Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

Markus00000 · 2011-06-21 13:42:42

Many times during the last 15 years, I made an effort to use GNU/Linux, mostly so-called "beginner-friendly" distributions, as my main operating system but never successfully. There were always some issues that I was too stupid or too lazy to understand and fix. So I kept using Windows and later on Mac OS X.

While still using Mac OS X, I inexplicably stumbled upon Arch some months ago and gave it a try. I followed the awesome Beginner's Guide to setup Arch on my notebook. For the first time there were no issues I could not resolve. Overall, it was beginner-friendly, transparent and fun. I have been using Arch as my sole operating system since then. Best computing experience ever.

Recently, I am becoming more and more interested in other GNU/Linux distributions and *BSDs. I tried to find a (desktop) system that:

1) followed KISS,
2) (easily) allowed a minimal installation,
3) was documented for the stupid and/or lazy.

I looked at Debian but its init system scared me. I looked at Gentoo but its compiling scared me. I looked at Slackware but its documentation scared me.

I am wondering: Am I unfoundedly scared by either of these? Have I overlooked a system? Or am I just too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

Inxsible · 2011-06-21 14:02:45

its not about being stupid and/or lazy. Its just that you are very comfortable with Arch.

I have Slackware installed in virtualbox. During installation, I found it very similar to the Arch installation (except of course the fact that the DVD contains everything under the sun). But the partitioning was similar, the selection of packages etc. Eventually I found the lack of a package manager a bit tedious. There are options like slackbuild etc. But to my understanding each package manager manages packages installed from its own repo -- sort of. Or atleast that's the impression I got.

I still have it installed, its just that I don't use it that often. Maybe I should get back into it, to better understand the whole package management system in Slackware.

George.Harmony · 2011-06-21 14:10:25

IMO you have run across the distribution with the best documentation on the web and that is what makes it easy for people who can read and understand. Even if an issue is not covered by the wiki or forums it is easy to translate solutions from other distributions to Arch due to it vanilla approach to installing packages. Things are generally where you would expect them and if they are not just go to the package entry under the package web page and see where the files were installed.

Lone_Wolf · 2011-06-21 14:16:16

about 2 years ago i was asked to setup an irc server on a VPS and help maintain it.
The owner preferred debian stable, but left details to me. I installed the server version, and got to work.
instead of having a simple start / stop command, i had to learn to work with the tools debian had for runlevels.
the system was stable and reliable, until a security bug was found in the irc server, and the owner asked me to upgrade it.

The version of the irc server that had the fix was a git version, and neither debian nor ubuntu had a package for it.
I looked into adapting the aur svn paakcage into a deb-package.
I'm now familiar with 3 software hells : dll-hell (windows) , rmp-hell (suse) and deb-hell (debian) .
Upgrade 1 application and you end up having to upgrade more then half of your system.

By compiling the irc application manually with the necessary libraries statically linked , i managed to get it running on a test-server with debian.
It was very unreliable however.

I told the owner that if he wanted to stick with debian, we only could wait until a developer made the new version available.
They asked me if there was an alternative, i suggested archlinux.
the irc server had run stable on archlinux for 8 months when i stopped maintaining it.

All distros have their strong and weak points, but archlinux seems to have more strong points then most.
I think archlinux spoils us.

Awebb · 2011-06-21 15:49:51

I tried this a while ago at work. I had two computers of the same build, both had to be ready to serve as a multiuser workstation in the lab's network. I used Arch Linux and Ubuntu. It took me 4 hours to install Arch and configure it to work with all the software in the network. Then I needed 9 hours to install Ubuntu, strip it of everything that might be in the way and make it compatible to the software in the network.

Arch:
- I had trouble with Cups. I always have trouble with Cups on Arch, but I didn't really have the time to deal with it. Could have saved me an hour, but maybe it's just me.
- The web here is slow sometimes, so it took long to download the packages. I'll cache that one day.
- I had to write a few udev rules for special hardware, nothing fancy
+ Since those computers are not connected to the web, I won't have to deal with updates besides bugfixes and Java.

Ubuntu:
- Apparmor didn't play well with the lab software, had to deal with it's configuration.
- Had to tune some udev rules.
- Had to strip the system of everything that might... distract the user. This was the longest part. Ubuntu has so many fancy features to turn off.
- It asked for more updates than Arch asked for packages.
- Java web start gave me hell.
+ Cups worked OOTB.

