch assumes that you know how a Linux system works and I don't think I could have used it as my first distro.

Last edited by Ramses de Norre (2007-04-17 11:32:07)

sl · 2007-04-17 12:17:46

i personally don't mind Arch beign (still) relatively unknown, in-fact, i prefer it that way ..
the lsat thing we need is for arch to end up like ubuntu, every other week a new speed-up guide is invented ( tips taken from the gentoo pages ) ... and yet, in comparision to the average untweaked arch it's the turtoise vs the rabit ( and there isn't too much exageration there either ) ... sorry for pickign on ubuntu, but i'm still nto ashamed to do so ...

Misfit138 · 2007-04-17 13:01:28

Gentoo is "hard" to use too, and yet is overwhelmingly popular.
Arch seems to be a "niche" distro; it attracts a certain following, but does not necessarily have mass-appeal.
It is my favorite distro, and I am getting better at using it all the time. It has taught me more about Linux than any other distro.
I am very surprised that there are not more distros based on Arch; it would seem to be the perfect system to base one on. I can think of Underground desktop, and Frugalware, which borrowed pacman.
This topic comes up a lot, and I am personally in favor of growth. I think the advantages will outweigh any disadvantages, and gleaning more quality developers to help out our current esteemed crew would be great.

zenlord · 2007-04-17 13:08:11

@Misfit138: my thoughts exactly.

In the mean time I got already one answer of a very good reviewer (my opinion of course) that will use Arch for a review later this week. I can't wait

Zl.

Mandor · 2007-04-17 19:21:40

Well I'm just surprised that in more than two weeks there is no Arch review. Not that I think it is necessary or something... Lately I find most of the reviews a totally useless ****, and the ones I like, I like because of the witty language of the author, not because they are useful.
There should be a criteria according to which the distributions are reviewed, and these should be more concrete and objective, but not generic, like "Install Process" or "Desktop Usage". After all, maybe it won't be worth the efforts...

phrakture · 2007-04-18 01:45:47

Most of the archlinux pimping on distrowatch was done by Eugenia, who I believe has moved on to Sleezy Sloth, or some distro like that.

.:B:. · 2007-04-18 06:23:51

No Distrowatch pimping please... I have seen what it can turn a distro into. Arch don't need no influx of 'noobs' or wannabe l33t hackers that start bugging people with their silly ideas of what Arch should be. I think the team is small and strong enough to withstand that kind of rubbish, but as the adage goes: don't fix if it ain't broken.

Last edited by B (2007-04-18 06:26:13)

mclang · 2007-04-18 12:51:37

Well, I don't care about complete noobs with stupid questions either, but still a good review would be good. Then again, I don't have anything against beginners as long as they really try to look for solution before asking those questions.

And about silly ideas - developers and supporting core users probably do as they like, not the way as some newcomer suggest. Except if it is good idea of course...

zenlord · 2007-04-19 09:33:16

Although I don't think I have something to do with it, here is a first review:
http://andersman.org/index.php/2007/04/19/arch-linux/

I think the reviewer is correct in his conclusion - it's just a pity that the installation on 2 out of 3 of his machines posed problems (whatever they were...)

Zl.

tlaloc · 2007-04-19 14:25:42

Well, he also says that he had to install from floppy - I vaguely remember that this isn't supported anymore.

dtw · 2007-04-19 15:04:58

Stuff that probably no one gives a shit about

Mandor · 2007-04-19 16:23:01

tlaloc wrote:

Well, he also says that he had to install from floppy - I vaguely remember that this isn't supported anymore.

I think I read as well other things that made me believe that a much older install CD is used for the review.

chaosgeisterchen · 2007-04-19 21:48:14

The thing is, that Archlinux tends to be a really tough one when it comes to reviews. As it based on the rolling release system, you cannot really review a 'release', as it merely represents a snapshot of what the current repository contains at that moment. Other distributions put noticeable effort towards a concrete release, which is maintained over a fixed period of time. This is the well-known way to go, but Arch does not work that way and hopefully will never do.

Hence it will always lack _good reviews and distrowatch ranking and will keep its image of a 'niche distribution'. Somehow I'm glad about that, there are rarely downsides concerning the state of being a 'niche distribution'.

So far

cg

zenlord · 2007-04-20 08:52:20

Tuxmachines review: http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/15527

I think this is a good, honest review. I reported the mistake about openoffice not being available in the repo's.

Zl.

benplaut · 2007-04-20 09:12:05

.

Last edited by benplaut (2021-06-25 12:26:04)

ihavenoname · 2007-04-21 23:28:26

The reviews I have read so far have been pretty good. I'm glade arch comes out and states that it is not a distro for the weak hearted, because honestly I am sick of reviewers tearing down distros for 'not being easy enough' or for not having proprietary formats, or comparing them to windows. The fact is, if someone is coming to linux from windows because they like to tinker (as I did) they won't be stopped by typing a few commands into the terminal. If someone is coming to linux because windows no longer works, well quite frankly they won't return to windows unless they don't like trying new things. I understand that SOME distros cater to those people and that is when that should be an issue. Otherwise, review a distro based on it's technical capabilities, the resources it provides users, and how well it accomplishes the goals set out by the developers. Don't review a distro designed for showcasing the latest and greatest and say that it wasn't easy to use, because that's not what it was designed for. That said the above reviewers did not make that mistake with arch linux.

Also I think Arch should be easy to find for those looking for it, but we shouldn't go out of our way to push people to use it. We are not Mandriva, or Suse. They "need" new users. We would like new users. Steady pace for Arch, it's worked in the past. I would hate to have a rush of people who have all these "demands" and overwhelm the arch resources (and servers).

Arch Linux

#1 2007-04-17 09:06:07

review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#2 2007-04-17 09:24:03

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#3 2007-04-17 09:53:07

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#4 2007-04-17 11:09:23

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#5 2007-04-17 11:23:08

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#6 2007-04-17 11:31:37

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#7 2007-04-17 12:17:46

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#8 2007-04-17 13:01:28

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#9 2007-04-17 13:08:11

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#10 2007-04-17 19:21:40

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#11 2007-04-18 01:45:47

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#12 2007-04-18 06:23:51

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#13 2007-04-18 12:51:37

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#14 2007-04-19 09:33:16

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#15 2007-04-19 14:25:42

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#16 2007-04-19 15:04:58

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#17 2007-04-19 16:23:01

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#18 2007-04-19 21:48:14

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#19 2007-04-20 08:52:20

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#20 2007-04-20 09:12:05

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

#21 2007-04-21 23:28:26

Re: review of Archlinux on distrowatch?

Board footer