"Simplicity" as in Arch is bad.

Simplicity There are two trends lately in Linuxdom that I have reservations on. "Simplicity" as in keeping to UNIX traditions is increasingly popular, and distros like Arch, Slack, and CRUX seem to be seeing renewed interested due to this trend. I heartily disagree with the "Simplicity" trend. I would rather work with my computer than smirk at how "simple" and "clean" the system is. Some UNIX-ness is appreciated, when it's practical: e.g. using vim is fast and easy, and is a great way to edin it text. LaTeX is wonderful for long documents and book writing, and the Linux filesystem is admirable. But making it simple just to be simple doesn't make sense to me. There should be an easy, intuitive way to do things, preferably a front-end to an XML or .conf simple way. PlayOnLinux is a perfect example of a front-end to a complex back-end, and CrossOver is a perfect example of a integrating frontend (one that somewhat integrates with the backend.)

Working with Linux should be productive and allow me to get on with what i'm doing. When I need to configure, Linux should help me in all manners possible get the task done easily, but quickly. Memorization of every possible customization and troubleshooting technique is nigh-impossible, so Linux should present them as choices. Perfect Linux My idea for a perfect Linux is one the Mark Canonical envisions: easy to use, "simple" but intuitive, and full of choices but making the best by default. Ubuntu, SuSE and Fedora, as well as Mandriva and MEPIS and Sidux, seem to follow this conviction. This means having GUIs for configuration.

Choices On Choices, having more choice and freedom is great. But standardize the backends and make choice transparent to the developer. And pick the default for the end user instead of FORCING them to make a choice; rather, simply allow them to make the choice. Ubuntu does this brilliantly, by having a default choice of GNOME, OOo and GIMP but allowing total choice.

Some other Linuxes insist that you pick a GNOME/KDE choice at first install. This is unwise, because it splits the userbase too much and makes installation difficult to a new user. It FORCES the choices on a new user. This is bad. SuSE does this, as does Mandriva.

More Configuration Configuration is hard in Ubuntu in some ways, still. For one, KDE and GNOME have very different configuration environments. And if you don't use a DE, good luck configuring via the GUI! Finally, some tasks such as X configuration and Sound configuration are very weakly handled. And some Configuration tools, like CCSM and Gndismanager, are not included. Thus, I prefer overall configuration environments, like Yast or Mandriva Control Center. I wish ubuntu had one.

Overall, I just don't see the point to simplicity, and do see the point to choice, if moderated.

Use what works for you.

Heavily-graphical systems with more complex bases work very badly for me. I have too many specific desires for my computer's operation under the hood. I need a clean slate.

On Choices, having more choice and freedom is great. But standardize the backends and make choice transparent to the developer. And pick the default for the end user instead of FORCING them to make a choice; rather, simply allow them to make the choice. Ubuntu does this brilliantly, by having a default choice of GNOME, OOo and GIMP but allowing total choice.

Some other Linuxes insist that you pick a GNOME/KDE choice at first install. This is unwise, because it splits the userbase too much and makes installation difficult to a new user. It FORCES the choices on a new user. This is bad. SuSE does this, as does Mandriva. How is Ubuntu different from Mandriva in this respect?

So... what exactly do you have in mind as far as moderating choice in linux is concerned? :popcorn:

cardinals_fan said: Use what works for you.

+1

These are your opinions that may be valid to you but I can assure you that your idea of the linux desktop is different than mine. For me GUI configuration is not practical and much less productive but again that's totally my opinion and it's different for each person.

ryaxnb said: instead of FORCING them to make a choice; rather, simply allow them to make the choice.

you *are* allowed to make a choice. that's the beauty of linux. alot of your post does not make sense, it's all over the place.

Personally. I find what is simple to be the most productive.

I just read this article this evening, and think it somewhat correlates to what you are saying: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

I like using Arch and customize it to be quick and simple and above all, fast because that's what I like, that's what I expect and that's what I want. Anything else feels uncomfortable with me. But there are so many different types of bloated distro's that choosing one that suits you shouldn't be a big deal.

Use what you like and what works. Forcing a different philosophy on an already perfect philosophy (KISS) is not going to work.

I'm going to be an echo here and say "use what works for you". If someone likes simplicity, let them use it. If you don't like it, use something else. It's that simple (No pun intended).

Simplicity =/= un-user-friendly.

The entire point is productivity and promoting good usage habits.

the Linux filesystem is admirable:-s to a sociopath, perhaps.

And if you don't use a DE, good luck configuring via the GUI!I can't make heads or tails of this comment. Has anyone ever gone, "I'm going to use an obscure little window manager today. WTF, where's the control center?!!"?

etnlIcarus said: Simplicity =/= un-user-friendly

Worse is better

Dr Small said: Worse is better

Excuse mois?

etnlIcarus said:

I can't make heads or tails of this comment. the original post is a disaster.

ryaxnb said: Simplicity

There are two trends lately in Linuxdom that I have reservations on. "Simplicity" as in keeping to UNIX traditions is increasingly popular, and distros like Arch, Slack, and CRUX seem to be seeing renewed interested due to this trend. I heartily disagree with the "Simplicity" trend. I would rather work with my computer than smirk at how "simple" and "clean" the system is. Some UNIX-ness is appreciated, when it's practical: e.g. using vim is fast and easy, and is a great way to edin it text. LaTeX is wonderful for long documents and book writing, and the Linux filesystem is admirable. But making it simple just to be simple doesn't make sense to me. There should be an easy, intuitive way to do things, preferably a front-end to an XML or .conf simple way. PlayOnLinux is a perfect example of a front-end to a complex back-end, and CrossOver is a perfect example of a integrating frontend (one that somewhat integrates with the backend.)

Working with Linux should be productive and allow me to get on with what i'm doing. When I need to configure, Linux should help me in all manners possible get the task done easily, but quickly. Memorization of every possible customization and troubleshooting technique is nigh-impossible, so Linux should present them as choices.

you've never actually used arch, have you?

etnlIcarus said: Simplicity =/= un-user-friendly.

Please... having to add a user to a audio and video group? Having to manage initramfs? That's unuserfriendly. Arch does that. It's bad. [quote I can't make heads or tails of this comment. Has anyone ever gone, "I'm going to use an obscure little window manager today. WTF, where's the control center?!!"?

Um, yes, if they're on a Pentium 4 with 256MB of RAM that they got from their uncle and need to run the WM (say Blackbox or LXDE or JWM) but want an easy config tool. Not every JWM user is an expert, some just have weak hardware; in fact that's a leading cause of using JWM. Even some experts may not want to remember hundreds or thousands of configuration values and what they do.

the OP's post is kind of a bunch of contradictions if you read it through. this is my last post in this one. :rolleyes:

ryaxnb said: Please... having to add a user to a audio and video group? Having to manage initramfs? That's unuserfriendly. Arch does that. It's bad.

Oh noes! I have to type in 2 extra words aided by a comprehensive guide!

Um, yes, if they're on a Pentium 4 with 256MB of RAM that they got from their uncle and need to run the WM (say Blackbox or LXDE or JWM) but want an easy config tool. Not every JWM user is an expert, some just have weak hardware; in fact that's a leading cause of using JWM. Even some experts may not want to remember hundreds or thousands of configuration values and what they do.

Minimalism doesn't involve complex GUI configuration tools.

I agree with the comments from wolfen69, and find the original post to be a little erratic. That said, I disagree with the thread topic: *"Simplicity" as in Arch is bad*. cardinals_fan hit the nail on the head with "Use what works for you". I'm perfectly content with my FreeBSD setup, which could also fall under same "simplistic" category as Arch/Slackware/CRUX. In fact, I like these "simple" systems quite a bit compared to distributions with "Control Centers" like openSUSE, Mandriva, and MEPIS.

