Should I move to an "easier" distro?

test1000 · 2009-07-18 00:12:06

"Nowadays however, I've got a busier life and spending 3 hours trying to solve problems with automount and keyboard not behaving correctly (like I just did) instead of actually getting things done is not as fun as it used to"

You have to look at what motivates your actions. For example here it seems you don't mind to tinker so much with the system as long as you don't have anything to do that you view as better use of your time... Therefore i would recommend dualbooting another system(not windows! Iv'e had more issues with that OS than iv'e ever had with any linux distro so puleeeez) or just another archlinux install which you only -Syu, say once or twice a year You can have the same $HOME dir or if that might cause issues with incompatible config files and what not, you can still just copy/sync your firefox bookmarks for example to the stable distro if you need them... Security considerations... you'd probably be fine and especially if you don't use ssh etc... Iv'e never heard anyone say, "i didn't upgrade my linux distro and now i have x, y and z security issue!!"

There's also the lazy advantage that issues sometimes get fixed by themselves if you wait a while and then when it is you can go back to the "current" distro and -Syu them away

Last edited by test1000 (2009-07-18 00:13:53)

Bregol · 2009-07-18 00:36:43

My thoughts on non-rolling distros?

I used Kubuntu before arch and while it was stable over 6-month lengths of time (between releases), the upgrading every 6 months rarely went smooth for me. For one thing, upgrading so many things at once = long process with everyone hitting the servers to upgrade at the same time. And rather than spreading out the breakage over 6 months, I have to deal with everything breaking at the same time

I also couldn't stand having to wait for shiny new features.

Kubuntu was stable in the long run (probably would have been better if i waited for a few weeks after the new release to let it stabilize), but I also find Arch to be stable once you get it set up and any initial issues ironed out.

jrib · 2009-07-18 00:46:50

1LordAnubis wrote:

^^what they said, but I would stay away from debian if I were you; its what I used before Arch. I would compare it by saying Arch is like debian, except without the dependency issues

What? I've never had a single dependency issue. Were you using official repositories?

futuremonkey · 2009-07-19 03:39:59

By all means, use whatever distro makes you happy. It's not a l33tness contest Ubuntu got me back into the Linux world after a long string of discouraging failures with other distros. I don't use it anymore because although I'm not a coder, I like to tinker. Arch is perfect for that; Ubuntu makes it a little convoluted these days. With Arch, I can build the system pretty much any way I want, and it is remarkably well-documented. Between the wiki and the forum, I have pretty much never been at a loss for solutions to puzzling situations. I have learned more about The Linux Way Of Doing Things from Arch than from almost all other distros. I enjoy it a lot.

On the other hand, if you don't care to futz about with the system and prefer instead to just use your apps and get things done with a minimum of fuss, Ubuntu is just about perfect for that. It's generally stable, up-to-date, and compatible with a vast selection of hardware. It's also the biggest name in Linuxtown at the moment.

There's nothing really severely "wrong" with any of the current Linux distros. Try the ones that look interesting, and forget the rest. Hell, use Windows if that's what you end up liking best. It's all about choice, and it's just a means to an end anyway.

&#32 Greg · 2009-07-19 05:14:34

futuremonkey wrote:

By all means, use whatever distro makes you happy. It's not a l33tness contest Ubuntu got me back into the Linux world after a long string of discouraging failures with other distros. I don't use it anymore because although I'm not a coder, I like to tinker. Arch is perfect for that; Ubuntu makes it a little convoluted these days. With Arch, I can build the system pretty much any way I want, and it is remarkably well-documented. Between the wiki and the forum, I have pretty much never been at a loss for solutions to puzzling situations. I have learned more about The Linux Way Of Doing Things from Arch than from almost all other distros. I enjoy it a lot.
On the other hand, if you don't care to futz about with the system and prefer instead to just use your apps and get things done with a minimum of fuss, Ubuntu is just about perfect for that. It's generally stable, up-to-date, and compatible with a vast selection of hardware. It's also the biggest name in Linuxtown at the moment.
There's nothing really severely "wrong" with any of the current Linux distros. Try the ones that look interesting, and forget the rest. Hell, use Windows if that's what you end up liking best. It's all about choice, and it's just a means to an end anyway.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that life is all about the One Three Three Seven. And 4r(|-| gives us that... espescially when you pimp it. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pimp_My_Arch!

scarecrow · 2009-07-19 07:03:11

Debian stable- works great, not a lot of upgrades each XX hours. Old packages though.
Debian Sid- possibly via Sidux. Much newer stuff, but I don't think it's any more "stable" than Arch

windtalker · 2009-07-19 13:53:49

I agree with futuremonkey 100%.
I prefer Arch as my distro of choice because it's less trouble for me after installing and I'm happy with it's speed.
I'm a distro ho on a spare box and after using Arch for the length of time that I have, it's hard for something else to meet my requirements.
One box is ATA and the other is SATA.
Not all distro's care for SATA yet, but Arch could seem to care less whether the hd is ATA or SATA.
It doesn't matter in the end what distro you go with, there's going to be maintainance at some point in time.
I myself prefer to avoid a distro with a deadline.
It isn't a newspaper,,,, it's an operating system for heavens sake.
Devs are human just like the rest of us and something somewhere is going to get overlooked which means fixing it yourself or waiting for the update that does fix it.
Add to that human error on the users side and something is going to break sooner or later and you have to fix it yourself.
For myself, I think I'll stick to the system I'm most familiar with at the moment cuz I know where everything is and alleviate the learning curve of a "new" system from the equation.

