back to article Arch Linux: In a world of polish, DIY never felt so good

Dig through the annals of Linux journalism and you'll find a surprising amount of coverage of some pretty obscure distros. Flashy new distros like Elementary OS and Solus garner attention for their slick interfaces, and anything shipping with a MATE desktop gets coverage by simple virtue of using MATE. Thanks to television …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The real purists compile from source with no binary blobs allowed.

    Me ?

    I can't be arsed.

  2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    How odd

    I really see no reason for this article other than to unveil Yet Another Linux Distro.

    Touting the expertise needed as a bonus for a Linux distro ? Since when was that necessary, or even useful ?

    I like Linux, always have. I like the independence, the stability, the solid architecture. But if Linux is only a few percentage points in the desktop market it is because of how hard it is to grasp to the basic Windows user. Some distros are attempting to bridge that difficulty and bring Linux to the forefront of market share, and they are doing a good job of it.

    But please, let's not start panicking. Linux will always have distros that true experts will be the only ones to use, while basic users will have other distros to use. That is the beauty of this OS - there is a version for everyone.

    1. Fihart

      Re: How odd

      Absolutely. To popularise Linux what we don't need is elitist nonsense putting barriers in the way of those trying to flee Windows.

      After several bad experiences (sound not working, video not working etc ) I refused to look at Linux until a friend bullied me into trying Peppermint Linux. It's not perfect but is simple to install and usually stuff, including WiFi, works without having to hunt for drivers.

      For the first time, I have been recommending Linux, if only on netbooks too slow for XP, as it is fine for web browsing and emailing.

      1. nijam Silver badge

        Re: How odd

        Yes, knowing what you're doing should always be described as "elitist nonsense". Especially in our field of endeavour.

        1. Fihart

          Re: How odd

          I first bought a PC in 1985 with no serious previous exposure to IT. MSDOS was a challenge -- installing a printer was nerd-central -- but I guess I enjoyed the novelty.

          These days installing an OS should not involve learning command-line stuff. Though I wouldn't deny the utility of being able to tinker under the hood, it should be an option -- not an obstacle to getting started.

          1. Maventi

            Re: How odd

            "These days installing an OS should not involve learning command-line stuff. Though I wouldn't deny the utility of being able to tinker under the hood, it should be an option -- not an obstacle to getting started."

            For most operating systems (including most mainstream Linux distros) using CLI isn't a requirement at all for installation.

            There are also a few around that it is, and rightly so as they are aimed at expert users. That's the target audience for this article.

          2. ecofeco Silver badge

            Re: How odd

            I first bought a PC in 1985 with no serious previous exposure to IT. MSDOS was a challenge -- installing a printer was nerd-central -- but I guess I enjoyed the novelty.

            These days installing an OS should not involve learning command-line stuff. Though I wouldn't deny the utility of being able to tinker under the hood, it should be an option -- not an obstacle to getting started.

            Same here. Early 80s PC exposure, late 80s home PC builder and I do NOT miss those days. The learning experience was priceless, but the pain was just as memorable.

            That said, I had no idea that there was a shortage of DIY, bare bones Linux images. No snark intended. This is good in that there are still choices for those who are ready to get down and dirty.

    2. AndyS

      Re: How odd

      > I really see no reason for this article other than to unveil Yet Another Linux Distro.

      The point of the article was very clearly laid out - considering it's an old, and fairly well known, linux distro, it is perhaps surprising that there are very few reviews of it.

      The conclusion is that this is logical, because there is really nothing to review.

      It's actually quite an interesting situation. I suppose the automotive equivalent is trying to review a home-built car in the same way as a Ford Focus or BMW 318. It's just... not really possible, as you can build it out of whatever you want. So the only noteworthy thing is the tool kit which is supplied, which the article talks about (the rolling update philosophy, the lack of patches, and the involved install process).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      IT Angle

      Re: How odd

      I read this... "Touting the expertise needed as a bonus for a Linux distro ? Since when was that necessary, or even useful ?"

      as this... "...expertise needed...Since when was that...useful ?"