The conclusion?

cardinals_fan said: Use what works for you.

+1

wolfen69 said: the original post is a disaster.Agree with you, there.

ryaxnb said: Please... having to add a user to a audio and video group? Having to manage initramfs? That's unuserfriendly. Arch does that. It's bad. That's got nothing to do with simplicity (lets call it minimalism please), that's just a matter of defaults. If you had created a thread entitled, "minimal vanilla distros tend to have poor defaults", I'd probably agree with you.

Um, yes, if they're on a Pentium 4 with 256MB of RAM that they got from their uncle and need to run the WM (say Blackbox or LXDE or JWM) but want an easy config tool. Not every JWM user is an expert, some just have weak hardware; in fact that's a leading cause of using JWM. Even some experts may not want to remember hundreds or thousands of configuration values and what they do.Frankly, deal with it. You're not paying much (or anything) for the hardware, you're not paying for the OS and you expect the end result to be catered to your every whim? Be a little more realistic.

And what exactly are you trying to configure? Every time I've used JWM, the default configuration has been perfectly sane. The only time I've struggled with the configuration of a WM has been when I've tried to use the version of Fluxbox provided in the Ubuntu repos.

I guess my point is that I cant imagine using a distribution whose main point is "KISS". It seems harder, just for harder's sake. What's the real advantage of Arch? What makes it worth memorizing all those config files when one could just use Mint, Ubuntu, Suse, or if one wanted always-up-to-date software, sidux? It seems silly to play with .conf files all day when you could be using Ubuntu and doing productive programming. And if Ubuntu gives you more configuration problems than Arch, than Linux configuration really sucks, because Mac OS X doesn't have that many configuration problems and neither does Windows. If Arch really is less troublesome than ubuntu, even weighing in .conf editing and strange CLI magic, than something is wrong with Linux.

ryaxnb said: Simplicity

I would rather work with my computer than smirk at how "simple" and "clean" the system is. Some UNIX-ness is appreciated, when it's practical: e.g. using vim is fast and easy, and is a great way to edin it text. LaTeX is wonderful for long documents and book writing, and the Linux filesystem is admirable. But making it simple just to be simple doesn't make sense to me.

This attitude, for lack of a better word, pisses me right off.

Listen up, and this goes for everyone who sneers at Arch by saying "I'd rather be productive than sit around editing configuration files". Outside of once when X borked my system, I have not done ANYTHING to "tinker" or otherwise mess with Arch in order to keep it working on my system. I update once in a while, but that's all.

It took some time to set up, this I concede, but the result was not a machine that requires some huge commitment in order to simply use. I arguably do LESS diagnostic work here than I ever did on Ubuntu and (good god) Windows.

The big bonus of a supremely pared down system is that it has what you put on there, and thus the chance for mysterious errors are far lower. Updating 100 packages will cause fewer breaks than 1000, and if you know what those 100 packages are you're in a better position to fix things than if you installed 1000 but know 100.

I really challenge anyone to use my computer for a week and tell me that you can't be "productive" on Arch. I switched over last October and in at least a month I've done NOTHING under the hood except little things I elected to do.

ryaxnb said: What makes it worth memorizing all those config files

what memorizing?

The big bonus of a supremely pared down system is that it has what you put on there, and thus the chance for mysterious errors are far lower. Updating 100 packages will cause fewer breaks than 1000, and if you know what those 100 packages are you're in a better position to fix things than if you installed 1000 but know 100.Was thinking the same thing. It's not unlike engineering; the more complex the machine, the less reliable it's going to be.

ryaxnb said: Please... having to add a user to a audio and video group? Having to manage initramfs? That's unuserfriendly. Arch does that. It's bad.

"User friendly" is subjective. What's friendly to me may not be friendly to you.

ryaxnb said:

Um, yes, if they're on a Pentium 4 with 256MB of RAM that they got from their uncle and need to run the WM (say Blackbox or LXDE or JWM) but want an easy config tool. Not every JWM user is an expert, some just have weak hardware; in fact that's a leading cause of using JWM. Even some experts may not want to remember hundreds or thousands of configuration values and what they do. How is LXDE difficult?

ryaxnb said: I guess my point is that I cant imagine using a distribution whose main point is "KISS". It seems harder, just for harder's sake. What's the real advantage of Arch? What makes it worth memorizing all those config files when one could just use Mint, Ubuntu, Suse, or if one wanted always-up-to-date software, sidux? It seems silly to play with .conf files all day when you could be using Ubuntu and doing productive programming.

1. I don't have to uninstall software I will never use for as long as I live such as GNOME. I could also do an Ubuntu CLI install, but I take it you don't like that either.

1. I only have to play with config files all day when I use an OS such as Ubuntu, with lots of automatically configured settings that I have to change.

1. Why do you care? If you don't like it, don't use it.

ryaxnb said:

And if Ubuntu gives you more configuration problems than Arch, than Linux configuration really sucks, because Mac OS X doesn't have that many configuration problems and neither does Windows. If Arch really is less troublesome than ubuntu, even weighing in .conf editing and strange CLI magic, than something is wrong with Linux. OS X and Windows also give me configuration issues. I want a nice, clean system. Nobody is forcing you to use it.

etnlIcarus said: Was thinking the same thing. It's not unlike engineering; the more complex the machine, the less reliable it's going to be.

The theory behind Arch (and others like it) is something I wholeheartedly agree with: a little extra work now is better than a lot of work later. To be sure, a straight newbie to Arch as I once was will be pretty thrown off by the fact that you don't just hit "next" ten times and bingo bango there's an install.

The flip side is that once it's installed, things are downright seamless. Gentoo users often say the same but I've never tried it so I can't verify.

cardinals_fan said: OS X and Windows also give me configuration issues. I want a nice, clean system. Nobody is forcing you to use it.

I often wonder what would happen if these people weren't comparing pre-installed OS's to ones you set up for yourself.

Also, I'd bet anything if I sat someone down with a GNOME installation of Arch and one of Ubuntu, so long as everything "branded" was removed you'd never be able to tell the difference outside of pacman v apt.

as an end user, i've found arch less trouble than ubuntu. i only want what i want on my machine and nothing more. it's a lot easier for me to start with nothing and add just what i want than to start with a whole bunch of crap i don't need and try to figure out how many of the thousand things i've never heard of can be removed.

SomeGuyDude said:

The big bonus of a supremely pared down system is that it has what you put on there, and thus the chance for mysterious errors are far lower. Updating 100 packages will cause fewer breaks than 1000, and if you know what those 100 packages are you're in a better position to fix things than if you installed 1000 but know 100.

That is the main reason why i'm thinking of switching to arch. I have been using ubuntu for almost two years now. and it saddens me to say that it is far too complicated to be maintained easily. as SomeGuyDude said, i prefer to put my system together piece by piece (and know what each piece does) than to use a system that i know nothing about. that is one of the main reasons why i ditched windows.

but in the end, use what works for you :)

SomeGuyDude said: The flip side is that once it's installed, things are downright seamless. Gentoo users often say the same but I've never tried it so I can't verify.

As a long time Gentoo user, I can say that it is *mostly* seamless. Once in a while something gets marked stable in the portage tree that has the potential of seriously breaking things. Usually there is plenty of warning before it happens and documentation on what you need to do to keep your system from breaking. As with any other distribution though, there have been exceptions to that... Your best bet is to be sure to check the Gentoo forums and the main Gentoo website whenever you see that an important package is in the list of things to be upgraded. Also, update your system on at least a weekly basis (I sync and update daily) and you'll avoid most problems.