In the end they both worked. I made images and placed them in the lab without notifying anyone. Let's see if they can deal with it.

triplesquarednine · 2011-06-21 16:44:26

it sounds to me like Arch is just the best fit for you

...and i can share my own perspective on the matter...

I've used many many distro's; gentoo (and a few derivatives), Fedora (and a few remixes), Ubuntu (and many of it's derivatives), puppy (and...same goes..), slackware, FreeBSD, PClinuxOS, debian (various versions), etc, etc....

i haven't found any distribution that i like better than Arch....and i do not 'distro-hop' anymore at all. there is absolutely no point for me to do so...

So I don't think you're too stupid or lazy for anything but Arch, it's quite the opposite... Arch is simple/easy to use, but does require the user to be somewhat competent, right? - i say this because things can break (although not too often), and the end-user has to be able to do things a little more hands on than some of the so-called 'user-friendly distro's'. we also all tend to be aware of where all config files are, how to edit them, where they are located, etc...the average archer knows the underlying system fairly well, i tend to think.

Arch also tends to offer some of the advantages of both meta/binary distributions; ie: ubuntu, fedora, etc....while also offering the advantages of source-based distributions; ie: gentoo, yoper, etc. because it covers both types, you also do away with some of the disadvantages of both types; ie: compiling from source is more often than not as simple as using tools like 'yum' or 'apt-get' (which i suppose could be taken as laziness, but i tend to think it is just a better design), while in say Fedora or Ubuntu, there is more to do, to accomplish the exact same end-result... another example, we also don't have to sit around and wait for the whole system to compile on system upgrades (unless you choose too, using pacbuilder), this to me is a significant advantage over source-based distro's too....

I feel as an Archer i reap the benefits of all distros, in other ways too. for example, if i want some patch from Ubuntu, or say some software that is found in a PPA - usually i can find it in AUR. i need not bother with adding software sources, or any of that stuff, all i have to do is use 'yaourt -S *pkgname*'... the whole thing is automated, it grabs the source, builds it, installs it and i am done. easy peasy

then, there is the part, where using the kernel (with the patches i want), is much easier than say Fedora or Ubuntu, etc. I used to have to download and patch everything myself for the most part. but same goes as the example above - now all that it requires it 'yaourt -S *pkgname*'... which is much better, you want to use your applications, not spend your evening patching and compiling everything manually, when you don't have too - right? I am a tinkerer, but i still try to take the most sensible approach, ya know...?

then, as someone else pointed out. We have some of the best documentation available in ArchWiki - this is why i switched to Arch in the first place. i had been using ArchWiki with other distributions for a long time. it got to the point, that i started to realize that maybe Arch as a better fit for me...and the wiki showed me some of the other advantages of using Arch over other distros...

anyway, that's my 2 cents on the matter

cheerz

Markus00000 · 2011-06-22 06:43:41

Honestly, I expected totally different answers.

For example, I did expect to hear something along the lines "Distribution X fits your description well" or "X is not that hard, try again".

Anyways, thank you all for your input so far. It is great that such questions can be asked in these forums without creating a typical flame war.

barzam · 2011-06-22 10:07:01

I'm just curious as to why you would like to switch from Arch, that's provided you with best computing experience ever? It just doesn't make sense.

Arch is just great (for the same reasons you yourself provided), and I have never looked elsewhere since I started using it a few years back..

Damnshock · 2011-06-22 10:55:16

Lone_Wolf wrote:

I'm now familiar with 3 software hells : dll-hell (windows) , rmp-hell (suse) and deb-hell (debian) .
Upgrade 1 application and you end up having to upgrade more then half of your system.

I'm not sure that's correct. Maybe the lack of knowledge about deb/rpm made you come with that idea?

hitest · 2011-06-22 12:28:23

Inxsible wrote:

its not about being stupid and/or lazy. Its just that you are very comfortable with Arch.
I have Slackware installed in virtualbox. During installation, I found it very similar to the Arch installation (except of course the fact that the DVD contains everything under the sun). But the partitioning was similar, the selection of packages etc. Eventually I found the lack of a package manager a bit tedious. There are options like slackbuild etc. But to my understanding each package manager manages packages installed from its own repo -- sort of. Or atleast that's the impression I got.
I still have it installed, its just that I don't use it that often. Maybe I should get back into it, to better understand the whole package management system in Slackware.