      Anyways don't be fooled here, ArchLinux isn't as far down as finger rolling the daemons and drivers as it once was. It just projects a feeling of using Debian 4 or RH 5. But even that I'll have to pass on at my age.

      I make WinTin users look like cutting edge Bladerunners. I'm so old that if I have to take my hand off my chin and trackball to type...well I'm going to have to finish this thought later.

      P.S. Hand to god. I'm posting this from a WinTin machine that keeps disabling my entire ethernet controller every time I activate my VPN...so you may never read this.

    4. chagatai

      Re: How odd

      "Unveil Yet Another Linux Distro"? Arch Linux has been around since 2002. The Arch wiki at wiki.archlinux.org is one of the most complete sources of information about installing and configuring Linux anywhere.

      On your other point, the reason why it's valuable to engage the user with the actual process of installing and maintaining their OS is exactly so that it's not a mysterious black box. The user can make more decisions, understand and fix more problems, and is general more in control of what is going on. Is that for every user, or every use case? No. I don't want to have to debug the microcontroller in my toaster to get better toast. But, I am glad that the tools to learn about toaster microcontrollers are out there so that people who want to do that, can.

  3. Unicornpiss
    Pint

    Nice distro, but..

    There's a reason I buy ham at the deli instead of keeping and slaughtering my own pigs. I am by no means a Linux guru, but I've been using Linux off and on for about the last 18 years and at the least can read and understand technical documentation. It's not a lack of skill or being intimidated, mostly laziness I guess. For me, I'm plenty happy with Mint, and it allows plenty of tinkering if I wish, but why reinvent the wheel when you're not going to make it significantly rounder?

    I'm not denigrating anyone that wants to roll their own, quite the contrary. But working with technology all day, I feel that for me personally there's not enough hours in the day to willingly be a masochist and do every little thing by hand.

    1. Teiwaz

      Re: Nice distro, but..

      I buy ham at the deli instead of keeping and slaughtering my own pigs.

      - I think you are confusing your boil-in-the-bag flavour of 'Linux with the likes of LFS.

      Honestly, Arch is more of 'cook a meal from quality ingredients' vs. the instant ready meal from the likes of Mint or Ubuntu.

      Not that I'm a cook, I microwave a lot. With Arch, you may have to set up the meal yourself initially, but after that, it's not much of a chore to keep going. The overhead is only a little more pacman vs apt (basically check archlinux.org for advisories before an update.

      I also run Ubuntu on a netbook.Updating every six months is more of a chore than an entire year with Arch.

      1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

        Re: Nice distro, but.. @ Teiwaz

        So use an LTS release.

        Apply updates, yes, but you only have to do a dist-upgrade every four years or so, if you're prepared to skip a release.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nice distro, but..

        If Ubuntu is a microwave dinner, Mint is chinese takeout, and Arch takes all afternoon to prepare but doesn't necessarily come out great... what's the OS equivalent of simple fresh vegetables and a barely cooked choice steak?

        1. Bob Merkin

          Re: Nice distro, but..

          "what's the OS equivalent of simple fresh vegetables and a barely cooked choice steak?"

          Slackware

          1. Maventi
            Pint

            Re: Nice distro, but..

            Or CentOS.

            1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
              Meh

              Re: Nice distro, but..

              Centos? I use it, but there's too much Poettering for my taste.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Nice distro, but..

          FreeBSD?

          One thing that's turned out to be useful with that, is it has a proper, official manual which covers all major user level and sysadmin tasks.

          Completely ignored the manual first time around, but it's turned out to be useful when getting further into things.

      3. Unicornpiss
        Pint

        Re: Nice distro, but..

        Perhaps the ham analogy wasn't the most apt I've ever spun. I'm not knocking Arch at all. I may even try it one of these days if I find myself with some actual boredom. But there's nothing wrong with Mint either; it's plenty tasty and nutritious without tons of fillers and artificial ingredients, to carry the food analogy a bit further. "Boil-in-box" should really be reserved for the likes of Windows these days--where you end up with a half-cooked meal that's cold on one side and burnt on the other, while having set your microwave on fire doing it. At least for now I feel like I have enough self-torture in my life just by working in IT to enjoy a bit of ease when I want to install an OS.