One of the reasons I moved away from 'out of the box' distros is cause I hate removing unwanted stuff. I would spend more time removing things than doing something productive, like removing wireless drivers, apps, SELinux(oh how I hate you) and all sort of things. I'm an Arch user and I couldn't find myself going back to Ubuntu or Fedora.

The GUIs, in the end are a front end for config files, and sometimes in the times it takes for me to get to the option I want in the GUI I could've made the change with a simple editor.

ryaxnb said: What makes it worth memorizing all those config files when one could just use Mint, Ubuntu, Suse, or if one wanted always-up-to-date software, sidux?

Most of those distributions use the same config files in the same locations. Not much memorizing involved.

ryaxnb said: It seems silly to play with .conf files all day when you could be using Ubuntu and doing productive programming.

When I installed Arch (2 years ago) I edit the .conf files once and ran it side by side with Ubuntu without touching it for nearly a year. When I installed FreeBSD and set up my server, I spent at most *one* day setting things up, and haven't touched the configuration sense. My first reboot since a fresh 7.0 install was just recently when updating to 7.1 and compiling a new kernel. 11 months straight uptime, all doing programming, running a home server, and so on.

ryaxnb said: And if Ubuntu gives you more configuration problems than Arch, than Linux configuration really sucks, because Mac OS X doesn't have that many configuration problems and neither does Windows. If Arch really is less troublesome than ubuntu, even weighing in .conf editing and strange CLI magic, than something is wrong with Linux.

Ubuntu *does* give me more configuration problems than Arch, at least by default. The GUI adds a whole extra layer of configuration woes, which I why I netinstall the CLI system and build my own Ubuntu from the ground up. No cruft, no bloat, just Ubuntu they way I want it.

In the end, use what works for you. Cheers!

Can we just say this guy is a troll, now? I think everyone's pretty much explained why his post is hilariously off-base and his language was more in the sense of "Arch sucks and I'mma tell you why" than "I believe Arch has X, Y, and Z issues that I'd like to see fixed."

chucky chuckaluck said: as an end user, i've found arch less trouble than ubuntu. i only want what i want on my machine and nothing more. it's a lot easier for me to start with nothing and add just what i want than to start with a whole bunch of crap i don't need and try to figure out how many of the thousand things i've never heard of can be removed.

+1 I agree with that 200%

Actually, I spend MORE time stripping down Ubuntu (and other distros too) from all the rubbish that comes pre-installed etc. Building my Arch installation up takes less time.

But of course Linux is all about choice so as mentioned, use what works for you.

ryaxnb said: I guess my point is that I cant imagine using a distribution whose main point is "KISS". It seems harder, just for harder's sake.

Do you honestly think someone is sitting around going "man, this OS is way too easy. I need one that frustrates me and demands that I read tons of man pages to do simple things!" Do you think every person using arch/slackware/debian/bsd/whatever is just doing it because they want something that's hard to use?

Besides all of those wm's have graphical config tools: leafpad, gedit, mousepad, jedit... take your pick!

lykwydchykyn said: Besides all of those wm's have graphical config tools: leafpad, gedit, mousepad, jedit... take your pick!

One of the best lines in this thread :D

lykwydchykyn said: Besides all of those wm's have graphical config tools: leafpad, gedit, mousepad, jedit... take your pick!

+1 :lolflag:

lykwydchykyn said:

Besides all of those wm's have graphical config tools: leafpad, gedit, mousepad, jedit... take your pick!

i guess *technically* that's correct. but...

cmon, if you can "see" something, it is graphical.

wolfen69 said: i guess *technically* that's correct. but...

cmon, if you can "see" something, it is graphical. I think I heard that from somewhere... the ESRB?

chucky chuckaluck said: as an end user, i've found arch less trouble than ubuntu. i only want what i want on my machine and nothing more. it's a lot easier for me to start with nothing and add just what i want than to start with a whole bunch of crap i don't need and try to figure out how many of the thousand things i've never heard of can be removed.

+1.

Things are simple indeed:

– if you're new to linux, chose one of distros like Ubuntu, openSUSE, Mandriva etc. which have chosen for you what you should/want to have on your computer.

– when you get used to linux, it is very likely (or, should I say: absolutely sure) you'll want to make the choice yourself. And Arch is way to go, I'd say. Though, if not, simply stick with above distros (or any you like and make you productive) and you'll be fine.

So, OP, think again about choices, please...

ryaxnb said: Simplicity

Some other Linuxes insist that you pick a GNOME/KDE choice at first install. In a way Ubuntu does the same by forcing you to download either Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu or whatever. Only here you have to make the choice before you even started the download. And if you want a different DE you either have to download another CD or you have to have 2 kde's installed.

For me, my OS has to work 'out of the box'. I don't mind adding a few lines in some config files just as long as it isn't to much tinkering. I certainly don't want to have to dive too deep into something, I simply don't have the time nor the interest for it. In that way I agree mostly to what you said in your opening post. But as everone has mentioned before, just choose what you like yourself and don't do a Microsoft by forcing your opinion of what should be done on others.

Ubuntu is the one best fitted for me at the moment (on my current hardware), followed by Fedora and PCBSD.

Here's what I got out of the original post:

"I want to use a distro like Ubuntu, not like Arch."

Which leaves me thinking "So? Then use Ubuntu and not Arch".

Well for me I sort of feel the same way as the OP. Arch is definitely not for the beginner, it echoes back to both Slack and Gentoo for me. In my opinion Gentoo, Arch and Slack are what had given linux its rep as being hard to configure and hard to use. Distros like Ubuntu and Mandriva are a godsend for the beginner. I mean sure I know most like having something they can configure, I know some would like everything to be CLI again but for me I am a everyday computer user and I want something that is easy to use and update, but is also very secure too. Ubuntu fits the bill

SunnyRabbiera said: In my opinion Gentoo, Arch and Slack are what had given linux its rep as being hard to configure and hard to use.

Yeah I guess you're right. None of those distros are targeted at new Linux users at all though. I think some of my friends think Linux is really hard to use because they see me use the command line a lot. I don't really care though. They can use whatever OS they want.

Moved to recurring.

I think most people who agree they'd rather use Ubuntu don't realize how little effort it is to maintain Arch when everything is done right.

Ubuntu > complex > little effort setting up > more breakage after a while which you may not have a clue about

Arch > simple > takes a while to setup and configure but > less breakage

but use what you want to use

chris4585 said: I think most people who agree they'd rather use Ubuntu don't realize how little effort it is to maintain Arch when everything is done right.

Ubuntu > complex > little effort setting up > more breakage after a while which you may not have a clue about

Arch > simple > takes a while to setup and configure but > less breakage

but use what you want to use

For me its arch thats complex, no live installer, a difficult to understand setup, you need a wiki just to make sense out of it. Ubuntu, just pop the disk in, choose language, hit enter, wait for it to boot, hit install icon, done for the most part. Plus Ubuntu has a large package library, no compiling or re packaging needed... cant say that about arch. Look I know ubuntu has flaws, but for me it works without me having to read anything before hand and recompiling packages that I like to use.

I use Gnome because our family is used to it. I like Arch but currently use Ubuntu because I feel there there may be more attention to quality with Gnome in Ubuntu. I'm sure I will try Arch again someday. When I used Arch & Gnome I noticed that Compiz had some issues too. Also Arch wasn't much faster than Ubuntu for me. If I'm going to install Arch again I would like to figure out scripts to automate alot of the setup. Last time it took me more than 5 hours!

lancest said: I use Gnome because our family is used to it. I like Arch but currently use Ubuntu because I feel there there may be more attention to quality with Gnome in Ubuntu. I'm sure I will try Arch again someday. When I used Arch & Gnome I noticed that Compiz had some issues too. Also Arch wasn't much faster than Ubuntu for me. If I'm going to install Arch again I would like to figure out scripts to automate alot of the setup. Last time it took me more than 5 hours!

