Arch Linux

BartVG

Member

Registered: 2007-09-10

Posts: 11

Learning Linux

Arch claims to be a distro that doesn't do too much for the user and therefore makes you really learn linux (contrary to the Ubuntu way, for example).
But how do you explain the following? According to the "Configuring Network" text on ArchWiki, all you have to do to configure your network is put some values in a few configuration files, type /etc/rc.d/network start and that's it. Where's ifconfig, route, ...? Are these put together in /etc/rc.d/network?
(I'm not using Archlinux yet, otherwise I could just go and have a look)

Cerebral

Forum Fellow

From: Waterloo, ON, CA

Registered: 2005-04-08

Posts: 3,108

Website

Re: Learning Linux

Arch claims to be a distro that doesn't do too much for the user and therefore makes you really learn linux

I don't think Arch has ever claimed that about itself.  People have claimed that about Arch, however.

In any case, to answer your question, you can use ifconfig, route, and so on if you really want to - it's "essentially" what /etc/rc.d/network does (it's just a bash script).  It's done this way to match the way we startup other services at boot, like syslog or cups.

Misfit138

Misfit Emeritus

From: USA

Registered: 2006-11-27

Posts: 4,189

Re: Learning Linux

The Arch way is similar to the Slackware way. Services in Slackware are set up in the /etc/rc.d directory, and the recommended method of enabling them is to simply chmod the scripts, whereas Arch calls them from the DAMEONS line in /etc/rc.conf. This might seem strange, but it is actually inspired by the BSD way. It is a 'simple' way, which is consistent with the Arch principle. (See the Arch Way in the wiki )
Many Linux distros use a  more complex system, but the 'BSD/Arch/Slack' way uses one simple file for each runlevel, not an entire directory.

---

Amiga 1000 restomod
IBM PCjr restomod
C=64 restodmod
Sauengard

robertp

Member

From: Warszawa, Poland

Registered: 2007-09-11

Posts: 123

Re: Learning Linux

Arch is claimed to be difficult to set up and maintain because there are no GUI tools (or are not well known) to configure system (mostly editing rc.conf) or install packages. But in reality most of configuration is very easy for people who are not afraid of text editor (often in text mode).

For me configuration of almost whole system required uncommenting/changing default values in /etc/rc.conf file and running pacman -S gnome. It was much simpler than installing Red Hat/ Fedora or something "user-friendly".

Husio

Member

From: Europe

Registered: 2005-12-04

Posts: 359

Website

Re: Learning Linux

CRUX is good if you want to learn something.

mac57

Member

From: St. Somewhere

Registered: 2006-01-06

Posts: 302

Website

Re: Learning Linux

Arch could be considered tougher than some other distros for newcomers. For starters, your Arch install doesn't leave you with X, a Window Manager, or any of these other niceties. It leaves all those choices to you, which I personally LOVE. Folks who just want to install something and have everything handed to them though, may not like it at all.

So, "harder to learn" is relative. Arch is "harder to learn" than some, but as you correctly point out, it is actually not that difficult at all, and there are excellent Wiki resources available to help you along with way.

---

Cast off the Microsoft shackles Jan 2005