You are not logged in.
I heard Arch is flexible, but any specific area that particulary good at?
like server, database or as desktop
thank you
Offline
The answer to your question can be found here:
Offline
Arch is flexible
Yes
Are u listening?
Offline
I heard Arch is flexible, but any specific area that particulary good at?
like server, database or as desktop
All of them. You can configure Arch exactly how you want it.
Personally, its the bleeding edge "rolling release" functionality that Arch provides that is its major selling point I don't have to wait 6 months or more until the developers decide to release a new version - its always up to date.
As I tell my windows friends, its more modern than Vista.
Offline
Learn more about the Arch Build System
Have you Syued today?
Free music for free people! | Earthlings
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- A. de Saint-Exupery
Offline
I heard Arch is flexible, but any specific area that particulary good at?
You said it.
If I had to choose my favourite part, it would be the flexibility.
I also like how it teaches me so much about linux.
There is an expression in the linux community:
If you learn red hat, you'll know red hat, but if you learn slackware you'll know linux.
Arch is basically slackware build base-up, with a packager that resolves dependencies, so this is also true for arch.
Fustrated Windows users have two options.
1. Resort to the throwing of computers out of windows.
2. Resort to the throwing of windows out of computers.
Offline
Arch is basically slackware build base-up, with a packager that resolves dependencies...
Hmm. This is not true actually. Arch and Slack do share similarities, but Arch is not basically Slackware, nor any other distro.
Offline
the best description i've read about arch:
"Arch is Linux with a package manager"
basically you do what you want. It's not Gnome, it's not KDE, it's not Fluxbox, it's not default this or default that (how mny threads in the Ubuntu Forums are about which program should be default)
You do what YOU want
Offline
the best description i've read about arch:
"Arch is Linux with a package manager"
Hehe, that's good. I like that one.
Offline
Raccoon1400 wrote:Arch is basically slackware build base-up, with a packager that resolves dependencies...
Hmm. This is not true actually. Arch and Slack do share similarities, but Arch is not basically Slackware, nor any other distro.
That seems to be what I meant. They both require configuration by editing test files. The package management does seem to be the biggest difference, as well the installation method.(installing CLI and building up)
Here's what the wiki says
Slackware and Arch are quite similar in that both are simple distributions focused on elegance and minimalism. Both use BSD-style init scripts. Arch supplies a package management system in pacman which, unlike Slackware's standard tools, offers automatic dependency resolution and allows for easy system upgrades. Slackware users typically prefer their method of manual dependency resolution, citing the level of system control it grants them. Arch is a rolling-release system. Slackware is seen as more conservative in its release cycle, preferring proven stable packages. Arch is more 'bleeding edge' in this respect. Arch is i686 and x86_64 whereas Slackware can run on i486 systems. Both have a ports-like system available in addition to their regular package managers- the (unofficial) Slackbuild system is very similar to the Arch Build System (ABS), the latter being slightly more automated. Arch is a very good system for Slack users who want package management with automatic dependency resolution and/or more current packages.
Fustrated Windows users have two options.
1. Resort to the throwing of computers out of windows.
2. Resort to the throwing of windows out of computers.
Offline
Yes, I wrote that.
Just wanted to be clear that Arch is not based on Slack.
Offline
I read that is actually based on CRUX, but I think Judd Vinet also said that he didn't base himself in one specific distro, and combined some of the things he liked from various places.
One distro doesn't have to be based on another one
Anyway, this seems to be slipping from the topic.
The purpose of using Arch is the same as every other distribution: If you use it for a while and you like it, stick with it
Offline
There is an expression in the linux community:
If you learn red hat, you'll know red hat, but if you learn slackware you'll know linux.
Arch is basically slackware build base-up, with a packager that resolves dependencies, so this is also true for arch.
Wow, that is a really bold (and true) statement. It'll be shamelessly recycled
Offline
My purpose of using Arch is to learn. And be cool at the same time
Where's my sig?
Offline
i switched to arch because it promised no extra crap. there's only so much stripping a permanent novice can do in a full blown distro. additionally, as i understand it, unlike slackware and crux, having a package manager is like being able to take a roll of toilet paper along on an outward bound trip.
Offline
I started out using Ubuntu, and at the time I couldn't really see how one distribution was any different for another. It seemed like the only difference was the DE or WM you were using, which I saw as being interchangable. After switching to Arch a few weeks ago, I can say with absolute certainty that I was wrong about that. Arch is a totally diffent experience. I know my system from the ground up, and it is far more flexible than any experience I ever had with Ubuntu. Don't get me wrong, Ubuntu is great, but for me it was like training wheels.
Offline
i switched to arch because it promised no extra crap. there's only so much stripping a permanent novice can do in a full blown distro. additionally, as i understand it, unlike slackware and crux, having a package manager is like being able to take a roll of toilet paper along on an outward bound trip.
wakka wakka
Offline
I started out using Ubuntu, and at the time I couldn't really see how one distribution was any different for another. It seemed like the only difference was the DE or WM you were using, which I saw as being interchangable. After switching to Arch a few weeks ago, I can say with absolute certainty that I was wrong about that. Arch is a totally diffent experience. I know my system from the ground up, and it is far more flexible than any experience I ever had with Ubuntu. Don't get me wrong, Ubuntu is great, but for me it was like training wheels.
Exactly my story.
Offline
i am a complete newbie in arch. but i kinda like it. i too was a ubuntu user but i decided to switch to arch bcos i heard soooo many things about it that i liked (like the ability to completely customize the distro). and from my 2 days experience, i think i'll learn LINUX as a bonus.
Last edited by Hindol (2008-05-09 09:00:52)
Offline
"Arch is what you make of it."
Offline
Arch is the epitome of freedom in customisation without waiting for a week for xserver to compile
Offline