Yeh that kind of stuff is discouraging, like with old builds of gentoo taking 2 days just to get a gui. I admit I do wish there was more stability in ubuntu or to have a distro that is both stable but can run the most modern apps without any compiling but since I am not a programmer I will stick to ubuntu.

SunnyRabbiera said: Plus Ubuntu has a large package library, no compiling or re packaging needed... cant say that about arch.

I really don't understand why people say that. The arch repos have tons of packages, and there's stuff I could find there that I couldn't find in the Ubuntu repos. I had to manually compile stuff in Ubuntu, never with Arch. I mean, I have a few compiled packages on Arch, but I didn't have to download the source and do ./configure, etc because someone posted a PKGBUILD in the aur.

ryaxnb said: What's the real advantage of Arch? What makes it worth memorizing all those config files when one could just use Mint, Ubuntu, Suse, or if one wanted always-up-to-date software, sidux? It seems silly to play with .conf files all day when you could be using Ubuntu and doing productive programming.

You've never used Arch, have you?

I moved to Arch 2 months ago, and the only time I had to edit configuration files, is during the installation (grub, etc), and during the initial stages after the installation was complete (Xorg, rc.conf, alsa, etc).

I've never touched those config files since.

I have only the programs I need, and I still don't have to mess around with config files in the way you say.

I can IRC, browse the Ubuntu forums with Firefox, listen to music in XMMS, and code Perl in Medit, at the same time.

That's productivity.

SunnyRabbiera said:

I admit I do wish there was more stability in ubuntu

get a better computer then. how many computers have you tested/installed ubuntu on? what experience do you have repairing computers in general? have you gone to school for computers? do you have access to test machines? how many distros do you test every week? do you live and breathe computers?

in other words, why do you wish ubuntu had more stability if you have nothing to compare it to? and no, your 1 computer does not count. do a mass install sometime with 8 different computers, then talk to me. your piddly computer means nothing when 10 million use it happily. j/k :-k

RiceMonster said: I really don't understand why people say that. The arch repos have tons of packages, and there's stuff I could find there that I couldn't find in the Ubuntu repos. I had to manually compile stuff in Ubuntu, never with Arch. I mean, I have a few compiled packages on Arch, but I didn't have to download the source and do ./configure, etc because someone posted a PKGBUILD in the aur.

RiceMonster speaks the truth, both limewire and skype were both in the arch repos. Which flabbergasted me, not saying that just installing the deb for ubuntu from both limewire and skype were hard, but required a little less effort. Everything I need is in the Arch repos or AUR using a tool called yaourt which works just about exactly as pacman.

wolfen69 said: get a better computer then. how many computers have you tested/installed ubuntu on? what experience do you have repairing computers in general? have you gone to school for computers? do you have access to test machines? how many distros do you test every week? do you live and breathe computers?

in other words, why do you wish ubuntu had more stability if you have nothing to compare it to? and no, your 1 computer does not count. do a mass install sometime with 8 different computers, then talk to me. your piddly computer existance means nothing when 10 million use it happily. btw, your avatar is ....

j/k :-k

Well actually Ubuntu can be very stable but some versions worked better for me then others, my experience with ubuntu has had its up and downs. My computer is fine by the way, all OS have hiccups though. Dapper, Edgy and Hardy are probably the best ones in the ubuntu family I have used, the others are soso. There are some things in ubuntu I dont like, it generalizes updates too much sometimes and it is that is what causes breakage.

RiceMonster said: I really don't understand why people say that. The arch repos have tons of packages, and there's stuff I could find there that I couldn't find in the Ubuntu repos. I had to manually compile stuff in Ubuntu, never with Arch. I mean, I have a few compiled packages on Arch, but I didn't have to download the source and do ./configure, etc because someone posted a PKGBUILD in the aur.

The thing is that I have a bunch of apps in debian I like but they are not in arch, really I dont like the thought of repackaging that much. I just dont want to recompile or anything when on debian systems I never had to do that.

Lucky you. I do use Ubuntu as main OS and have to compile apps from time to time or search for some PPA just to get new version of an app. It can be frustrating. I compared repos of Ubuntu and Arch and you know what: Arch repos have many apps that aren't in Ubuntu repos and they're up-to-date too.

meho_r said: Lucky you. I do use Ubuntu as main OS and have to compile apps from time to time or search for some PPA just to get new version of an app. It can be frustrating. I compared repos of Ubuntu and Arch and you know what: Arch repos have many apps that aren't in Ubuntu repos and they're up-to-date too.

Well for me Ubuntu does the job, the large repository gives me what I need

SomeGuyDude said: The theory behind Arch (and others like it) is something I wholeheartedly agree with: a little extra work now is better than a lot of work later. To be sure, a straight newbie to Arch as I once was will be pretty thrown off by the fact that you don't just hit "next" ten times and bingo bango there's an install.

The flip side is that once it's installed, things are downright seamless. Gentoo users often say the same but I've never tried it so I can't verify.

People claim this but i've heard the rolling release setup in Arch sometimes causes crashes that bring down the system. Is that true? I've also heard that it's hardly "seamless" once installed. It seems like if you need to configure a setting like date & time or add another OS to the boot manager, than back you go to the configuration. Or what if you plug in a FireWire Card but your minimalized setup doesn't have firewire functionality? :( ! It just seems so much better to use a distro that takes those possibilities into account. I don't care what you use, that's fine. But I want developers of Linux, which is a community-developed set of projects, to understand that almost all future users will never be into Arch or something like that. They want something that works if they or a friend of theirs installs new hardware or plugs in a usb wifi or bluetooth card, they want something that installs and sets up in under an hour, and they want something that doesn't require that obscure packages be built from source using yaourt, even if that is a cool way to do it.

wolfen69 said: get a better computer then. how many computers have you tested/installed ubuntu on? what experience do you have repairing computers in general? have you gone to school for computers? do you have access to test machines? how many distros do you test every week? do you live and breathe computers?

in other words, why do you wish ubuntu had more stability if you have nothing to compare it to? and no, your 1 computer does not count. do a mass install sometime with 8 different computers, then talk to me. your piddly computer means nothing when 10 million use it happily. j/k :-k A new distro is significantly cheaper than a new computer.

ryaxnb said: People claim this but i've heard the rolling release setup in Arch sometimes causes crashes that bring down the system. Is that true?

Yes, just like upgrading from one version of Ubuntu to another can cause problems.

ryaxnb said:

I've also heard that it's hardly "seamless" once installed. It seems like if you need to configure a setting like date & time or add another OS to the boot manager, than back you go to the configuration. Or what if you plug in a FireWire Card but your minimalized setup doesn't have firewire functionality? :( ! What? Arch is much like any other distro under the hood. Time can be set with "date" and the bootloader is configurable with /boot/grub/menu.lst, just like Ubuntu.

ryaxnb said:

It just seems so much better to use a distro that takes those possibilities into account. I don't care what you use, that's fine. But I want developers of Linux, which is a community-developed set of projects, to understand that almost all future users will never be into Arch or something like that. They want something that works if they or a friend of theirs installs new hardware or plugs in a usb wifi or bluetooth card, they want something that installs and sets up in under an hour, and they want something that doesn't require that obscure packages be built from source using yaourt, even if that is a cool way to do it. Linux is a kernel, nothing more.

