Should I switch?

CocoAUS · 2007-09-07 19:39:06

I'm presently a happy Debian user looking for a better experience, and I'm wondering if Archlinux might be the answer. I've heard lots of great stuff about it.

I love that Debian has all the packages I want and a huge, active community. Apt is great and generally everything just works. However, using Sid (I like updated packages), there is a lot of breakage, and even some of Sid's packages simply don't get updated as often as they should. The community also has quite a bit of Debianism--that is, everything must be done the "Debian way." Again, I'm still happy with Debian, and none of these are show-stoppers.

But I would like to not have to worry so much about broken packages all the time. Just updating GNOME from 2.18.3-1 to 2.18.3-2 breaks the network-manager package--that's ridiculous! I'd also like more updated packages, such as development versions of GNOME (2.19) and maybe some KDE 4 beta builds. I don't want to have to compile my own kernel with the nvidia module every time there's an update--I just want to be able to install the nvidia/nvidia-glx package and be on my way.

Is Archlinux a good alternative for me?

Last edited by CocoAUS (2007-09-07 19:42:25)

lucke · 2007-09-07 19:43:59

Certainly.

skottish · 2007-09-07 19:52:47

Install like the wind!!!

And welcome (now) to Arch.

Thrillhouse · 2007-09-07 20:28:09

You think anybody here is going to say no? Although I've never used Debian, Arch sounds like it could be for you. You'll have the same control over your system as you did with Debian but, dare I say, more stability?8) I've been using Arch for ~4 months, updating every day, and haven't had any problems with conflicting packages/package versions.

lucke · 2007-09-07 21:00:57

Sure we'd say no, if Arch wouldn't fit his needs.

We aren't zealots, are we?

[KDE rocks!!!!11 GNOME sucks!!!11111 ZOMG!!!!!11]

Jessehk · 2007-09-07 21:06:29

I've tried Debian (and I've used Ubuntu) though I'm far from an expert.

I'd say that Arch will do what you want.
In my experience, the key differences are:

--> Not constrained by the package system. If a package isn't available in the repos or AUR (user-contributed package repository), you can very easily and quickly write your own. Custom repositories are also very easy to add (I've added a repo for KDE betas and one for a Pacman wrapper, yaourt).

--> If you really want to compile everything, you can.

--> all configuration is done manually and through text-files. However, the KISS philosophy of Arch means that this is easier than you would think (for example, /etc/rc.conf)

I'd definitely recommend you try it out, though be sure to read the beginner's guide here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide first.

Last edited by Jessehk (2007-09-07 21:08:29)

Thrillhouse · 2007-09-07 21:13:05

lucke wrote:

Sure we'd say no, if Arch wouldn't fit his needs.

Exactly. We'd say no if he was asking for an overcomplicated, bloated distro that makes things excessively difficult but we are all here because that is exactly what Arch isn't. Based on the needs that he stipulated, I don't think anybody would say Arch would not work for him.

Believe me, I am in no way a distro zealot. I've been through many and am still loyal to 1 or 2 that people get a little touchy-feely around (ahem, Fedora) but I'd like to hear the argument of someone telling this guy that Arch *wouldn't* be right for him.

Last edited by Thrillhouse (2007-09-07 21:13:32)

shining · 2007-09-07 21:18:55

CocoAUS wrote:

I'm presently a happy Debian user looking for a better experience, and I'm wondering if Archlinux might be the answer. I've heard lots of great stuff about it.
I love that Debian has all the packages I want and a huge, active community. Apt is great and generally everything just works. However, using Sid (I like updated packages), there is a lot of breakage, and even some of Sid's packages simply don't get updated as often as they should. The community also has quite a bit of Debianism--that is, everything must be done the "Debian way." Again, I'm still happy with Debian, and none of these are show-stoppers.

Debian is good but not perfect indeed.

But I would like to not have to worry so much about broken packages all the time. Just updating GNOME from 2.18.3-1 to 2.18.3-2 breaks the network-manager package--that's ridiculous! I'd also like more updated packages, such as development versions of GNOME (2.19) and maybe some KDE 4 beta builds. I don't want to have to compile my own kernel with the nvidia module every time there's an update--I just want to be able to install the nvidia/nvidia-glx package and be on my way.

