
ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite - Nic0
http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2011/11/06/archlinux-notforthe-elite/
======
sunkencity
I like arch, except for the stupid command line arguments to pacman. I wish
they had just kept it more standard. There's nothing wrong with naming
"install" install and "search" search. Feels to me like a case of inventing
complexity just to make it feel a little more elitist.

    
    
       pacman -Ss gnome # searches for gnome
       pacman -S gnome # installs gnome

~~~
johanbev
That's just how CLI apps work, there is nothing elitist about it. Its "cd" and
"ls -la" and "cat", not "change-directory," "list-directory long-format
everything" and so on. The learning curve might be steep, but it's well worth
it, especially for those of us who "live" in a shell.

In the particular case of pacman, I really like the design of the arguments,
in particular the top level ones. -S is for syncing, -R is for removing, and
-Q is for querying and so on. Nice!

~~~
211231321
Yes, but why rename install to syncing and search to query? Why not just call
it install and make it -i for install and -s for search which is still search.
I think that is what the OP is trying to say.

~~~
johanbev
Searching isn't the same as querying. -Q is for operations dealing on the
_local_ repository. -S synchronizes your local repository with the remote
repository. In a way installing could very well be -Si (-S --install), but
installing is the default action in -S mode instead. Pacman is maybe somewhat
idiosyncratic, but I find it very useful and simple once you get the basics.

~~~
211231321
Oh, i used it. Found it delightful, actually I am yet to encounter a very bad
package management system. They are all really good since I started using
linux.

------
udp
It's pretty stupid, but the only problem I have with using something like Arch
on my desktop is I can _never_ seem to get the fonts to look nice (ie. like
they do in OS X or Ubuntu) when I've installed/configured Xorg myself.

~~~
yule
That is quite a normal concern. Fortunately, the Archlinux wiki has good info
on how to configure fonts:
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Font_Configuration#Ubun...](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Font_Configuration#Ubuntu)
(that link leads to the section about Ubuntu-patched packages, but the whole
page is a good read).

If you use Archlinux, make sure you use the wiki and bbs to their full power.
Most of the problems you think of have been solved in a way or another. It
usually just requires installing some packages, which is a breeze.

~~~
mithaler
I use the Ubuntu patchset. The difference between that and stock fontconfig is
night-and-day; installing it is a constant reminder that for all the
controversial moves Canonical has made in recent months, making Linux fonts
_not look like ass_ was one thing they did about as well as they possibly
could have.

------
jcurbo
I don't use Arch personally, but I have found that every time I've looked for
documentation on something lately (like setting up xmonad), I would be
directed to the Arch wiki and forums quite a bit. They seem to have a good
community going on over there.

~~~
jgn
The community is amazing. The forums are a wealth of information, and I've
tracked down almost every single bug just by searching. The wiki is updated
regularly and is just as rich.

In my experience Arch users are very happy and proud to be running such a
powerful, flexible system, and they give back by helping others. I ran
Slackware for a year, then messed around with Mint before trying Arch. I can't
see myself trying anything else -- except maybe LFS ;).

------
zalew
"Arch Linux is a very fun and stable distribution that successfully blends the
bleeding edge, stability and hackability of Linux"

let's define 'stable' <http://www.tuxtips.org/?cat=3>

~~~
taudelta
I would say it has a bit of both kinds.

~~~
sirclueless
Anecdotally, ArchLinux has bitten me before with its rolling releases. They
moved the hostname utility to a new package, but pacman (their package
manager) didn't prompt or download the new package. This promptly broke my
laptop's network stack right before I left for a weekend trip. Now I didn't
have internet, and I didn't have internet to find out how to fix my internet.
It all worked out fine by writing a bash script named hostname sitting on my
path that echoed a constant string, so I could connect and download the new
package.

If you are looking for a pain-free linux system, Arch Linux isn't it. You will
run into little things like this, living one step behind the bleeding edge
(basically someone compiles your software for you, does a sanity check, then
you get it ASAP). Don't get me wrong, I love it, and will continue to use it
as long as it has the most flexible and clean system, because I appreciate
their dedication to simplicity of implementation.

~~~
lftl
I ran Debian unstable on my desktop for a number of years and the experience
sounds pretty comparable. For the most part I just got working bleeding edge
packages with minor quality control. Occasionally you would get some breakage
(which was usually mentioned in apt-listbugs before upgrade anyway), and the
nice thing about debian was I could either pin the package to the current more
stable version, or if I had already upgraded I could just grab the previous
package off of the debian snapshot mirrors.

~~~
taudelta
I would argue that yes, debian unstable and arch are both rolling release
distros, so the experience will be sort of similar, but I think that's where
the similarities end.

Arch on one hand has a large user base (everyone) using the rolling release
packages, this means that bugs get quickly found and squashed. There is also a
testing repository which is used for the "base packages" so major bugs don't
get get past into the "stable" repos. For example, kernel 3.1 is still in
testing because of some problems that the testers experienced.

On the other hand, debian unstable has bitten me more than once very hard. So
from my experience, it feels like debian does very little if any Q&A on debian
unstable. I would compare Arch to Debian testing more since by then, packages
have had some time to test and mature.

That said, I've experienced less crashs on arch than on any distro. Mind you I
actually read the news. I honestly can't even remember the last time I've had
a crash on archlinux.. maybe several years ago with some kernel update.

------
morazow
Tried to install it last week, almost everything was done until GUI. Could not
make to install & configure one of window managers.

