While I do envy the speed of apt and for some reason have never seen a first run of apt take longer than a second run of pacman - some people seem to disagree, but I have yet to see it for myself - I don't like any of the apt-using distributions
- I like Arch because it doesn't just give me some crappy UI configuration utilities which do something, may or may not work, but won't tell me how they actually tried to configure stuff... I prefer to hands-on dig into the files of a package, because I HATE it when there's anything going on in my system that I don't know about 100%.
- I like Arch because making new packages / recompiling packages is very simple and quickly done - ever tried to make an ubuntu package from scratch? - which makes it easy to say, replace an "--enable-alsa --disable-oss" with an "--enable-oss --disable-alsa" ./configure flag
- I like Arch because it has a cool logo which I can see 8 times while booting my PC - NOTE: I do love penguins though, they absolutely rule
- Whenever I get non-newbies to try out Arch, they also like Arch and usually stick with it
You know you're paranoid when you start thinking random letters while typing a password.
A good post about vim
Python has no multithreading.
I'd love to say it's the KiSS principles and the optimum control, but honestly in the end it's pacman and the repositories and AUR. The software availabitlity is the most powerful feature I care about here, I have plenty of days where I could throw the Arch Way by the wayside and ask for Ubuntu with pacman and Arch repos, honestly.
But that isn't to say that I don't love the flexibility Arch gives me. It's just not something that's absolutely necessary to my free software usage.
I had used Slackware, and enjoyed it, but I had varied success with SlackBilds, it was kinda slow and bloated, and out-dated often. I'd done a lot of distro-hopping trying to find a powerful distro that was current and aimed at more than just beginners. I enjoy the full featured-ness of Ubuntu, but I don't use a lot of what it comes with, and for all the hand-holding, there's not a lot for more advanced users.
Then I found Arch. Installed it, waddled my way through the startup guide, and haven't looked back. Lots of reinstalls, and a number of different DE/WM combos... but always Arch. It's fast, cutting edge, exactly what I want and nothing more.
arch.kde | arch.i3
1. It can be customized from ground up: the install puts you in an easy to use CLI environment with three tools: the "cd" command, the "nano" text editor and the "pacman" package manager. These three can together make the distro as awesome as your imagination.
2. While its not a source based distro, its modular nature and optimized x86-64 and i686 packages mean you get pretty close to Gentoo performance for most practical purposes without waiting for ages to compile stuff. And its PKGBUILD system along with the AUR makes it rather easy to add more stuff to Arch which is not officially supplied.
3. Its Rolling Release. And this alone is one BIG reason to go arch. I'm not sure about this point but I guess Arch is the ONLY current mainstream binary based rolling-release distro. And Debian-Testing does not qualify because of the huge things you gotta deal with when the current testing becomes the new stable. Sidux comes close to Arch but I can't afford 400MB updates every single day.
4. The repositories rock. While they're not as complete as ubuntu's (after including 3rd party repos, ubuntu has the world's largest linux repository I guess in terms of binary software availability) they are good enough to get you started off. And AUR comes to your rescue for many packages that are not in the repos.
5. Arch is never "reinstalled" once you install it, unless you count those rare cases where people migrate from i686 to x86_64 architectures. This could actually be a negative sometimes, because I never got enough "experience" installing it...
6. The developer announcements on the main page and the forum community here is awesome. Almost all problems have already been discussed or the answer arrives in minutes.
7. Its easier to configure than ubuntu. And no I'm not referring to the GUI (which is the same for ALL OSes if you install the right packages) but the CLI. Problem with newbie oriented OSes is that they think you are either a total newb or a dev, neither of them needing to be bothered with being told how to configure stuff through text files which look skeletal. On the other hand, OSes like Arch and Gentoo have amazing documentation on how to edit the text files and this system is intentionally made easy for users. A special mention is the amount of samples found as comments in the text cfg files.
8. Nothing gets in your way. In Ubuntu for instance, you need to remove a lot of things and make a hell lot of edits to make it boot without loading junk. Since arch has nothing to start with, you can decide what goes IN and what does not when booting. I for example boot first from init-3. Here I use startx where I boot into RatPoison, Xfce or KDE4 depending on how much I need to conserve my resources or how much eye-candy I need. When my desktop had only 256mb RAM, I used to launch Urban Terror (a game) through startx.
