antonywilliams.com

Linux guru? then switch to Arch Linux!

44 comments:

1. Al said,

   I have been using Arch for about a year now, and it has become my distro-of-choice. I have some multi-boot boxes, but in the end I keep going back to Arch. I have used them ALL (except Slack). The package selection is outstanding, and I frequently will use packages from the AUR. I have never had any problems with them.
   
   I suppose the prospect of the newb installing and using Arch might be a little daunting, but the fora and Wikis are awesome. Once you get through the install, it's smooth sailing.
   
   There really is no reason to use any other distro, imho.
   
   As for 2.6.26, there is usually a couple of week turn around for new kernels.

   on 13/7/08 23:21

   
   
2. KenWeiLL said,

   Some say Arch is not meant for new comers to Linux.
   
   It's not that I'm a new comer but don't know much about packages in Linux.
   
   So you mean to say, the default installation of Arch have nothing but terminal? Then i'll just have to use "pacman" to install softwares?
   
   That's definitely not for beginners. I mean, how can beginners install something they don't know? I mean, don't know about package names. No selection.
   
   But i really like the "rolling release". No need to wait for new version. Just upgrade. And have the latest release of all the packages installed.
   
   Thanks for this great review. Im interested in Arch. I wanted to try this one. I always wanted to have the latest and stable versions of every software installed in my system, but that seems to be impossible in Ubuntu.
   
   After reading this review, I finally found what I'm looking for.

   on 14/7/08 00:31

   
   
3. Federico said,

   Do not forget that Debian Sid could be compared with ArchLinux in terms of 'rolling release' and fresh software availability.
   ps: another thing tha I *really* like is BSD-like startup scripts ancd the fantistic rc.conf thing.
   ps: sorry for my English...

   on 14/7/08 02:42

   
   
4. Corrado (Italy) said,

   I'm curious about Arch and probably I'll try it in a near future, but have you ever tried SIDUX. It's like arch a rolling-release and is rock solid and really fast. It has a marvellous script called smxi that makes all annoying stuffs for you like upgrading kernel, packages and also installing the right video drivers. If you broke your system you can fix it with smxi. It's probably not for novice like arch, but I think it's more user friendly for the beginner. It's pure Debian but rolling release and it's developed by a German team (rock solid like Volkswagen). Try it and you'll find the only opponent to arch.
   However compliments for your analytical review. Bye, Corrado.

   on 14/7/08 04:28

   
   
5. GODhack said,

   Article name not good.
   
   "Linux guru?"
   Then switch to Gentoo.
   (or Slackware or Debian or Fedora).
   
   ArchLinux has prehistoric installer. Using 10 years old tools is not part of GURU. ArchLinux has too much bugs. Living together with bugs is not part of GURU too. ArchLinux has japm (just another package manager) a.k.a. pacman and Linux world alredy before archlinux started had too much package managers and there was no need to create one more and there is no need to learn one more for GURU.

   on 14/7/08 06:41

   
   
6. decentralist.wordpress.com said,

   I haven't tried Arch due to lack of time to learn extra installation requirements, but Zenwalk's snapshot repository as well as Sidux work great for very fast rolling release Distros. Plus, they are easy to install.

   on 14/7/08 09:17

   
   
7. SyXbiT said,

   To answer a few questions.
   
   @Kenweill:
   The Arch wiki is very, very good, and explains how to install/configure xorg and the package names for common stuff etc..
   It is doable by a n00b, it will just take a lot of reading. I'd still recommend that a n00b go with something more user friendly like Ubuntu
   
   @Federico:
   the problem with debian sid is that it doesn't receive security updates, as it's not an officially supported distro.
   
   @Corrado:
   I believe Sidux mostly integrates with KDE (and XFCE). I chose Arch because it's DE independent. Arch offers all of them as different packages, so you just choose.
   
   @Godhack:
   By my definition, Guru is someone who knows his way around Linux.
   I know Gentoo is more extreme, but I have two reasons for not using it.
   