~~~
RexRollman
What window manager are you talking about? And when you say install &
configure, are you talking about compiling from source or installing via
Pacman?

I only ask because I have never had a problem with a window manager on Arch.

------
lbolla
Google cached version:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KJXbNFy...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KJXbNFyM7jwJ:standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2011/11/06/archlinux-
notforthe-
elite/+http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2011/11/06/archlinux-
notforthe-elite/&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1)

------
ktf
I used Arch for a while, and really loved it... in theory. In practice,
updates would often break things, especially when those updates were x.org-
related.

Using Arch also really made me appreciate all the work Ubuntu does to make a
desktop that isn't ugly. I found myself installing Ubuntu-patched versions of
many Arch packages just to get things like a decent notification system and
non-ugly fonts. (And even then, OpenOffice fonts never did work correctly.)

I was raised on Slackware, so I'm no stranger to DIY-style Linux, but these
days I'm happy to install Ubuntu and have a working, decent-looking desktop
system in 20-30 minutes.

That said, if I was looking to build a minimalist dev box or something other
than a general desktop system, I wouldn't hesitate to install Arch.

------
codabrink
>The installation process may take a while (several hours.. or less)

It depends on what you're talking about. With relatively fast internet (I have
20Mb/s), I can have a functional box up with my favorite DE in just an hour or
so. It's true that I configure things here and there for the next couple days
as I need them, and each configuration is simple and only takes a second or
two, but several hours seems a lot longer than the average install to me.

~~~
yule
Two things helped me a lot with my Archlinux installation:

1) I previously tried in a virtual machine 2) I had a second machine next to
mine to look up stuff in the wiki and follow the installation guide.

~~~
sirclueless
I agree. Arch Linux configuration is educational and well worth the few hours
it takes on your first try, but you should definitely have another computer
with the wiki open while you do it.

------
jiggy2011
Am I right in thinking that Arch is the new Gentoo?

~~~
Nic0
Gentoo spirit, without long compiling time.

~~~
itsnotvalid
I remembered my first time trying gentoo took some 12 hours to compile KDE...
Well that was really long time ago.

------
CrystalBlood
[..] Arch Linux is a very fun and stable distribution that successfully blends
the bleeding edge, stability and hackability of Linux. Don’t be fooled by the
rumours saying it’s for the elite. [..]

Agree! I have been using it for almost a year and the most atractive thing is
the rolling release update. I don't have to worry about upgrading the whole
system like others distros.

------
exo-terrestrial
Arch taught me a lot about my computer. I use a libre/Free Software
distribution of it, Parabola GNU/linux-libre.

------
Tichy
"almost as easy than Ubuntu or any other distribution"

But if Ubuntu is easier, why not use Ubuntu?

~~~
Nic0
nano is easier than vim to use, so why everyone bother to learn vim then ?

Ease to use is not the only thing mater for everyone, and having something
powerful, more customizable, more understandable, those kind of things mater
to some persons.

~~~
Tichy
You know, my question was serious. There are several reasons for using vim,
like maybe you can edit faster if you know the commands, there are more
plugins and so on. So if my question had been "why use vim instead of nano",
there would have been possible reasonable answers.

But what is the advantage of Arch over Ubuntu? They are both Linux... My
question was serious, I really don't know why I should prefer Arch.

~~~
Nic0
My answer was almost serious as well, and was answering the question "why not
use Ubuntu if it's easier" and not "what is the advantage of Arch over
Ubuntu?". They are two different questions.

Your question, now, is a much more open one, then more difficult to answer.
This page try to explain the Arch Way
<https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way>

I wrote something that tried to explain why AUR is an important part of Arch
Linux [http://www.nicosphere.net/why-aur-is-part-of-the-arch-
linux-...](http://www.nicosphere.net/why-aur-is-part-of-the-arch-linux-
success-2529/)

~~~
Tichy
I thought my question was kind of the same. If there is no advantage of Arch,
then it doesn't make sense to use it if it is harder to use. Unless you want
to work on improving Arch.

~~~
Nic0
You're right, if Arch would not have some advantages, nobody would use it.

Simplicity of use, packaging, configuration, understanding. No default choices
as Unity, it's light and fast, a great distro to learn from, great community
and documentation, and much more, that make Arch a great distribution widely
used.

~~~
Tichy
If packaging really is easier, it might be interesting. It seems to be quite
complicated to create debian packages.

------
swasheck
that's it ... i'm moving to gentoo.