        I do think Arch can be a great learning experience though on how Linux works and is built, like building a "Heathkit" for those that remember them :)

  4. ultimate_noobie

    If the article is going to tout for the DIY, where's the Slackware love? :)

    1. V.Srikrishnan

      same here

      same question here, using a slackware desktop here...

    2. Pirate Dave Silver badge
      Pirate

      or Gentoo? Not that I use it anymore, but that and Slack are the two old kings of DIY Linux. Gentoo was cool, it just took too long to install for my ADHD personality. ;)

    3. Bodge99

      I've just moved my main kit to Slackware this week.. I've been looking at systemd free distros and have settled on Devuan, Arch (systemd removed) and Slackware.

      I've found Slackware to be the best so far (for me) but I still would recommend Mint to ex-windows users etc.

      All good stuff!!

  5. Khaptain Silver badge

    What's the real advantage

    Ok less bloat, but that can be achieved on many distros.

    Breaking ones balls just to install the system makes no sense, what the point ? Being able to master the install does not make you a Jedi, it just means that you are spending your time doing something not very productive, oh and when things break you are left feeling very much alone.....

    There are far too many distros available that are lean, easy to install and get you up and running without the ball breaking attitude of the purists....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What's the real advantage

      > Being able to master the install does not make you a Jedi

      Yes and no. Having to choose what goes on your system does give you a much broader idea of how everything fits together and can teach you a lot.

      My poison of choice is Gentoo. The old style stage 1 bootstrap install was a bananas ground up process that took two to three days. Worthless in terms of productivity but it taught me a LOT about Linux.

      It's also worth nothing that Arch's documentation is exceptional, so you never actually feel alone when something goes a bit Pete Tong.

      It's very much a case of choosing the right tool for the job. If you just want to install Linux then Ubuntu or Mint or whatever is the tool for you. If you are an unashamed tweaker like me then it's Arch, Slack or Gentoo.

    2. Teiwaz

      Re: What's the real advantage

      Ok less bloat, but that can be achieved on many distros.

      - Getting more of a chore to remove the bloat these days than build a system bloat free in the first place.

      I remember my first full distro, Suse 7.0. The installer was damn good, and gave your the option to specify what extra packages you either wanted or didn't in detail, including install whole kit and kaboodle or various minimums between. These days installers have gotten even smoother and more idiot proof, to the point that like a 'ward of the state' all the decisions are made for you.

      Yes, a lot of distros have a server edition which does the minimum, and you could build a desktop ontop of that, but in what way is a distro that by default gives you that 'purist' or as someone else mentioned 'elitist', such assumptions seem to hide a sense of inferiority.

      Arch is not elitist, just do some work before posting questions on the forums (read package manual, check wiki, forums and bug tracker). Majority of cases, you'll find the solution without having to seek help, users will be terse if you ask a question already answered multiple times, but helpful if you are clearly trying to sort out your problem yourself but have run aground.

      Purist? It uses Systemd and provides proprietary drivers if you need them - hardly a purist distro.

      Breaking balls to install? An afternoon of reading to 'learn' the steps, and some checking that my hardware was not going to cause issues was all I needed, and the hardware compatibility check should always be done before embarking on a new distro.

    3. timrichardson

      Re: What's the real advantage

      A big advantage of Arch is the community. It's very strong technically. The documentation is very good and I've found it a very helpful community.

    4. chroot

      Re: What's the real advantage

      The greatest advantage for me is up-to-date software. All software is recent, not 6 months or 2 years old.

  6. nematoad
    Thumb Up

    Your choice

    It's horses for courses. That's the beauty of Linux. You pays your money and takes your choice. With Linux of course you don't have to pay anything if you don't want to.

    I too use a rolling release distro PCLinuxOS. It's stable and because I have been using Mandrake derived distros since 1999 I'm used to its ways and peculiarities so it's the one for me but probably not for you.

    The article does seem to involve a bit of "willy waving". That's fine but as an old hand at trying out distros I've made the decision that life is too short to have to get down to bare metal with distros like Gentoo and Arch. That's not to say that I haven't tried them, I have. I enjoyed the experience but decided that for me Linux would be more of a means to an end rather than the end itself.