9. Speed and responsiveness. My Desktop has a Pentium 4 2.66GHz Prescott CPU and 1GB of RAM. I remember Arch i686 being faster and more responsive on this than computers I used to use in school which had 2.4GHz Intel Allendale Dual Cores and 2GB of RAM but ran Windows Vista. Having Run Ubuntu on the same desktop, I sadly cannot say the same. Ubuntu needs to be highly hacked to be as fast as Arch.
My Linux Blog - http://TheSmallerBang.wordpress.com/
i'd spend quite a bit testing various linux disto's trying to find out which one would fit my needs ,and Archlinux it is...... it's fast ,easy to configure and if you want to do it the hard way to "make" it to "you're" needs use ABS and adjust the PKGBUILD or source code files..... i'm using archlinux for quite some time now and i like the control you get from it.
Last edited by gregor (2011-07-10 08:28:59)
For the challenge. Had been in GNU/Linux for three years, mainly in Ubuntu and also Fedora, and thought I could take the step to move to a fully "do-it-yourself" kind of OS and gain full control of its configuration. And not only I succeeded, it surpassed my expectations and now Arch is my main distro.
It has fresher versions of software in its package repositories than other distros, yet has it in binary rather than source code form.
And also because it allows you to choose what you want and don't want since you start with a relatively empty base install.
Last edited by aardwolf (2011-07-11 13:55:45)
I've been using Linux since 2002 and have used a variety of distros.
1. I was drawn to Arch because of the familiar approach used for system configuration (somewhat similar to Slackware and FreeBSD). I thought it was very cool that rc.conf set-up the system.
2. I am amazed by the speed and flexibility of pacman.
3. The bleeding edge nature of Arch keeps me on my toes.
4. I am never bored with Arch.
5. I am impressed that Arch has a very new compliment of available packages.
Arch, Slackware, OpenBSD
Registered Linux User #284243
I did not choose Arch. Arch choosed me.
I had a laptop with VIA video adaptor. My slackware was not able to start, and the only other distro on CD was Arch.
I chose archlinux because it is hackable the way I want. I like the KISS of arch. I want a linux distribution that I can configure the way I want and not the way the distribution has choosen for me. Ubuntu does a remarkable job for newbie but if you po not want gnome, do not want the network manager, do not want pulseaudio, do want to recompile a package it becomes difficult. The two other distributions (that I know) that approach this goal are
But Slackware lack a good package repository and dependency checks and Gentoo, take too much time compiling and is not so hackable after all. You have plenty options with the USE flags, etc... but if you just want to do recompile a package with others options than what was provided, etc... it becomes obscure and not easy.
It's the package availability. The flexibility and control is nice, but it's always come down to the fact that I want the most recent stable release of most of my software, since I typically follow the software I use very closely (since most software I use is for work). Most applications tend to improve in efficiency of use and time-saving features as time goes on, so I'm glad to have it sooner than my competition.
The AUR is far better than any third party repository or PPA-type system I've used on any other distribution, so Arch provides me with extreme flexibility without breakage. I have never had an issue with Arch breaking from an update, and I update often, without reading much from the front page. XD I guess you could say Arch allows me to be irresponsible and lazy with how I manage my software without punishing me.
I use because it is simply what I make it. I hate buying a new phones and seeing all the bloatware that comes pre-installed on them. I do not get that feeling with arch. That and it's insane amount of documentation.
Hello. i am a newbie to linux, why you choose ArchLinux?
Well, it all started on my friend's Beast, an 8-Terabyte Hardware Raid-10 setup for "kdenlive" about a year ago.
I set it up with kdenlive on UbuntuStudio. I noticed there was some issues whem transcoding/Rendering very large Raw/1080p video files.
I joined the kdenlive forum and got into a lively discussion with one of the dev's for kdenlive....anyway, he said he likes uses "Kubuntu" in production,
but he uses Arch Linux, solely for his testing/compiling/.... right! He advised me that Arch is more bleeding edge and can be very Stable and fast.... yada yada.
So now, I'm learning Arch myself, and "kdenlive" is working very good, and fast, on our Beast, so far.