The sad truth is that Arch is the same, ie good, but not perfect. But what is perfect?
Anyway, I think it's comparable to sid, at least in my experience.
That is, most upgrades go really smoothly, but you'll encounter some breakages from time to time.

About kde4, it's not really usable yet, but there is an unofficial repo there :
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=33536

And gnome 2.19, which is much more stable have a less unofficial repo, ie made by the arch maintainer of gnome,
for preparing its merging to official arch repos :
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=36783

About nvidia module, Arch does have a package for it indeed, which should be updated in the same time than the kernel.
But I am not sure what you meant here, because Debian has this as well :
http://packages.debian.org/sid/nvidia-kernel-2.6-686
And in any cases, you don't need to compile your own kernel. In the worst case, when this package was not available,
it was just a matter of "m-a a-i nvidia" for building nvidia against your current running kernel. Totally straightforward.

Is Archlinux a good alternative for me?

Well, the best thing here is to give Arch a fair try (which I highly recommend), so you can answer that question yourself.

raymano · 2007-09-07 22:13:07

You can try out Arch before installing from a Live CD/DVD/USB version like FaunOS, Archie, or March.

CocoAUS · 2007-09-08 04:40:16

shining wrote:

About nvidia module, Arch does have a package for it indeed, which should be updated in the same time than the kernel.
But I am not sure what you meant here, because Debian has this as well :
http://packages.debian.org/sid/nvidia-kernel-2.6-686
Is Archlinux a good alternative for me?
Well, the best thing here is to give Arch a fair try (which I highly recommend), so you can answer that question yourself.

That nvidia package is dated and doesn't work with the current driver. I'm not sure why the devs haven't fixed this yet--Stable's got a matching nvidia kernel, but the other two don't.

I gave Archlinux a quick spin, but...

Attempt 1: It had problems downloading packages (after they were all already downloaded). So I got a full CD and installed that way.
Attempt 2: Transient resolver problems using pacman
Attempt 2.5: locale issues...got them sorted out

My system is up and running now (or, crawling, more like). I'll have to get GRUB configured to see my Windows drive, get my sound working, and read about all the ins and outs of Arch after I get some sleep.

Thanks for the recommendations, gents. I'm sure I'll be bugging you with more questions once I mess up my install.

ruscook · 2007-09-08 06:22:27

Well I was a Ubuntu user of 3 years. I look after 5 machines in my family and 1 at my shop. 4 of these are now Arch. I find it a much snappier/responsive distro and I like the structure of the init system - rc.conf and the package system pacman.

Read the install guide and the wiki they are necessary to change but very good.

I moved a system from ubuntu to arch this w/e. Preserved the 270GB /home and reinstalled everything else (yet to do the s/w raid). THis includes, printing, scanning, apache, dovecot, gnome, etc.

To simplify I'm building my own scripts of packages. Not foolproof yet, but they reduce some of the tedium of installing packages.

Here's what I've got so far;

#!/bin/sh
# Russell's Arch-Pacman default package list
# Date: Sat 08 Sep 2007

## Base utils and gui
pacman -S xorg-server gnome gnome-extra gnome-themes gnome-themes-extras gnome-icon-theme  xorg-fonts-100dpi ttf-dejavu ttf-bitstream-vera gnome-system-tools nautilus-open-terminal mc gparted xinetd hdparm alacarte ntfs-3g gnome-commander gtk-theme-switch2 gtk-smooth-engine gtk2-themes-collection sudo gksu openssh ttf-ms-fonts freetype2 xorg-fonts-type1 control-center gnome-screensaver samba

## Productivity suites, email, web browsing.
pacman -S openoffice-base gnumeric abiword wine acroread jre gnome-cups-manager cups-pdf flashplugin mozilla-thunderbird mozilla-firefox gnome-cups-manager cups-pdf cups flashplugin 

## Multimedia capability - DVDs and movies base codecs
pacman -S codecs totem-xine gxine mplayer mplayer-plugin alsa-lib alsa-utils totem-plugin lame cdrdao libdvdcss libdvdnav libdvdread