    I see recompiling the kernel and installing the likes of Arch and Gentoo as a rite of passage. You learn a lot from doing so but in the end the main thing is what you want to get out of using Linux. For me as I said it's a tool. For others a hobby, a way of educating oneself into how Linux works at the lower levels and so on. At least with Linux we have all the tools available to fit our Linux to our needs.

  7. Len Goddard

    I love arch

    I don't actually use it because I am lazy, but whenever I encounter obscure problems I seem much more likely to be able to find helpful info on the Arch wiki than anywhere else.

    Long may they prosper.

  8. gv

    It's not difficult

    If you read the install guide and know the basics of partitioning a hard disk, you can be up and running in about 20 minutes, with the Linux GUI of your choice.

    1. keithpeter Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: It's not difficult

      @gv: I reckon the pacstrap and genfstab scripts are an installer in disguise.

      I'd also argue that knowing how to boot from a live image and chroot into the root partition of an ailing installation might be a skill that proves useful at some point depending how much low level work or testing of bleeding edge software one gets involved in.

      But each to his own which is the blessing of the various Linux/*BSD worlds.

      Coat: Mine's the one with the Slackware DVD in one pocket and the Manjaro USB stick in the other.

  9. wolfetone Silver badge

    What puts me off Arch Linux is stability, not the fact it's more involved to install than the other distributions. I use my machines for development and if I update the system - which you should do - I don't really want the surprise of a borked system on a Monday morning. It's a sure fire way to ruin your day and cost you development time.

    However, I would've thought the purist would be involved with Slackware? That's hard as nails to configure to begin with, but rock solid when it's working - even after updates. I tried it once, got bored and abandoned it. But that was down to depression rather than me being lazy.

    1. lleres

      What is described above is not 'instability', but expectations being conditioned to abnormality by static release distributions that only provide security patches to static versions of packages.

      With Arch and all other rolling release distributions, an update is an update, not security patching. If you make the choice of updating all packages on your system to their latest version, you should be prepared to accept that some of those versions may not work well together.

      You likewise have the option of not doing that, or updating only system packages and libraries used in development. As a developer, having access to the latest versions of packages would presumably be useful.

      Finally, here is something other OSes and distributions never tell people - stable software will remain stable. If your system is known to be stable and working well, why are you updating the entire system?

      Sure, vulnerabilities get discovered, which is what system package upgrades are for. Can even restrict Arch (and Gentoo and others) to specific versions of packages and still get security patches on those versions.

    2. gv

      "What puts me off Arch Linux is stability"

      Stability is not guaranteed in any OS: a cursory search of even this site would indicate that a Windows update has the potential to seriously bork your system.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        "Stability is not guaranteed in any OS"

        Well can I introduce you to my laptop that's run Debian 7 for the last 4 years without any problems, but with copious amount of updates?

        1. Bronek Kozicki

          I've run Arch for 2 (or more?) years, and since the very beginning I've taken to clone and maintain few packages locally - these which are critical for my own purposes (kernel, samba etc.). There is actually very little maintenance involved, I usually follow mainline Arch packages except for my own version selection or small patches to improve the functionality important to me.

          Still, when I want to upgrade I do keep few hours reserved in case I need to rollback. 15 minutes would be sufficient if I was not troubleshooting first - which I usually do, as to contribute to fixes. Arch is closely following the most recent version of all packages and sometimes these do not play nicely with each other (recent example - samba 4.4.6 with tevent 0.9.30)

    3. NB

      "Stability"

      I've been running Arch across multiple systems for years and the only time a system borked was when I fucked things up by tweaking too much. Arch installs with sane default configurations and unless you really get in there and fuck about with it it's very unlikely to ever fuck up.

      Arch has been the single most stable distribution I've ever used and I've been running Linux systems since the '90s.

      1. Teiwaz

        Stability

        the only time a system borked was when I fucked things up by tweaking too much.

        - Same here, I mucked up my Arch install three months after my first install by over-tweaking to make the boot-up more flashy and geeky.

        Four more months down the line, I could have fixed it manually myself with ease, but the first time I just re-installed.