SomeGuyDude said: Can we just say this guy is a troll, now? I think everyone's pretty much explained why his post is hilariously off-base and his language was more in the sense of "Arch sucks and I'mma tell you why" than "I believe Arch has X, Y, and Z issues that I'd like to see fixed."

I am making a post that is a dramatic statement, so i suppose you could call that a troll if thats your definition. But I believe in the statement i am making.

And yes, I am trying to tell you (forewarn you) why putting all your development efforts into a distro like Arch is bad. I want most development efforts poured into distros with the greatest chance of growth, IMHO, like Ubuntu, SuSE, or Fedora. And i don't see the point in fixing arch when IMHO a perfectly good (or at least better) distro already exists and has more potential, say Ubuntu or debian sid for rolling-release fans.

cardinals_fan said: Use what works for you.

+1

Some people like simplicity, some don't. That's why there are so many distributions.

ryaxnb said:

And yes, I am trying to tell you (forewarn you) why putting all your development efforts into a distro like Arch is bad. I want most development efforts poured into distros with the greatest chance of growth, IMHO, like Ubuntu, SuSE, or Fedora. Why don't you let volunteer developers make up their own minds about where they volunteer?

ryaxnb said:

And i don't see the point in fixing arch when IMHO a perfectly good (or at least better) distro already exists and has more potential, say Ubuntu or debian sid for rolling-release fans. Debian packages are non-vanilla. Also, Debian Sid is just as unstable as Arch.

I think SliTaz offers a good middle ground. It offers graphical tools that remain simple and cleanly designed.

cardinals_fan said:

Yes, just like upgrading from one version of Ubuntu to another can cause problems. But then, you can research the problems better, instead of constantly having to stay alert to see if the latest updates, which come more than once a week, may cause problems with your setup. you can stay with the older version for months after the newer version is released until you are assured that your setup is not likely to cause any problems and that you have time to fix them if it does.

What? Arch is much like any other distro under the hood. Time can be set with "date" and the bootloader is configurable with /boot/grub/menu.lst, just like Ubuntu.

With Yast, you can set date parameters like timezone and UTC easily and adjust grub using a GUI. So it seems like there's a better frontend in SuSE.

Linux is a kernel, nothing more.

semantics and technicalities. I meant the combination of kernel and more into various distros.

ryaxnb said: But then, you can research the problems better, instead of constantly having to stay alert to see if the latest updates, which come more than once a week, may cause problems with your setup. you can stay with the older version for months after the newer version is released until you are assured that your setup is not likely to cause any problems and that you have time to fix them if it does.

Arch updates come whenever you choose to update. Actually, I agree that Arch has stability issues, which is why I'm moving to BSD.

ryaxnb said:

With Yast, you can set date parameters like timezone and UTC easily and adjust grub using a GUI. So it seems like there's a better frontend in SuSE. "Better" in what way? Date is absurdly easy, and I'm familiar with menu.lst.

ryaxnb said:

semantics and technicalities. I meant the combination of kernel and more into various distros. No, it isn't just semantics. You said that "I want developers of Linux, which is a community-developed set of projects, to understand that almost all future users will never be into Arch or something like that". Linux (the kernel) has nothing to do with what you mention. Since you are referring to various distros, I don't understand your point at all. Different distros have different priorities. That's how it should be.

meho_r said: +1.

– when you get used to linux, it is very likely (or, should I say: absolutely sure) you'll want to make the choice yourself. And Arch is way to go, I'd say. Though, if not, simply stick with above distros (or any you like and make you productive) and you'll be fine.

So, OP, think again about choices, please...

The thing is, and this is a key message, many people who "get used to" linux still would rather that it detects things for them.

Sure, geeks and enthusiasts have a higher (maybe 40-60% chance) of this happening, but your average semi-savvy intermediate user, has a very low chance of wanting this sort of style of linux. I'd say maybe 5-10%. The geekier you become, the more likely it is, but even people who know linux very well, and are consider geeks are most likely to have maybe a 75% chance IMHO

If you're the type who frequently reinstalls, has many computers, has to do large-scale OS maintenance, or wants a functional live CD, Arch isn't for you most likely. And as far as businesses go, arch is obviously a home-use-only distro.

In other words, most people who get used to linux would still rather have a distro that picks things for them. It's just how most people work.

RiceMonster said: Here's what I got out of the original post:

"I want to use a distro like Ubuntu, not like Arch."

Which leaves me thinking "So? Then use Ubuntu and not Arch".

My main point is i don't want developers to leave for arch and not continue to support ubuntu. I'm worried for Ubuntu's health :)

I tried installing Arch in a virtual machine, because someone recommended it... I couldn't even make it through the install! I just remember it being very confusing. After spending some hours on the web/wiki, I decided that Arch wasn't worth it because of all the scary warnings about updating, etc. Ubuntu isn't perfect, but I've used every version since Feisty and I like it a lot. I've been wanting to try some others since there are some problems with Ubuntu that just can't be solved, but I haven't found my "perfect" distro yet. I'm using Mint on my laptop right now, but that's not really different from Ubuntu, and it has some problems as well. I think I need something in between Ubuntu and Arch.

cardinals_fan said: I agree that Arch has stability issues, which is why I'm moving to BSD.

Arch's base is remarkably stable, IMO. As for everything else -- "Arch is what you make it." It is, by design, a DIY distro that merely provides you with raw materials, as it were. If it is unstable for you then, most likely, you have made an error somewhere, or you are affected by an upstream issue of some sort.

My experience is that the most stable systems are those that I have configured myself -- because I understand how they work. If I depend on somebody else for "stability" I always end up being disappointed. Arch, for me, is just a convenient tool that allows me to create perfectly stable, low maintenance systems for my computers.

BSDs, from what I hear, make very nice systems as well -- by the way. Next time I have to set up a server I'll probably install FreeBSD on it.

The problem here is that the OP has failed to realize that each linux distro attempts to target a certain set of users. For those who like minimalism, having control of their system, and being closer to bleeding edge then they will enjoy Arch. But users like the op were never inteded to use Arch because the reason in making Arch, Slackware, or Gentoo was not to be user friendly but to give control of the system to the user. For those who prefer gui oriented user friendly systems, there's Ubuntu, OpenSUSE etc etc.

The thing is, and this is a key message, many people who "get used to" linux still would rather that it detects things for them.

This is fine they can use Ubuntu, while those who want to can stick to Arch. Choices, choices seems to be the key word that continues to pop up in this thread for good reasons...

And yes, I am trying to tell you (forewarn you) why putting all your development efforts into a distro like Arch is bad. I want most development efforts poured into distros with the greatest chance of growth, IMHO, like Ubuntu, SuSE, or Fedora.

If this happens I would adbruptly stop using linux in any capacity. It's great that you want distros to be more user friendly but stick to the distros that were created with the goal of being user friendly and don't attempt to force such changes on distros like Arch, Crux, Slackware, Gentoo, etc etc because not everyone wants or enjoys using "user friendly" GUIs

ryaxnb said: My main point is i don't want developers to leave for arch and not continue to support ubuntu. I'm worried for Ubuntu's health :)

Don't be worried. Both distro fills a different niche, neither one will replace the other.

ryaxnb said: My main point is i don't want developers to leave for arch and not continue to support ubuntu. I'm worried for Ubuntu's health :)

I don't watch developers to leave for Ubuntu and not continue to support Arch. I'm worried for Arch's health ;)

ryaxnb said: It just seems so much better to use a distro that takes those possibilities into account. I don't care what you use, that's fine. But I want developers of Linux, which is a community-developed set of projects, to understand that almost all future users will never be into Arch or something like that.