## Multimedia capability -  additional codecs
pacman -S gstreamer0.10-alsa gstreamer0.10-alsaspdif gthumb gstreamer0.10-lame gstreamer0.10-taglib gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg  gstreamer0.10-gconf gstreamer0.10-libpng gstreamer0.10-jpeg gstreamer0.10-gnomevfs gstreamer0.10-hal gstreamer0.10-mpeg2dec gstreamer0.10-dvdread gstreamer0.10-a52dec gstreamer0.10-mad  

## Server and machine specific utils
# pacman -S apache php 
# pacman -S madwifi madwifi-utils wifi-radar
# pacman -S xfce4 xfce4-goodies


## Printing
pacman -S hplip hpoj foomatic-db foomatic-db-engine foomatic-db-hpijs foomatic-db-ppd foomatic-filters gutenprint 

## Scanning
pacman -S pyqt sane sane-frontends xsane

## Repositories
#Server = ftp://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/archlinux/current/os/i686
#Server = ftp://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/archlinux/testing/os/i686
#Server = ftp://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/archlinux/extra/os/i686
#Server = ftp://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/archlinux/community/os/i686
#Server = ftp://mirror.pacific.net.au/linux/archlinux/unstable/os/i686

## Default groups.
# use script - newuser
#disk::6:root,ruscook
#disk::6:root,ruscook
#lp::7:daemon
#wheel::10:root,ruscook
#log::19:root,ruscook
#video:x:91:ruscook,joy,jazmin,harry
#audio::92:ruscook,joy,jazmin,harry
#optical::93:hal,ruscook,joy,jazmin,harry
#storage:x:95:hal,ruscook,joy,jazmin,harry
#users::100:ruscook
#camera:x:97:ruscook
#scanner:x:96:ruscook,joy,jazmin
#gpasswd -a ruscook disk,wheel,log,video,audio,optical,storage,scanner

And here's my script to create a new user:

#!/bin/sh
# Russell's default User/Group script
# Date: Sat 08 Sep 2007

for i in ruscook; do
    echo creating user: $i
    adduser $i
    for g in wheel log users disk video audio optical storage scanner lp camera;  do
        gpasswd -a $i $g
    done
done

for i in joy jazmin harry; do
    echo creating user: $i
    adduser $i
    for g in disk video audio optical storage scanner lp camera; do
        gpasswd -a $i $g
    done
done

The above will help me make a "std" install on each of the machines I look after.

I also edit sudoers, to allow "wheel" users access to sudo.

Take the plunge, there's a steeper learning curve than Ubuntu but the reward is a more responsive system, without waiting for gentoo's compile times :-)

Russ

Last edited by ruscook (2007-09-08 06:25:09)

shining · 2007-09-08 09:51:43

CocoAUS wrote:

shining wrote:
About nvidia module, Arch does have a package for it indeed, which should be updated in the same time than the kernel.
But I am not sure what you meant here, because Debian has this as well :
http://packages.debian.org/sid/nvidia-kernel-2.6-686
That nvidia package is dated and doesn't work with the current driver. I'm not sure why the devs haven't fixed this yet--Stable's got a matching nvidia kernel, but the other two don't.

I see, but still, this is generally solved by one m-a command.
Unless the nvidia module doesn't compile against debian kernels of course.

Xilon · 2007-09-08 10:25:40

The nvidia problem was indeed annoying on Debian... Thank god Arch doesn't have that.

Previous to Arch I used Debian, and I can say that Arch is a big step forward. Debian maybe has more packages but I have everything I want in either the official repos and AUR. Sometimes I have to build things myself by a PKGBUILD is SOOOO much easier than creating a debian package (without using checkinstall). I don't know of what Debian community you are talking about, maybe I was out of the loop but I couldn't acutally find one apart from the Mailing lists which I don't particularly like. Either way Arch's is better

At the very least dual boot into Arch and see how it goes.

shining · 2007-09-08 11:09:19

Xilon wrote:

The nvidia problem was indeed annoying on Debian... Thank god Arch doesn't have that.

I didn't find it that annoying. Seriously, how difficult is module-assistant to use?