        Biggest issue to date this year was a problem with ttf-dejavu fonts which blocked update due to symlinks, normally I'd just remove the offending package before running update again, but the dejavu fonts are required by so many packages (too many for a mere font - only vlc had it set as an opt-depend sensibly - Gnome, gnome-themes-standard, GTK, Budgie Desktop among others would all have to be removed along with a font). A simple forced (re)install of the font sorted it.

        With updates in small, regular chunks, for less chance of getting an unstable system, so I update regularly at least once every two weeks.

  10. tiggity Silver badge

    I remember the pain of command line install / configure of Linux way back in the day when polished install routines had yet to arrive & feel no overwhelming urge to revisit it...

    But it was a useful learning experience & certainly worth people giving that a go at least once.

    (at the time I had very small disk drive (disk price per Mb was ludicrous back then) & fact that I could have only the programs I required was v. useful indeed.

    These days, with storage space being a non issue & far less time to tinker, I'm happy with easy install Linux variants (cheers to nematoad for mentioning Mandrake, that was my distro of choice for quite a while, albeit quite a while ago)

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      But it was a useful learning experience & certainly worth people giving that a go at least once.

      Indeed. Difficult installs and having to understand things which an install program could figure out better than me confirmed that, for the average person, auto-install is the best approach. Providing it works.

      I had used Slackware and other distros when they used to come on a single floppy and was always willing to try a more modern Linux but no install ever worked flawlessly for me until Ubuntu 8 came along. There was always some problem with partitioning, network, video or sound cards. These days things have got a lot better.

      As others have noted; for most people there aren't enough hours in the day to be pissing about getting things installed and making things work. But I accept Arch Linux isn't targeted at those people.

  11. Brian 18

    Former Gentoo user.

    Several years ago I used Gentoo as my home distro. You not only had to select the packages you installed but wait for them to compile before you could use them. I learned a LOT about the internals of Linux. It was a good learning experience in the internals of Linux and all of the components needed to make it usable.

    These days, I just want the system to work so I switched to Debian a few years ago.

    1. lleres

      Re: Former Gentoo user.

      When 'something that works' gets turned into 'accepting every piece of s$#t package the distribution fancies being shoved down your throat', while still having to do many things manually, it becomes harder to justify its use.

      This may not be a popular opinion but perhaps something like OS X is a better fit for an OS that 'just works', which Debian a far cry from in the ease of use department - *cough* binary graphics card drivers, Debian users? *cough*

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Former Gentoo user.

      I'm a current Gentoo user, and have had to recover my machine from being borked about 3 times during the eleven or twelve years I've been using it. I haven't had any upgrade problems in the last couple of years though.

      I've never borked it so badly that I've had to re-install it though. So, my current count is 3 installations on three separate computers during that time, and the only reason for a new installation has been a significant change of hardware. i.e. a change from desktop to a first generation eee pc (yes, I really ran gentoo on one) then a move to an el cheapo Acer Aspire. (One of the more recent ones which can handle x86-64.) An update to Libre Office is a bit of a pain... I have to choose a couple of days when I don't want to use the laptop, and just set it going....

  12. Sil

    Only when I must

    I'm using Linus on the desktop only when I must, such as when a piece of software isn't available on Windows yet.

    What puts me off is - and I understand that other people will have an opposite view - is that nothing is standard, and you can't assume what works on a distri will work on another, from package manager to UI and so forth.

    So when testing some open source software, you basically have to install a specific distro, a specific hypervisor, a specific container and on and on, unless you're willing to spend hours and hours adapting it, just for the fun of utilizing the distro you already installed.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. chivo243 Silver badge
        Coffee/keyboard

        Re: Only when I must

        Linus van Pelt... Classic! Now I need his towel for my keyboard!

  13. FuzzyWuzzys
    Facepalm

    Negativity central!

    While I have no interest at present to wish to roll my own distro, happily been a Mint user for 2 years now, I can see this might appeal to some.