   1. I'm not convinced that compiling your own packages improves performance that much .
   
   2. I wanted a minimal package manager that installs dependencies (which Slackware doesn't really do)
   
   I want control over my system, BUT, I want to spend most of my time using my system, but fixing/upgrading/compiling.
   I have friends to use Gentoo and Slackware, and they seem to spend more time doing admin stuff than actually using it.

   on 14/7/08 19:49

   
   
8. Anonymous said,

   You are so right about the annoyance of the fixed "Frozen" release schedule of most distros. But I wish Ubuntu or openSUSE would adopt this approach, because I'm not willing to give up the convenience of the easy distros.

   on 14/7/08 21:31

   
   
9. morgan said,

   I love the idea of a rolling distro like Arch - i.e no versions but just constantly updated packages.
   
   I use gentoo myself because of this (and it is the most responsive system I have used..)
   
   For and easy to use system that does have the latest rolling releases for certain packages - i.e firefox, kde 3+4 , xorg gnome, etc then choose opensuse - just add the extra repos - then you have a stable base system but have an constantly updated (suse kde packages always come out the day of kde release...)

   on 15/7/08 07:41

   
   
10. eldarion said,

    @GODhack
    
    Gentoo was a great distro once. Now it's DEAD. Admit it.
    
    ArchLinux has prehistoric installer
    
    Compared to what? Gentoo's? LOL
    
    ArchLinux has too much bugs
    
    Wrong. Arch have as many bugs as any other distro out there.
    
    ArchLinux has japm
    
    Not japm. Even an gentoo/fedora/etc zealot have to admit it. It's one of the best package managers out there.

    on 15/7/08 08:03

    
    
11. morgan said,

    not to start a flame war but I have installed the latest gentoo and latest arch - the installer from livecd in gentoo is really easy (and much more modern)
    
    I do like arch - however gentoo has more packages (and also is the only distro i know that can compile with msse3 support - Arch does not..)

    on 15/7/08 08:15

    
    
12. davemc said,

    I have used both Gentoo and Arch systems for a long time now. I do like ARCH for speed and efficiency. Gentoo, however, is the superior system for a long list of reasons which I wont go into on a comment to a review. To each his/her own. If you like ARCH and it does the trick for you, then stay with it, be an active part of the community, and so forth. I think Ubuntu and Debian are also very very good systems to stick with as well.

    on 15/7/08 11:22

    
    
13. Anonymous said,

    @morgan
    "gentoo has more packages (and also is the only distro i know that can compile with msse3 support - Arch does not..)"
    
    What do you mean? It is the compiler flags that determine it anche in arch you can find them in /etc/makepkg.conf

    on 15/7/08 12:15

    
    
14. Anonymous said,

    Nice article. Thanks for taking time out to contribute.

    on 15/7/08 21:00

    
    
15. Anonymous said,

    I keep wanting to try Arch because I'm always in search of something light & fast to go on my ancient notebook. But, I admit it seemed a bit daunting. I guess I'll just have to jump in and give it a try. Thanks for taking the time to write up the review.

    on 15/7/08 21:53

    
    
16. Anonymous said,

    Gurus build from source.

    on 15/7/08 21:54

    
    
17. AlexsilizeR said,

    Pacman Is Rock Yeahhhhhh

    on 16/7/08 02:23

    
    
18. Lee said,

    One thing you left out of the review is the Arch Build System, or ABS. This is perfect for anyone who *does* want to build packages (or even the kernel) from source. The packages are already pretty tightly built, but I've found that some of them (KDE, Xorg, Firefox, et al) really do respond better when built with compiler flags that match my system architecture. ABS makes this a snap - just copy the PKGBUILD from the tree, run makepkg -ci, and you're in business. The Arch User Repository (AUR - for unofficial user-supported packages) depends on PKGBUILDs and makepkg too, so it's a good idea to get to know the system anyway.
    