If that happens then it will die off. Trust me, Arch, Gentoo, Slackware or any other "advanced" distros are not hindering the development of distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, Mandriva, etc. I also think it's a bit arrogant of you to think everyone will want to think the way you do.

ryaxnb said: My main point is i don't want developers to leave for arch and not continue to support ubuntu. I'm worried for Ubuntu's health :)

Give me a break, that isn't going to happen. Ubuntu has far more developers than Arch and a company backing it. If you're so concerned about "Ubuntu's Health" then learn how to program and start helping the Ubuntu project.

ryaxnb said: The thing is, and this is a key message, many people who "get used to" linux still would rather that it detects things for them.

So what? Then they'll keep using what they're using, and I'll keep using what I'm using. That's completely irrelevant. All you're pointing out is that people like different things.

nathangrubb said: I don't watch developers to leave for Ubuntu and not continue to support Arch. I'm worried for Arch's health ;)

Haha, +1

A couple of years ago all this arch linux excitement would have been for Gentoo.

Hardly hear anything about that anymore. So the big thing now is arch in a couple of years it will be something else.

If people like arch and it seems a lot do keep using it. Won't effect Ubuntu.

jrusso2 said: A couple of years ago all this arch linux excitement would have been for Gentoo.

Hardly hear anything about that anymore. So the big thing now is arch in a couple of years it will be something else.

If people like arch and it seems a lot do keep using it. Won't effect Ubuntu.

Its gentoo that really gave linux a bad rep, hey anything that can take up to 2 days to just get a GUI deserves it sorry but luckily came Ubuntu and Mandriva

ryaxnb said: People claim this but i've heard the rolling release setup in Arch sometimes causes crashes that bring down the system. Is that true?

I've also heard that it's hardly "seamless" once installed. It seems like if you need to configure a setting like date & time or add another OS to the boot manager, than back you go to the configuration. Or what if you plug in a FireWire Card but your minimalized setup doesn't have firewire functionality? :( ! It just seems so much better to use a distro that takes those possibilities into account. I don't care what you use, that's fine. But I want developers of Linux, which is a community-developed set of projects, to understand that almost all future users will never be into Arch or something like that. They want something that works if they or a friend of theirs installs new hardware or plugs in a usb wifi or bluetooth card, they want something that installs and sets up in under an hour, and they want something that doesn't require that obscure packages be built from source using yaourt, even if that is a cool way to do it.

I take it from observation that you have never tried ArchLinux. Please don't complain about things that you have never tried and don't understand. Arch is built for geeks who want to build a minimal system from the ground up, to tweak it to *their* preference (not the head developer's), and to have a minimalistic system.

Not all Arch users are geeks and do not have minimalistic systems, but Arch is there for those who do want that.

etnlIcarus said: Excuse mois?

Wikipedia: Worse is better

SunnyRabbiera said: For me its arch thats complex, no live installer, a difficult to understand setup, you need a wiki just to make sense out of it.

Yeah, it's all for a given result. Can't disagree here.

Ubuntu, just pop the disk in, choose language, hit enter, wait for it to boot, hit install icon, done for the most part.

Again, true. And guess what? You install whatever Canonical wants you to install. What happens if you didn't want all of that? For example, you CAN'T remove Firefox because it's spidered into Ubuntu the way IE is in Windows. Also, I have no need for Evolution, so I have to manually remove that. See the problem?

Plus Ubuntu has a large package library, no compiling or re packaging needed... cant say that about arch.

This is just plain wrong. I have -never- had to repackage or manually compile a single thing in Arch. In Ubuntu I had to compile lots of things, not to mention one of the first things I always had to do with Ubuntu was about about a dozen extra repositories just to get half of the crap I wanted. Arch? AUR. Bingo bango, done.

Please, you can disagree with things about Arch, but don't go spreading falsehoods.

Look I know ubuntu has flaws, but for me it works without me having to read anything before hand and recompiling packages that I like to use.

I could take issue with the fact that people want to be able to use their computers without reading anything, but I'll save that for another time. Suffice it to say the problem here isn't that Arch is "difficult", it's that people are too lazy to do the whopping thirty minutes of reading needed. It's not "hard". All you have to do is read and exactly copy commands. That's it. It's not like they require you to come up with stuff on your own, it's pure transcription.

Imagine that. A whole half hour to read something when installing a system. I mean, I've got message boards to post on and porn to look at! Who has THAT kind of time??

ryaxnb said: The thing is, and this is a key message, many people who "get used to" linux still would rather that it detects things for them.

Sure, geeks and enthusiasts have a higher (maybe 40-60% chance) of this happening, but your average semi-savvy intermediate user, has a very low chance of wanting this sort of style of linux. I'd say maybe 5-10%. The geekier you become, the more likely it is, but even people who know linux very well, and are consider geeks are most likely to have maybe a 75% chance IMHO

If you're the type who frequently reinstalls, has many computers, has to do large-scale OS maintenance, or wants a functional live CD, Arch isn't for you most likely. And as far as businesses go, arch is obviously a home-use-only distro.

In other words, most people who get used to linux would still rather have a distro that picks things for them. It's just how most people work. Then they can use that distro and enjoy it. The very existence of distros like Arch doesn't threaten that, does it?

fwojciec said: Arch's base is remarkably stable, IMO. As for everything else -- "Arch is what you make it." It is, by design, a DIY distro that merely provides you with raw materials, as it were. If it is unstable for you then, most likely, you have made an error somewhere, or you are affected by an upstream issue of some sort.

My experience is that the most stable systems are those that I have configured myself -- because I understand how they work. If I depend on somebody else for "stability" I always end up being disappointed. Arch, for me, is just a convenient tool that allows me to create perfectly stable, low maintenance systems for my computers.

BSDs, from what I hear, make very nice systems as well -- by the way. Next time I have to set up a server I'll probably install FreeBSD on it. My issue with Arch is that the choice is often between a new version (with bugs) and an insecure old version. The Arch devs do a stupendous job considering their resources, but they just can't maintain a stable branch with security updates.

I've been a fan of NetBSD for a while now, I'm giving FreeBSD a better shot this afternoon :)

cardinals_fan said: My issue with Arch is that the choice is often between a new version (with bugs) and an insecure old version. The Arch devs do a stupendous job considering their resources, but they just can't maintain a stable branch with security updates.

I've been a fan of NetBSD for a while now, I'm giving FreeBSD a better shot this afternoon :)

I hear this a lot but... either I'm not using Arch to its full potential or I've been remarkably lucky in that in the past four months the only breakage I've ever had with Arch was the X update, and that wasn't a "breakage" so much as a completely revamped syntax that required me to re-do half of my xorg.conf file. A fresh installation had no such problems.

My system's been perfectly stable and had no security issues that I know of. Is something going on I'm unaware of?

someone get poor SomeGuyDude a drink before he has an anurism.

SunnyRabbiera said: Its gentoo that really gave linux a bad rep, hey anything that can take up to 2 days to just get a GUI deserves it sorry but luckily came Ubuntu and Mandriva

I really don't like Gentoo, but I will point out that the (in)famous two-day setup is not two days of *work*. Most of that time is just leaving the computer alone to compile.

SomeGuyDude said: I hear this a lot but... either I'm not using Arch to its full potential or I've been remarkably lucky in that in the past four months the only breakage I've ever had with Arch was the X update, and that wasn't a "breakage" so much as a completely revamped syntax that required me to re-do half of my xorg.conf file. A fresh installation had no such problems.