Previous to Arch I used Debian, and I can say that Arch is a big step forward. Debian maybe has more packages but I have everything I want in either the official repos and AUR. Sometimes I have to build things myself by a PKGBUILD is SOOOO much easier than creating a debian package (without using checkinstall). I don't know of what Debian community you are talking about, maybe I was out of the loop but I couldn't acutally find one apart from the Mailing lists which I don't particularly like. Either way Arch's is better

Right, same here

markc · 2007-09-08 11:16:28

Xilon wrote:

PKGBUILD is SOOOO much easier than creating a debian package

I totally agree and the thing I particularly like, compared to apt-get source package, is that the PKGBUILD pulls the original distribution file directly from a source server (similar to a Gentoo ebuild) rather than include the original tarball within the source package itself like Debian does. A much simpler and more flexible arrangement. The only thing I miss with AL is a debianized layout for the package installs. Apache, for instance, is almost a RedHat/CentOS installation whereas every other machine I look after is Debian based so all my custom server scripts have to be tweaked for any AL installation, or, I'll make my own debianized AL packages which is probably easier in the long term (I've done one for proftpd). Other than that, this long term Debian user loves AL.

Eliteforce · 2007-09-08 12:22:16

if you want things to work out of the box and try to avoid touching config files stay with debian testing + pinned unstabled pkgs

shining · 2007-09-08 13:26:53

markc wrote:

Xilon wrote:
PKGBUILD is SOOOO much easier than creating a debian package
I totally agree and the thing I particularly like, compared to apt-get source package, is that the PKGBUILD pulls the original distribution file directly from a source server (similar to a Gentoo ebuild) rather than include the original tarball within the source package itself like Debian does.

Actually, I heard that moving to this scheme would be more secure :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacm … 08704.html

But on this subject, that is also interesting :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacm … 09101.html

lilsirecho · 2007-09-08 15:35:24

I am 82 and have archlinux up to dateand have FaunOS as well on flash drive. I load FaunOS into RAM @ 2GB.

I also have a Larch Flash drive which performs well'

All are archlinux based with pacman and aufs capability.

They perform excellently every upgrade.

tlaloc · 2007-09-08 16:32:52

You are 82? Wow, respect ...

xPlozion · 2007-09-09 13:42:33

About the transient resolver issue with pacman... I've had that once on my other computer and it had to do with network issues (ie. an improperly setup eth0). I tried making it a static ip, but forgot one small thing... (gateway). Try using dhcp if you can... and then mess with the network if you like.

In other words, if your not online, then you'll get that error

And I agree that it a very good choice. I used to distro hop a lot, between Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu FreeBSD, Suse and others, but I have finally found the distro that suits my needs. Very easy to maintain and very fast (as opposed to Ubuntu). You couldn't go wrong with it.

Last edited by xPlozion (2007-09-09 13:45:03)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-09-07 19:39:06

Should I switch?

#2 2007-09-07 19:43:59

Re: Should I switch?

#3 2007-09-07 19:52:47

Re: Should I switch?

#4 2007-09-07 20:28:09

Re: Should I switch?

#5 2007-09-07 21:00:57

Re: Should I switch?

#6 2007-09-07 21:06:29

Re: Should I switch?

#7 2007-09-07 21:13:05

Re: Should I switch?

#8 2007-09-07 21:18:55

Re: Should I switch?

#9 2007-09-07 22:13:07

Re: Should I switch?

#10 2007-09-08 04:40:16

Re: Should I switch?

#11 2007-09-08 06:22:27

Re: Should I switch?

#12 2007-09-08 09:51:43

Re: Should I switch?

#13 2007-09-08 10:25:40

Re: Should I switch?

#14 2007-09-08 11:09:19

Re: Should I switch?

#15 2007-09-08 11:16:28

Re: Should I switch?

#16 2007-09-08 12:22:16

Re: Should I switch?

#17 2007-09-08 13:26:53

Re: Should I switch?

#18 2007-09-08 15:35:24

Re: Should I switch?

#19 2007-09-08 16:32:52

Re: Should I switch?

#20 2007-09-09 13:42:33

Re: Should I switch?

Board footer