Llama · 2009-07-19 20:02:04

Take a look at Pardus Linux. It's been built solidly exactly with busy people in mind. It is not going to let you down.

daf666 · 2009-07-19 20:15:23

Rognon wrote:

Or maybe you could just convince me to stay

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=12926&p=1

End of discussion.
Closing.

oh, wait

jsravn · 2009-07-19 22:11:46

I had a similar experience with gentoo, which is a true PITA to maintain. It was great for learning when I was at school, but not so great once I got a job. I switched to Ubuntu and did not look back. Ubuntu is great, but it's not without problems either. I had serious issues with Jaunty, and I'm not the only one. So nothing, unfortunately, is ever smooth in the Linux world unless you never upgrade your system.

I'm pretty happy with Arch, I'm using it at work where my special needs are minimal. I'm sticking with Ubuntu for my laptop, because wireless and power saving just work, and I was spending too much time getting Arch to work. Although I'm tempted to try again...

Ubuntu has some weird stuff going on with avahi, msdns, pulseaudio, and apparmor. Always ran into weird issues that were hard to solve that involved one of these unnecessary IMHO applications/daemons.

There's no one true linux distro. Pick what's best for the situation.

Last edited by jsravn (2009-07-19 22:14:07)

Rognon · 2009-07-19 23:35:43

Wow, thank you all so much for your recommendations and feedback. You helped me realized a really simple and obvious fact: nothing is perfect. At one point or another, every distro will show up its frustrating side. I've been liking Arch for a few years now, so I'm gonna continue using it for a while. In my early days with Linux, I was distro-hopping a lot and trying different things. I might as well dedicate a portion of my hard drive to test new distros and see how things have changed since then. However, as I said, I don't have nearly as much free time as I use to, so I'll keep an Arch install around in order to get things done.

ZeroTruths · 2009-07-20 00:58:30

If you like, you can try out a distro called #!Crunchbang.
I actually came from #! (shorthand for #!Crunchbang) wanting even more control over my system than it had currently gave me.
#! is a distro based off of Ubuntu, but much lighter and is easier to configure as well.
However, it's good to hear that you'll be sticking w/ Arch for at least a while longer

Meyithi · 2009-07-20 01:04:08

Copying and pasting text from the wiki into a console is hard?

In the aspects of documentation and configuration, Arch is the "easiest" distro there is.

jasonwryan · 2009-07-20 01:20:57

Meyithi wrote:

Copying and pasting text from the wiki into a console is hard?
In the aspects of documentation and configuration, Arch is the "easiest" distro there is.

I'd second that. The Arch Wiki and Forum should be archived by the Smithsonian...

ngoonee · 2009-07-20 01:22:09

jsravn wrote:

There's no one true linux distro.

Heresy! Burn him at the arch-stake!

And Meyithi, the OP specifically mentioned he's been using Arch for quite a while, I think he's talking more about the 'upgrade and there's problems and I have to get to the bottom of it to continue working' issues rather than the normal newbie 'X won't start!!!' stuff.

The wiki has limited usefulness for issues that come up as the result of an upgrade, really.

Sakurina · 2009-07-21 19:44:08

If you want an Arch-like distribution with stable releases, check out Frugalware. It uses pacman (albeit with a different package format), and installing it with the base and devel groups only is pretty much equivalent to installing off a Core Dump image.

I'm trying it out right now and liking it.

edit: Okay, the base install is a little more bloated than Arch's, and their makepkg implementation needs a full chroot environment to generate packages? wtf? Never mind. Arch is the best.

Last edited by Sakurina (2009-07-22 00:01:14)

Arch Linux

#26 2009-07-18 00:12:06

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#27 2009-07-18 00:36:43

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#28 2009-07-18 00:46:50

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#29 2009-07-19 03:39:59

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#30 2009-07-19 05:14:34

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#31 2009-07-19 07:03:11

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#32 2009-07-19 13:53:49

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#33 2009-07-19 20:02:04

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#34 2009-07-19 20:15:23

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#35 2009-07-19 22:11:46

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#36 2009-07-19 23:35:43

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#37 2009-07-20 00:58:30

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#38 2009-07-20 01:04:08

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#39 2009-07-20 01:20:57

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#40 2009-07-20 01:22:09

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

#41 2009-07-21 19:44:08

Re: Should I move to an "easier" distro?

Board footer