    Of course, you could simply install the yaourt program and use it to do the dirty work for you... ^_^

    on 16/7/08 10:04

    
    
19. Anonymous said,

    A small error correction:
    pacman uses libdownload as the default download handeler, not wget.
    But, ofcause, nothing stops you from setting XferCommand in pacman.conf to wget :)

    on 16/7/08 15:28

    
    
20. Anonymous said,

    In terms of a rolling release distro that receives security updates, we should not forget about Debian Testing.
    
    You get stability (just as stable as Arch), security updates and the packages are regularly updated (usually within a couple of weeks after they're put into Sid).

    on 17/7/08 13:52

    
    
21. jasonwalsh said,

    Great article. I've been using Ubuntu for about 8 months now, and have always been frustrated by tons of packages and daemons that I did not install cluttering up the system. With Ubuntu, I always end up compiling packages by hand anyway to have the latest bleeding-edge packages, which is why I initially though of Gentoo as a distro to switch to. Not knowing much about Arch, and now having reading this, I must say that I am really looking forward to trying, and hopefully switching to, it. Everything the OP described Arch as is exactly what I want in a Linux distro :)
    
    Any response, though, to the comment that Gentoo is dead?

    on 17/7/08 19:23

    
    
22. SyXbiT said,

    @anonymous.
    wget error is fixed. thanks

    on 17/7/08 19:45

    
    
23. Just Another Geek said,

    Linux nowadays has altitude on the desktop productivity aspect. Even advanced users as myself refuse to use such basic forms of time overhead addons since it only wastes time. As you said memory is worth about the same as a packet of peanuts.
    
    I guess this is fine for people that want to go dissecting Linux but overall you would want to point to Ubuntu for a desktop experience that will save you hassle. When it really comes down to it , people have done the work for you. I doubt your personal experience with a *nix environment will give you promising productivity , and let us note that productivity is the number one name of the game when it comes to any desktop today.

    on 20/7/08 09:56

    
    
24. Jean Azzopardi said,

    We have 2 laptops in the house...2 sony vaio's, pretty much identical. My dad uses Ubuntu on one of them, I use Arch Linux on the other. Ubuntu's easier to install, but it's slower, and some niggling issues have crept into Hardy..some very infuriating kernel bugs, too.
    
    On the other hand, Arch was a bit tougher to install (thanks to we having no ethernet in the house, thus it got a bit tricky at first, then once I got wifi up, it was a breeze). Responds well, and apart from the yaourt -Syu --aur command once a day to check for updates, I don't have to do anything, really.

    on 21/7/08 08:20

    
    
25. julian67 said,

    It's not true to say that Arch packages are mostly unmodified. Actually all the documentation except the man pages are stripped out. This includes a lot of very useful, even vital, information and a lot of stuff which is mandatory, such as copyright notices. Unfortunately this means many many packages in Arch, perhaps almost all, are distributed in violation of the authors' rights and in breach of the accompanying licenses. The copyright notices describe the chosen license, the origin of the code, the names of the authors and contributors, any dual licensing arrangements, and any other info the author/copyright owner wishes to be known. The inclusion of these notices is (excepting public domain works) a condition of distribution. It's disrespectful and illegal to distribute free software in this way. If a commercial company was doing it they would rightly be the subject of legal action, such as happens frequently with projects appropriating busybox in breach of license. It's a great shame to see a distribution behaving in an unethical way for the sake of reducing installed size by 100-200 MBs on a typical desktop install.

    on 22/7/08 22:38

    
    
26. Junaid Shahid said,

    My distro-histroy has been like:
    
    RH-7.2, RH-8, Mandrake, RH-9, Suse 9, 9.1, Gentoo, FreeBSD, Slackware 9, 10, 10.2, Debian, Kubuntu and finally Arch.
    