    We all moan about people being spoon-fed their tech fix and the second the chance to do something for themselves and learn it from scratch, we all condemn it!! For those condemning it, here's an idea. You do the whole thing inside a VM that way you do no have to sacrifice any hardware AND you can pause/snapshot the VM at any time and take several weeks to complete your Arch Linux project, no need to sit down and do it in one sitting, take a month or two to play with it when you have time all tucked inside a handy VM container.

    I can imagine if you had a bunch of GSCE kids who you'd just shown a linux install, something like Ubuntu. You might want to show them what's really going on during a distro install/build during any after hours club, this could be a perfect way to get kids who want to learn about this get deeper into "real" computer tech.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Negativity central!

      Agreed. I've actually dabbled with rolling my own a few times in the past; it was a bad idea then, hopeless now. Assuming you want to run other people's software, you need a ton of bloatware & dependencies. It's just a matter of figuring out what packages/versions/patches you need and how to compile & configure them, just like Debian/Fedora/Arch maintainers do. If you want to do anything different you'll be swimming upstream, only to end up with yet another bloated, unusable, unknown Linux distro.

  14. Joe Werner Silver badge

    I once thought the same...

    ... but back then I wanted the absolute control, the tinkering, the challenge. Now I use Linux because I am tired of borked updates, tweaking, etc. I did learn a lot (especially about rebuilding the system after not so brilliant ideas of mine), but now I want the machine to do as I want (not as I say, i.e. not allow me to do certain things to the OS). More modern distros are like that. What was the quote I read a while ago? "Along with it [unix] came a set of disgustingly dangerous utilities that meant nothing, but could render a system useless within seconds" (or something like that).

    The package installation routines in Debian, the whole apt-framework is just amazing. It does not leave the system in an undefined state (unlike what Mandrake and Suse and others do). I would not want to lose that. I also think that the distribution installation scripts in Debian were pretty good already 10 years ago, pressing [return] a few times, entering a machine name and creating a user was the only interaction you needed (I still partitioned - still do - by hand, which added a few steps, also the initial package selection is now often braindead). That was the basic install, mind, still devoid of any useful software - or a desktop gui. Getting X11 to run was a major headache in those days. If the graphics adapter was newer than one or three years you had to run at least Debian testing (if not unstable), and I had unstable break on me a few times, but I could have avoided that (three flavours of Debian: rusty, stale and broken... still like using it, mostly because "stable" really means something).

    What one has to admit is that the arch forums / wiki / online documentation are really helpful (also to users of other distributions - if you roughly know what you are doing). Totally agree on that.

  15. wheelybird

    Arch is not bad

    The package system is quite good, and there's community stuff similar to FreeBSD ports or Gentoo portage.

    I've used it on ARM devices (cubox-i etc.) and uses systemd. I'm not sure if that's mandatory, but if it is then I feel sorry for anyone using Arch to learn Linux and then having to use systemd.

    To avoid that horror, flee to Slackware!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Arch is not bad

      I have been trying Arch, getting there bit by bit. Slackware is still my favourite, got it on 2 PCs and 2 laptops. I am working on a little project to make installing apps a little quicker, just some shell scripts to run the commands I would run to install an app, including it's dependencies. Next I will be adding a section to download any missing packages. I am following the Slackware philosophy of keep it simple - just shell scripts and text files, for now.

      Slackware is rock solid when installed, updating packages/apps is easy, the installer hasn't changed for years, so easy to use. It is easy to install if you know how to set up a few things like partition a disk. LVM is available as well which is what I use now.

      I used Gentoo a few years back, a good learning experience. Not everyone's cup of tea. I also used SuSE from 7.1 to 10.0. I bought the disks each time. Somewhere along the way it became bloated and heavy so I dumped it. That might have been when Novell bought it. This is why having so many different distros out there is a god thing - choice. Choose the one that is right for you. For me it is Slackware.

      Somewhere along the way I also used Mandrake. That's going back a long way. I am sure they merged with another one to become Mandriva.

      I still want to get Arch going, got an install on one of my Pis. I now have a little bit more free time so maybe now is a good time to work on that.

  16. Bronek Kozicki
    Coat

    Manjaro

    For those who like Arch packaging system but have no wish to dabble in command line more than strictly necessary and also like their releases more polished, I recommend Manjaro Linux.