My system's been perfectly stable and had no security issues that I know of. Is something going on I'm unaware of? The Arch devs mostly focus on dealing with security issues by bumping apps up to the latest version. Some other distros apply security patches to their packages far more often than Arch. When I've discussed this with some Arch devs, they were very understanding but preferred to spend their limited time elsewhere. I'm comparing this to the insanely paranoid FreeBSD Security Team.

cardinals_fan said: I really don't like Gentoo, but I will point out that the (in)famous two-day setup is not two days of *work*. Most of that time is just leaving the computer alone to compile.

If you use fluxbox or openbox, you can be up and running in a couple of hours, depending on how fast a machine you have. This assumes that you either know what you are doing, or have actually read through the copious documentation prior to attempting the install. It is also important to know that there are binary packages available for some programs. (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, various compilers, Java related packages, games, ...)

I want a kit where you make your own microchips, disks, and wiring. Then you write your own OS, and all your own programs... in a language you yourself create. Zero compatibility issues! Slackware is for Windows n00bs who need everything done for them. Meh. :D

mikeize said: I want a kit where you make your own microchips, disks, and wiring. Then you write your own OS, and all your own programs... in a language you yourself create. Zero compatibility issues! Slackware is for Windows n00bs who need everything done for them. Meh. :D

You need a kit?

What a n00b.

cardinals_fan said: You need a kit?

What a n00b.

You misunderstand. I meant a box of sand and some copper ore, which is unavailable in my area.

mikeize said: You misunderstand. I meant a box of sand and some copper ore, which is unavailable in my area.

Do you have any paper clips?

cardinals_fan said: Do you have any paper clips?

sure, how do u think i open my cd drive?

mikeize said: sure, how do u think i open my cd drive?

Then build a sophisticated aircraft with them and set out to collect your sand and copper. Isn't that the obvious thing to do?

chucky chuckaluck said: someone get poor SomeGuyDude a drink before he has an anurism.

SGD had one of those days where he wants to have drink or five but doesn't have the money to buy a bottle of good whiskey, yanno? ](*,)

SomeGuyDude said: SGD had one of those days where he wants to have drink or five but doesn't have the money to buy a bottle of good whiskey, yanno? ](*,)

I know where I can get a hold of a 30 year old bottle of Jack Daniels black label...

yabbadabbadont said: I know where I can get a hold of a 30 year old bottle of Jack Daniels black label...

See now you're just being unfair. :(

I -had- some Jameson 21, but it's all gone.

SomeGuyDude said: SGD had one of those days where he wants to have drink or five but doesn't have the money to buy a bottle of good whiskey, yanno? ](*,)

dude, that's what haffenreffer's made for.

this is a strange thread, goes from Arch to alcohol

chris4585 said: this is a strange thread, goes from Arch to alcohol

:lolflag: I fell out of my chair...

chris4585 said: this is a strange thread, goes from Arch to alcohol

Have you ever tried to install Arch? It leads to alcohol VERY easily.

SomeGuyDude said: Have you ever tried to install Arch? It leads to alcohol VERY easily.

uh..

[chris@arch ~]$ uname -r

2.6.28-ARCH [chris@arch ~]$

It could lead to a small headache and some wasted productive time trying to figure out something small, but thats all

edit: took me a while to figure out I had to add nvidia to my modules list so xorg would work properly, took a hour and a half probably of playing with different things to get it working right, but once it did man was I happy. The sense of accomplishment is awesome

I'm going back six years to when I started tinkering with Linux... back then the distro EVERYBODY started out with was RedHat. I started on RH9, the last official desktop release before Fedora was spun off. It had a graphical install, graphical config tools, nice backgrounds, pretty colors. There was also Mandrake, that was uber-user-friendly for the times. Then there was Debian. Installing Debian Woody was a nightmare for a new linux user like me -- an hour of answering cryptic questions in a text console, only to find that X didn't load because I forgot that my mouse was not USB (I get fuddled like that). Back then Debian was the "hacker Linux", along with slackware.

Someone of ryaxnb's opinion back then would have said Debian was a waste of time, that devs should all work on making RH or Mandrake better.

And yet now, some of the friendliest distros out there are based on Debian, including Ubuntu. Without Debian there would be no Ubuntu, Mepis, Xandros, Linspire, Linux Mint, knoppix, etc etc.

The funny thing is, most of these distros really don't add that much to Debian -- a nicer installer, a few simple GUI's for things, some nice artwork, and most of all a nice selection of packages OOTB.

Casual users tend to focus on things like the GUIs and the artwork; they take for granted the work that goes on under the hood -- structural issues that lay the foundation for the rest of the system. There are issues and compromises that have to be dealt with; Debian solves these one way, Gentoo another, Arch yet another.

Point being: the next big "Windows-killer" distro could as easily be based on Arch as anything else. Declaring it a waste of time because it isn't easy-peasy is short sighted.

Of course, as everyone else has already pointed out, not everybody wants that anyway.

i never heard of arch devs running door to door, pointing a gun at one's head and forcing him to use it. so whats the point of this 10 page rant anyway?

the op will never understand since he didnt even try it.

sujoy said: i never heard of arch devs running door to door, pointing a gun at one's head and forcing him to use it. so whats the point of this 10 page rant anyway?

the op will never understand since he didnt even try it.

i was kidnapped by arch developers and i've pretty much become that distro's patty hearst.

chucky chuckaluck said: i was kidnapped by arch developers and i've pretty much become that distro's patty hearst.

hey, comrade!

Sorivenul said: :lolflag:

I fell out of my chair...

From Arch or alcohol?

oldos2er said: From Arch or alcohol?

From laughter, inspired from the quoted comment. I was sober, because I had those dratted "adult" responsibilities today.

I personally use Arch. I find that having just what you want and nothing more something good, and it makes the computer perform like lightning. I had a Arch install up and running well in 3 days, with all the software I need and nothing more. Use what suits you; no one is forcing you to use Arch.

chris4585 said: It could lead to a small headache and some wasted productive time trying to figure out something small, but thats all

edit: took me a while to figure out I had to add nvidia to my modules list so xorg would work properly, took a hour and a half probably of playing with different things to get it working right, but once it did man was I happy. The sense of accomplishment is awesome

;)

[crew@myhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.28-ARCH
[crew@myhost ~]$

SomeGuyDude said: ;)

[crew@myhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.28-ARCH
[crew@myhost ~]$

awesome 8)

I declare whoever uses Arch, is cool and should put on some shades.

8)

wait a second I don't use arch...:-k

cloud ~ uname -prs
NetBSD 5.0_BETA i386

bash-3.2$ uname -r 
2.6.28-ARCH

I've been meaning to try out *BSD. I'll do that next time I go distro hopping. Haven't done that in a while.

Hellow said: I had a Arch install up and running well in 3 days

:shock:

Hellow said: I had a Arch install up and running well in 3 days

How did it take you so long?

etnlIcarus said: I can't make heads or tails of this comment. Has anyone ever gone, "I'm going to use an obscure little window manager today. WTF, where's the control center?!!"?

I have. :P That's why I stick with full-blown Desktop Environments like Gnome and KDE.

People, seriously! it has been more than two days you're all still arguing. it has been said over and over but heck, i'll say it again:

everybody uses what works for them.

you can't really say one distro is better than the rest because it's based on your opinion. you might think so but others might not. end of story.

[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2401022061_ffdb5bf064.jpg?v=0[/IMG]

mips said: [img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2401022061_ffdb5bf064.jpg?v=0[/img]

+1

By the way..

uname -r
2.6.28-ARCH

i'll take obconf over gconf [ah]registry[/choo!] editor any day of the millenium.