I'm a relatively new Arch user. I love pacman; it is an excellent package manager.
I'm an experienced Slackware user, I've been using Slackware since version 10.0. Slackware does ship with some package managers, namely pkgtool and slackpkg. The slackpkg utility is what I use to update my Slackware boxen. To use it you'll need to un-comment one mirror in /etc/slackpkg/mirrors. Don't forget to remove the space in front of the mirror.
Then after your mirror is ready to use you'll issue these commands to apply security patches to your system,

# slackpkg update

# slackpkg install-new

# slackpkg upgrade-all

The slackpkg utility is included if you did a full installation of Slackware. If you did not install it it is located in /extra.

Last edited by hitest (2011-06-22 12:53:31)

pablokal · 2011-06-22 12:33:06

Recently, I am becoming more and more interested in other GNU/Linux distributions and *BSDs. I tried to find a (desktop) system that:
1) followed KISS,
2) (easily) allowed a minimal installation,
3) was documented for the stupid and/or lazy.

I must think of Crunchbang, based on Debian (there is an openbox and a xfce version)
or if you want a rolling release version, very up to date packages: aptosid (also debian but sid) which comes with xfce but that is easy to change to openbox.

Lone_Wolf · 2011-06-22 13:06:31

Damnshock wrote:

Lone_Wolf wrote:
I'm now familiar with 3 software hells : dll-hell (windows) , rmp-hell (suse) and deb-hell (debian) .
Upgrade 1 application and you end up having to upgrade more then half of your system.
I'm not sure that's correct. Maybe the lack of knowledge about deb/rpm made you come with that idea?

half the system is an exaggeration, but it is how it felt.

I'll elaborate on the suse scenario, as that was a big part of the reason i became an arch user and i remember it well :

install suse version 8.2
everything works
On messenger someone comments gaim(pidgin) is very good program.
You agree, but soon realise several of the things the other mentions don't work for you.
a check reveals that suse has version 1.15 , and those nice new features are in gaim 1.35, released a week earlier.
You decide to wait until suse has that version, and 2 weeks later there is a gaim update.
unfortunately it's only a security fix ... .
your suse version is 8 months old, and 8.3 is out . 8.3 has gaim 1.20, so still to old.
you search internet and find a 3rd party repo with a lot of good stuff, including gaim 1.38 .
it's listed as compatible with suse 8.2 , so you tell Yast to install it.
Yast tells you that dependencies are not fulfilled, and you need newer versions of app A and B .
You search for those packages and find them.
upgrade A : 4 more packages are to old
you try to upgrade B : 3 more packages are to old.
upgrade A 1 + A3 : success according to yast , but you notice soon you got a problem with sound now.
searching reveals that newer A1 + A3 combination has 'limited functionality' if used with app C .
recommended solution : use app D as alternative for app C.

After about 2 weeks of searching and trying you have added 10+ repos to yast and upgraded over 30 packages.
For most of those updates yast had to reconfigure settings, and you start wondering why that takes 2+ minutes every time.
On the plus side, you have gaim 1.38 working fine and learned a lot about how suse linux works.
Overall the whole thing is similar to your encounters with windows dll-hell, so there's only 1 word to describe this experience :
rpm-hell .

ataraxia · 2011-06-22 15:50:23

Lone_Wolf wrote:

I'll elaborate on the suse scenario, as that was a big part of the reason i became an arch user and i remember it well :
install suse version 8.2
everything works
On messenger someone comments gaim(pidgin) is very good program.
You agree, but soon realise several of the things the other mentions don't work for you.
a check reveals that suse has version 1.15 , and those nice new features are in gaim 1.35, released a week earlier.
You decide to wait until suse has that version, and 2 weeks later there is a gaim update.
unfortunately it's only a security fix ... .
your suse version is 8 months old, and 8.3 is out . 8.3 has gaim 1.20, so still to old.
you search internet and find a 3rd party repo with a lot of good stuff, including gaim 1.38 .
it's listed as compatible with suse 8.2 , so you tell Yast to install it.
Yast tells you that dependencies are not fulfilled, and you need newer versions of app A and B .
You search for those packages and find them.
upgrade A : 4 more packages are to old
you try to upgrade B : 3 more packages are to old.
upgrade A 1 + A3 : success according to yast , but you notice soon you got a problem with sound now.
searching reveals that newer A1 + A3 combination has 'limited functionality' if used with app C .
recommended solution : use app D as alternative for app C.
After about 2 weeks of searching and trying you have added 10+ repos to yast and upgraded over 30 packages.
For most of those updates yast had to reconfigure settings, and you start wondering why that takes 2+ minutes every time.
On the plus side, you have gaim 1.38 working fine and learned a lot about how suse linux works.
Overall the whole thing is similar to your encounters with windows dll-hell, so there's only 1 word to describe this experience :
rpm-hell .

