Contemplating a switch to Arch

derekr44 · 2008-02-14 15:09:27

I'm seriously contemplating a switch to Arch. I've been Windows-Free on my desktop since August and am very intrigued by Linux and really want to learn the nuts and bolts. Maybe it's just me, but I've been getting the nagging feeling that Ubuntu is getting a little bloated. That's probably because I don't know half the stuff that is installed on it. So I figured Arch was a great way to learn.

So on with my question...

I have my /home folders residing on a completely seperate hard drive with fstab doing the redirect. From my understanding, a lot of application information is stored in hidden folders in each user's /home folder. If I were to wipe out Ubuntu and install Arch, what sort of impact on my applications would those files have once I remount the existing /home drive? I know I'd need to reinstall the apps, but would it remove the existing configurations stored in those files, or would the app automatically revert to those configs the way they were when I had Ubuntu?

bionnaki · 2008-02-14 15:39:52

they will use the configuration files that are hidden in home.

I would do a fresh install, personally. clear out all the useless files and avoid weird application problems that might arise. back up your important files, of course.

be sure to read the beginners guide on the wiki. if you get stuck without X, irssi and elinks are your best friends. and I recommend just using the ftp iso - you'll have to download and upgrade everything if you use the core iso.

Last edited by bionnaki (2008-02-14 15:40:51)

freakcode · 2008-02-14 15:41:54

Most apps will recognize your configuration files (also know by the jargon "dot files"), but results may vary, specially because with Arch, you will mostly be using newer versions of the same apps you used on Ubuntu, so if one or another app "breaks compatibility" between versions, you will lose the previous configurations. Note here is that I'm talking about config files on $HOME dir *only* - can't do the same for, e.g., /etc/ config files, it will mess things up.

Now, talking from experience, I migrated my dot files from Ubuntu to my fresh Arch instalation, and don't remeber having any problems beside Compiz configs.

bgc1954 · 2008-02-14 16:04:17

Hi there,
I've done what you are proposing many times in the past and what I've always done is to use my file manager (Thunar, nautilus, konqueror, etc) to remove the .dot files in my /home/username directory and leave all the folders with my wallpapers, music, etc. You just have to tell the file manager to view hidden files. Usually, you will lose the ability to shutdown since you've just blown away all your settings and menus but you can ctrl+alt+Backspace to exit X and restart your computer with ctrl+alt+Delete. Not very elegant but it works. A better way would be to ctrl+alt+F1 to start a new screen, login and use something like mc (midnight commander) to delete your .dot files, then restart. It depends on how comfortable you are with playing in a non-gui environment.

Then, when you install arch, have the installer partition setup use your /home drive as the /home partition and when it asks if you want to format that drive answer no or cancel -- can't remember what the exact choice is. Then when arch installs, all your content on the home drive will be available but none of your old config files will interfere and it's just like a fresh install.

derekr44 · 2008-02-14 16:31:13

I was contemplating getting rid of the dot files. There are a few I need to keep, .cxoffice and .virtualbox for example... because those contain some really large setups I have for some games and virtual machines. Dang still need to use Windows for company VPN.

I'll probably end up getting rid of the files through Thunar, since I'm not 100% confident in my ability to manage files from the CLI.

bgc1954 · 2008-02-14 16:39:06

The files you mentioned won't be bothered by the Arch install as they are custom config files that won't be written over. You could also put all your .dot files into a new folder--just in case--and then move the ones that aren't duplicates back after the install. That way you could see which files might have been overwritten--if you're at all curious.

Last edited by bgc1954 (2008-02-14 16:42:11)

eerok · 2008-02-14 19:08:15

derekr44 wrote:

I have my /home folders residing on a completely seperate hard drive with fstab doing the redirect. From my understanding, a lot of application information is stored in hidden folders in each user's /home folder. If I were to wipe out Ubuntu and install Arch, what sort of impact on my applications would those files have once I remount the existing /home drive? I know I'd need to reinstall the apps, but would it remove the existing configurations stored in those files, or would the app automatically revert to those configs the way they were when I had Ubuntu?

I run a few different flavors of linux and share data among them all (some configs and of course all my media files, documents, coding stuff, etc.). I don't share the whole /home/user dir -- I have a /home/data partition with user permissions and I symlink only selected config files; for example, firefox's bookmarks.html and my newsrc (when I can ... this can be broken by newsreader versions), and the data folders -- because these are constantly changing. Most other things (vim config, .conkyrc, pypanelrc, etc.) I copy instead of symlink. In every case, though, I install the app and back up the default conf before I test the legacy config.

Anyway, I wouldn't just mount the /home/user partition as /home/user. I'd mount it somewhere else to keep it handy until you're all set up.

derekr44 · 2008-02-14 22:39:51

Very interesting idea, eerok. Being a seasoned Windows user, I'm still trying to grasp the concept of being able to use my "Documents and Settings" more broad than before. Your setup is like thinking outside of the box for me.

eerok · 2008-02-14 23:02:14

Although when I used to dual-boot, I shared my firefox bookmarks and thunderbird mailbox between linux and windows using a fat32 partition

But, yes, linux is more flexible in most ways.

Last edited by eerok (2008-02-14 23:03:46)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-02-14 15:09:27

Contemplating a switch to Arch

#2 2008-02-14 15:39:52

Re: Contemplating a switch to Arch

#3 2008-02-14 15:41:54

Re: Contemplating a switch to Arch

#4 2008-02-14 16:04:17

Re: Contemplating a switch to Arch

#5 2008-02-14 16:31:13

Re: Contemplating a switch to Arch

#6 2008-02-14 16:39:06

Re: Contemplating a switch to Arch

#7 2008-02-14 19:08:15

Re: Contemplating a switch to Arch

#8 2008-02-14 22:39:51

Re: Contemplating a switch to Arch

#9 2008-02-14 23:02:14

Re: Contemplating a switch to Arch

Board footer