Ubuntu may seem simple until you start tweaking your box to the point where something unexpected breaks. Then it becomes difficult. I find distros such as Arch to be more predictable when breaking and fixing.

What a bizarre thread title! :lolflag:

Good & bad are relative terms with purely subjective meanings that in some circumstances are shared by others.

In reality if the entire human population of the planet believes something to be good, that does not mean that everyone on the planet is not fooling themselves. :p

I love my rc.conf!

handy said:

In reality if the entire human population of the planet believes something to be good, that does not mean that everyone is on the planet is not fooling themselves. :p

True, but we won't get into the "why" of that ;)

Ergo, to each his own.

I don't post here often anymore. Ubuntu is a great distro for beginners. Arch is a great distro for semi-competent users. Both are good distros for permanent use by any user. Why is the OP complaining about a distro? Does he code? No. Does he volunteer? I don't know, but I'm guessing not. It's real easy to make all the decisions when none of the work is yours to do(AKA upper management in most cases). I'll say, I've used Ubuntu since 4.10 and it was a beautiful distro. I found Arch and liked it even more. Nobody can honestly say it takes more time to set up. I've set up over 20 boxes on arch and a lot on ubuntu as well, arch is always quicker to install assuming the box has high speed internet. The ONLY problem I see with ubuntu has been aforementioned, everything is included in stupid metapackaging, that means if you remove a certain package, it may either a)bork the system or b) remove metapackages that will keep your system from updating properly. I am not a nerd, I only use my desktop about once a week. I am a competant, intelligent human being. I use Arch. I had to read, ONCE, only once, how to install Arch, and now I can do it on demand. It's not hard or overly technical. I don't compile my own programs. I don't want to. I don't know how to optimize. I just use pacman. I've NEVER had a problem with Arch testing - which is 10x more up to date than Ubuntu, except for one X issue that was explained during the install that I simply didn't read. Ubuntu has a greater following, and is seen by many as the 'hope for Linux'. That's good, I hope it is. But to stay competitive, users like to have the latest version of things when they come out, and Ubuntu doesn't do that. What if a new version of Firefox was released mid-distro with AWESOME features...why wait 3 months to experience it? Grumpy Groundhog was a great idea that was abandoned and the reason I left in the first place. Arch does everything I wanted Ubuntu to do and faster. I feel that Arch is BETTER than debian at providing a base system, and that a major distro such as this or similar may use it as a backend compared to the archaic yet still useful Debian. Arch is by far more up to date, and arguably equally as stable, with a much faster install system. But in any event, I'm not here to convince anyone...as was said...use what works for you, or more importantly, what you are capable of using...and quit complaining about the others.

Once you've got Arch wired I'm sure its a fast install. I like the shell myself.

Ubuntu emphasizes Gnome, polishes it and pays more attention to it. Seems like many Arch users don't use Gnome or like it. My suspicions are that Arch Gnome isn't as stable. Saw a little of it myself.

Hey we're only talking a 6 month release cycle (There are some that like Debian Gnome which is even older)

In my experience Arch is not much faster on my hardware. I wouldn't put a newbie on Arch

I feel a lot more comfortable putting Ubuntu on a dual boot with Windows because it's dead simple. Maybe I just need to read up?

In the future I will run Arch again but at this time without having pc number 5 -I will have to wait.

It's the Arch team's policy not to make changes to what comes down from upstream except when necessary.

So what you mean by Arch Gnome I really don't know?

I used Gnome on Arch as many users do, especially new Arch users, I had no problems with it at all. I don't think that there are any specific Arch Gnome problems. I suspect that what you are talking about is caused by the usual combination of variables; hardware, distro setup & user knowledge.

I agree, you probably do need to read up more, (just like the rest of us) after which, you may find that strangely your Arch install now works faster than it did. :-)

Yes you are right it's not Arch's Gnome.

Arch is like Ann Rand in my opinion. ha ha

What about using the Ubuntu minimal install? Isn't that a bit like Arch?

BTW. I'd be interested in hearing details about how some companies are using Arch on the server or desktop. Not being snappy here but it would increase my interest.

lancest said:

What about using the Ubuntu minimal install? Isn't that a bit like Arch?

No.

Arch is very different to Ubuntu in the fact that it is a rolling release, & the way that it handles packages. The BSD style init & the simplicity of design.

[I][U]http://www.archlinux.org/about/

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_vs_Others[/U][/I]

lancest said:

BTW. I'd be interested in hearing details about how some companies are using Arch on the server or desktop. Not being snappy here but it would increase my interest.

I have heard of Arch being used on servers, though I think I would personally prefer to use BSD, I use FreeNAS, which is beyond reproach.

As far as Arch on company desktops is concerned I've heard of some using Arch. Depending on how many bums on seats you have, it would become worthwhile having your repo's on a local machine.

I'm not really the one to be answering this part of your question, as I don't really spend much time at the Arch forum.

MisfitI38, is who can answer your question best imho. He frequents the Arch forum here & is very active in the genuine Arch website both forum & wiki. He put a great deal of work into the Beginners Guide. :-)

ryaxnb said: Simplicity

There are two trends lately in Linuxdom that I have reservations on. "Simplicity" as in keeping to UNIX traditions is increasingly popular, and distros like Arch, Slack, and CRUX seem to be seeing renewed interested due to this trend. I heartily disagree with the "Simplicity" trend. I would rather work with my computer than smirk at how "simple" and "clean" the system is. Some UNIX-ness is appreciated, when it's practical: e.g. using vim is fast and easy, and is a great way to edin it text. LaTeX is wonderful for long documents and book writing, and the Linux filesystem is admirable. But making it simple just to be simple doesn't make sense to me. There should be an easy, intuitive way to do things, preferably a front-end to an XML or .conf simple way. PlayOnLinux is a perfect example of a front-end to a complex back-end, and CrossOver is a perfect example of a integrating frontend (one that somewhat integrates with the backend.)

Working with Linux should be productive and allow me to get on with what i'm doing. When I need to configure, Linux should help me in all manners possible get the task done easily, but quickly. Memorization of every possible customization and troubleshooting technique is nigh-impossible, so Linux should present them as choices. Perfect Linux My idea for a perfect Linux is one the Mark Canonical envisions: easy to use, "simple" but intuitive, and full of choices but making the best by default. Ubuntu, SuSE and Fedora, as well as Mandriva and MEPIS and Sidux, seem to follow this conviction. This means having GUIs for configuration.

Choices On Choices, having more choice and freedom is great. But standardize the backends and make choice transparent to the developer. And pick the default for the end user instead of FORCING them to make a choice; rather, simply allow them to make the choice. Ubuntu does this brilliantly, by having a default choice of GNOME, OOo and GIMP but allowing total choice.

Some other Linuxes insist that you pick a GNOME/KDE choice at first install. This is unwise, because it splits the userbase too much and makes installation difficult to a new user. It FORCES the choices on a new user. This is bad. SuSE does this, as does Mandriva.

More Configuration Configuration is hard in Ubuntu in some ways, still. For one, KDE and GNOME have very different configuration environments. And if you don't use a DE, good luck configuring via the GUI! Finally, some tasks such as X configuration and Sound configuration are very weakly handled. And some Configuration tools, like CCSM and Gndismanager, are not included. Thus, I prefer overall configuration environments, like Yast or Mandriva Control Center. I wish ubuntu had one.

Overall, I just don't see the point to simplicity, and do see the point to choice, if moderated.

To each his own.

I prefer the Arch way. It gives more control to the user.

I spend two hours post installation to get evertything working on my Arch box.

Now I get the best of Linux software with speed Ubuntu couldn't give me.