I actually prefer the automation/ease of UbuntuStudio compared to setting up Arch, but I'm used to "FreeBSD", my first love, and so Arch didn't really
take that long to pick up for me.
I just wish I had found Arch sooner?
(as a side note, UbuntuStudio 11.10 will be dropping Gnome/Unity for XFCE instead - yay, finally !)
Either way, just use whatever distro your comfortable with, but in my opinion, Arch will help you learn Linux -the "clean" way.
And, the Arch Documentation(wiki's) are bar-none better than any other Linux distro, and almost as good as the FreeBSD docs.
Recently, I opened my big fat mouth again and posted a long-winded blurb on the Linux Journal blog review of Ubuntu 11.04 and "Urinary" -err umm I'm sorry
I meant "Unity" versus K.I.S.S -the Arch Way !
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/ubu … ent-367032
-it's a boring read, but I guess I had a few too many Molson brewskie's that nite -hehe.
Last edited by scjet (2011-07-27 04:48:33)
The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is "Arch"
i chose arch because i was tired of bloated distro's and trying to find speed and removing/adding packages to gain speed, arch allowed me to choose what i want. and now kde boots up hella quick with no issues
plus i like having "bleeding edge" software, like KDE 4.7
Last edited by nankura (2011-08-14 05:51:36)
Arch Way pretty much...
Choice is up to you.
everytime I would search for how to do something, the arch wiki was always one of the first. So I figured I might as well use the distro that has the best documentation/wiki (debatable with gentoo i guess). it was the only distro that had info on setting up a bluetooth apple keyboard, and ended up being the only distro i got it to work on too
Last edited by boast (2011-08-14 21:05:16)
Asus M4A785TD-V ;; Phenom II X4 @ 3.9GHz ;; Ripjaws 12GB DDR3-1600 ;; 128GB Samsung 830 ;; MSI GTX460 v2 w/ blob ;; Arch Linux + KDE 4.x
Rolling release brought me here. Simplicity and pacman are a couple of the other reasons I stay.
I only choose the fastest distro, so I chose Arch.
Also because of the linux-ck (find it in wiki) with processor specified optimization, Gentoo is no longer the fastest distro.
Ehm, to be fair, you can use the -ck and BFQ patches in Gentoo as well ...
rolling release and the fact of arch have the latest stable packages.
I have chosen Arch because:
-it's not bloated
-i like to play with my OS
If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them.
Henry David Thoreau
Registered Linux User: #559057
The only reason I tried Arch was I wanted rolling release.
I stuck with it because I liked how it's the kind of system a dev would design for himself rather than Joe User.
Ehm, to be fair, you can use the -ck and BFQ patches in Gentoo as well ...
yes i know, but gentoo-sources or *-sources are not cutting edge. Gentoo is a slow rolling-release distro.
I don't know if I exactly chose archlinux. It's partly a choice but it depends on my linux trajectory. After some mandrake year, which turns out to be mandriva, I gave a try at gentoo and liked it pretty much because it was well organized and especially well documented (much more than mandriva). It is so well documented that each problem that I encountered was solved with gentoo. I was able for example to connect to internet with AC'97 Modem Controller with gentoo and I mandriva front-end was not able to do that! Mandriva also have some bug related to network contribution that I encountered and I didn't find any solution, no documentation and no one could help me. It was for example difficult to get network profiles with mandriva at that time...
It was relatively easy to make simple package in gentoo for some scientific software or photography related software.
Then I got tired of compiling everything with my computer getting old, my job taking me more time and I didn't felt the necessity of compiling all software which was costing me times and I discovered that archlinux would bring all the things I like in gentoo, good documentation (I could use from time to time gentoo documentation too), relatively simple configuration, easy fabrication of new packages, for example scidavis and pymecavideo.
I can why I'm not leaving archlinux, because it works well and did not yet have been hearing of something that could please me more than that!
I chose it because it was the only distribution I could get to work completely. I had burned dozens of discs and tried every distro you could name, but only Arch worked exactly as expected.
Even to this day, I find distro-hopping to be a game of roulette; Less than a handful work on my machines without hacking, annoyance or unexpected behavior.
Arch and Fedora 15 are solid for me.