    I must say that nothing else suits me except Arch.

    on 3/8/08 07:17

    
    
27. Anonymous said,

    julian67, that isn't actually right, all packages with "custom" licenses such as BSD etc get a license in /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname/, which includes all copyright notices etc.

    on 3/8/08 20:16

    
    
28. furiozo said,

    I moved from Slack to Arch because of the 64 bit support.
    
    pacman is great.
    rolling release is great.
    the install-from-usb images are great.
    the purity of Arch is great.
    
    I recommend ArchLinux to all advanced linux users, and to those that plan to become advanced.

    on 4/8/08 10:13

    
    
29. david_e said,

    I have used Arch Linux for about a year then I switched to Gentoo about a year ago.
    
    I loved the Arch system layout and its KISS principles, but I don't really like binary packages: you will lose the possibility of truly building your system the way you want. Because one size does not fit all.
    
    For example GNOME users will want Pidgin to be built with Evolution support to truly integrate it inside the GNOME environment, but many other users (XFCE,*box,etc... users) won't like pidgin to pull in half GNOME as a dependency as it's a non-sense to use fluxbox and have half GNOME installed and running in background just for 1 app.
    
    Only source based distros can let you build your system exactly as you want. Plus you can forget about backport repos (static distros) or being forced to stay in sync with the main tree just to update one package (rolling release) because everything is built on your system and linked with the installed shared libs. Rolling back is equally easy. On the other side source based distros needs much more hd space...

    on 4/8/08 17:12

    
    
30. fatblue said,

    I've been using both Arch and Gentoo for about 5 years now. Arch long ago surpassed Gentoo in usefuless and stability. Here are the differences that I think separate Gentoo and Arch.
    
    Gentoo is a bit more flexible. One may install Gentoo on more architecures such as SPARC. Use flags also make things easier, -for example, its easier to install mplayer without x11 to use w/ framebuffer than it is in Arch linux. The documentation is better than Arch's documentation and is more portable, -for example, Gentoo's install guide teaches chroot and has more detailed info on creating users and configuring grub and fstab.
    
    Arch is faster and more stable (Gentoo has many different portage overlays with a lowered quality and consistency. It eventually accumulates and forces breakage in the operating system functionality). Arch leaders maintain a very accessible and friendly presence in their community, while Gentoo's leaders solve frequent community problems by locking threads and kicking users.
    
    Arch is a lot easier to use, -it has one configuration file and if one chooses not to use Arch's package management and configuration tools to get things done, that's OK. Installation and configuration that is done without those tools tends to work most of the time. The analogous Gentoo scenario will usually not succeed without a lot of troubleshooting (subjective, maybe, but that's my experience).
    
    I still love Gentoo, but Arch quickly had solutions to many problems that will always plague Gentoo. Arch has a better handle on simplicity, quality assurance, and community.

    on 9/8/08 02:33

    
    
31. Anonymous said,

    I consider Arch promising and may try it. I like its rolling release bleeding-edge concept. As a sysadmin I am unafraid of geek stuff.
    
    What DOES scare me is how many gurus have problems installing Arch in 2008:
    
    Javier
    
    Fabrizio
    
    
    If someone can explain such serious issues, I will consider trying it. A Gentoo install is less work.
    
    An interview relates to Frugalware's pacman fork. The problem with Frugalware is the smaller package count. But even Arch has packages out of date, though not severely. (Just scan for red text in Arch web listings. And some cases [tor] they just dumbly use the so-called "stable" release not current dev release.)
    
    Arch needs an AMD64 live CD to make the bootstrap install simpler. I could only find a 32-bit x86 Arch live CD. Arch also appears unwilling to cover 32-bit compatibility on AMD64 though I might be wrong.

    on 11/8/08 04:22

    
    
32. Draconis said,

    You convince me dude !

    on 27/8/08 08:12

    
    
33. Jagadish said,

    I switched recently from Ubuntu to Arch and am liking it so far. You say that you get to boot in 17 s. That's pretty good. What is your system configuration?

    on 13/9/08 03:41

    
    
34. SyXbiT said,

    oddly enough, my lower spec'd laptop boots faster
    2.2ghz C2D santa rosa
    4GB ram
    GeForce 8400M GS
    
    my desktop is a C2Q 9450
    
    but it has 3 hard drives, several USB hubs etc.. and takes a little longer

    on 16/9/08 11:47

    
    
35. Arch.Dave said,

    Dave's Arch Linux Adoration Blog
    
    With Gentoo (Get Every Noob To Opt Out) one must compile each and every package and become an expert with USE flags.
    