I'd call that "third-party repo hell" instead. It's a problem that can happen on any "stable release" distro when a user wants newer software than what is officially provides. So not really about RPM, or even SuSE.

Markus00000 · 2011-06-22 18:16:57

barzam wrote:

I'm just curious as to why you would like to switch from Arch, that's provided you with best computing experience ever? It just doesn't make sense.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I liked to switch. I'm just interested to see the (sane parts of the) world around Arch.

Damnshock · 2011-06-23 10:30:02

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Overall the whole thing is similar to your encounters with windows dll-hell, so there's only 1 word to describe this experience :
rpm-hell .

As ataraxia said: that's a repo-hell, not rpm-hell.

As I get experience working with computers I tend to realize that I can deal with "small" problems on my personal computers but I definitelyl *CANNOT* on my work machines. Therefore:

1- Arch on anything personal as its KISS philosophy and being bleeding-edge are a must have for me
2- Stable distro that does not change and its updates are "secure" for working environment.

I apologize for the offtopic on this thread.

Getting back on it:

I've tried some other distros since I started using Arch some years ago but absolutelyl none meet my requierements. Therefore I've almost given up on testing new distros. If only I had a testing machine...

Regards

demian · 2011-06-23 12:02:57

I instantly identified with the title of this topic. I'm so freakin comfortable with Arch, I don't know what I'd do without it.

lukaszan · 2011-06-23 12:36:06

Markus00000 wrote:

Honestly, I expected totally different answers.
For example, I did expect to hear something along the lines "Distribution X fits your description well" or "X is not that hard, try again".
Anyways, thank you all for your input so far. It is great that such questions can be asked in these forums without creating a typical flame war.

OK.

Slackware isn't that hard, try again. I'd been using Slack for... 4, 5 years (don't even remember). It's very similar to Arch. The lack of native package manager is a pain (this was actually the reason I tried Arch), but because all software is non-patched, non-branded and properly, properly stable, it's actually quite easy to compile stuff yourself. As for documentation, because Slackware is very UNIX like (apparently most of all distros), it means it's very generic, so you can find answers on Ubuntu or Gentoo forums and often they work on Salckware as well. Plus you have linuxquestions.org.

Slackware is fun, if you have time and like to properly dig in the system. Plus you'll learn a lot.

Ubuntu and derivatives are good if you just want to quickly install an OS that will just work, and not worry about it too much afterwards, say, if you want install it for your grandma (for whatever the reason...).

I remember with Suse I learned about how the linux system works in general, sort of overview of linux workings, through yast, a centralised app where you can manage your system (everything from runlevels to package management).

Gentoo was awesome, again very similar to Arch. But when I tried it several years ago, it took 2 days just to compile the core system on my laptop... Plus ebuilds were a mistery to me back then.

Anyway, if you want to learn about linux, just try anything else. Every distro is different, has different pros and cons. It won't do you any harm, and you might find something that suits you better.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-06-21 13:42:42

Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#2 2011-06-21 14:02:45

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#3 2011-06-21 14:10:25

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#4 2011-06-21 14:16:16

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#5 2011-06-21 15:49:51

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#6 2011-06-21 16:44:26

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#7 2011-06-22 06:43:41

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#8 2011-06-22 10:07:01

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#9 2011-06-22 10:55:16

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#10 2011-06-22 12:28:23

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#11 2011-06-22 12:33:06

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#12 2011-06-22 13:06:31

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#13 2011-06-22 15:50:23

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#14 2011-06-22 18:16:57

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#15 2011-06-23 10:30:02

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#16 2011-06-23 12:02:57

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

#17 2011-06-23 12:36:06

Re: Too stupid and/or lazy for anything but Arch?

Board footer