    With Arch, you only need to compile those packages that NEED to be compiled because of your specific needs. Yaourt and AUR are great tools for normal updating and distro specialization.

    on 26/9/08 20:19

    
    
36. Anonymous said,

    Another reason to use Arch is Kdemod, the best implementation I've seen of KDE. That and the rolling release, lightweight nature and speed of Arch turned me into a happy Arch user (after using Windows, Suse, and Kubuntu). I try to cut on resources in my 5 year old laptop and do not use it anymore but if you are for a GUI updater that also tells you when updates are available Shaman is much much faster than Yast and Adept were when I was using Suse and Kubuntu.

    on 9/10/08 13:04

    
    
37. Tom Yeo said,

    I've been using Archlinux since 0.3 days. I just checked, its been 6 years already. Before that I've used lunar, sourcerer, sourcemage, gentoo, centos, fedora, slackware, mandrake, suse .....
    I hardly install from scatch ever since the first day I use archlinux unless I switching hardware. The last time I did that was to try out 64-bit, can't live without skype and didn't like lib32, so I switch back to 32 bit. All in a day's work.
    If you ever use pecl or gem to build native libraries you'll appreciate simplicity of archlinux packages. If you ever need to check compile option of a package or add extra libraby support or install more than 1 version of software into different location, you can't live without abs.
    Flexible WIFI connectivity without DEs? try netcfg2.
    Fear of hardware configuration? try hwd or simply X -configure.
    You gotta try it to believe it.

    on 21/11/08 10:45

    
    
38. Anonymous said,

    GODhack you are very painful TROLL!

    on 18/2/09 14:17

    
    
39. nanoverde said,

    After years and distros I finally got to arch. all my computers and ones of friends only run arch.Reason? you gotta try it for a while and see why! you gonna love it!!!

    on 21/2/09 10:21

    
    
40. Anonymous said,

    My Linux GURU roadmap:
    
    Redhat, Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, ArchLinux

    on 25/2/09 10:03

    
    
41. Anonymous said,

    how much frequently do you upgrade your ur arch?
    what if you dont upgrade it for say 6 mth and then upgrade? according to some forum posts it breaks everything. so that means u have to upgrade it frequently.
    
    wnated to clear up this. is it so?

    on 18/3/09 06:31

    
    
42. miguimon said,

    Arch Linux is one of the best distributions out there at the moment. Love it too!!
    
    I been using Arch for the past 2 years installed on my MacBook laptop and VPS server and yeah still impress of the quality it has. I usually upgrade with yaourt every day and AUR packages like once a week or so.
    
    Give a try :)

    on 26/3/09 03:27

    
    
43. anderstornvig said,

    Hey,
    
    First time reader of your blog. Nice Arch Linux post. I completely agree with you, both on the advantages of a KISS distribution and of rolling releases. These are also the main reasons why I've stuck with Arch for 1-2 years now.
    That said, an Arch install requires some Linux skills, and often upgrading it using pacman -Syu is not as smooth as it maybe should be.
    
    I wrote a similar post on The Arch Way half a year ago or so. Feel free to have a look at it.

    on 3/5/09 05:22

    
    
44. Anonymous said,

    I've been usin gentoo since 2006 now and I like it, it's super fast. I tried Arch but it didn't convince me after using gentoo. I like portage more than pacman.
    
    Arch also gives a feeling that it's dying. So small community.

    on 18/5/09 03:28

    
    

Post a Comment