    1. keithpeter Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Manjaro

      @ Bronek Kozicki

      Might also be worth mentioning the 'profanity delay' on updates.

      Manjaro repositories lag the Arch repositories by a few weeks to a month so that there is a good chance that any consistency issues can be caught before applying updates.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Manjaro

      I second that.

      I've been using Manjaro for around a year or so now. For me it's the dogs danglies :-)

      Spend quite a while using cinnamon mint,mint mate and mint xfce (I even tried using mint debian edition - which was a pain to get working and update - I eventually gave up with it).

      Manjaro gives all the great stability and low resource usage combined with a rolling release

  17. decoherence

    I use Arch at work and for years it has been rock solid through upgrades, as long as you pay attention to announcements. Recently this changed with the release of the nvidia 370 driver, which broke my GeForce 460. There was no announcement. I guess the people who signed off on the package didn't have a 460. It happens.

    Since I was rather busy and had a spare disk with Debian 8, I popped that in, mounted my home directory from my Arch disk and carried on.

    Yesterday I noticed that nvidia 375 was in testing, and not being terribly busy, booted off the Arch disk at runlevel 3, enabled the testing repo and updated. Problem solved! So now I am back on Arch which is great because some Debian python packages were starting to piss me off (cffi, cryptography, etc.)

    Most of the issues I have had with Linux systems stem from poorly chosen versions of packages for the release (Debian, Ubuntu) or bugs in the packaging itself (Fedora). Arch solves both problems since it is a rolling release and since the package manager and the build system are comparatively simple. So I might get bitten by an upstream bug that slips through the cracks once every couple of years but that beats trying to shoehorn a working version of software in to a brittle system that isn't necessarily designed for it.

  18. asphytxtc
    Thumb Up

    From another viewpoint...

    I've been an Arch user for about two years now. After repeatedly having to deal with crap, borked updates and software chosen for me with other distributions I decided to trial it inside a VM just to get a feel for it, then I took my work desktop home for the weekend.. backed up, blew it away and installed Arch.

    I've never gone back, it's an absolutely wonderful distro! Sleek, fast, simple and straightforward.. it's very much like a gentoo but without the build everything from source mentality. For a person who was first introduced to linux in '95, and has used nothing else since 2000, it is absolutely everything I could possibly want or need.

    I too was worried about a rolling release causing me problems on a Monday morning, that's fine, I run my updates Friday afternoon before leaving work.. In the two years I've been running it, I have had ONE (minor) problem - resolved by rolling back the obvious package that updated and caused the issue. If I compare that to the untold woe of updating ubuntu releases (even lts > lts) it's been the most painless, problem free distribution I have ever used.

    Some of us don't want user friendly, some of us don't want distro mentality.. some of us just want a specific stack of software, fairly up to date that assumes we know what we're doing. There's no elitist views that I can see in the Arch community (although I will admit, there's a fair bit of "look, if you can't understand this.. you're using the wrong distro" which I think is fair.. it's not like you weren't warned) just a lot of knowledgeable people with the same requirements as you have.

    The Arch documentation (the wiki) is undoubtedly one of the best resources in the Linux world today, even to non arch users, and is something that I feel could have been mentioned more in the article, it's as important as the distro itself.

    So yeah, it's not noob friendly, it doesn't pander to the windows converts, it doesn't have a one click installer - it's just not meant to. It's bare bones, custom Linux for those of us who just want to get on with the job and know what we're doing.

    Perfect...

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Linux is easy.

    My partitioning is split like so

    /boot 50%

    swap 30%

    / 5%

    /opt 15%

    The /boot partition helps speed up booting, if I leave my computer on it boots from the screensaver in no time at all, literally the time it takes me to press a key. I'd like to see windows do that.

    The swap partition is useful for if I want to swap distribution I think you can just load it into there first and it does it all for me.

    The /opt partition is for anything optional I add like software or games.

    I tried leaving out / but it just moaned when I tried to install so I left it in.

    No problems up to now though bizarrely I keep running out of space?

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      @AC

      If you're going to post something like this, you really ought to post it under your name so that you can add the joke icon.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @AC

        Sorry, my bad

  20. jacksawild

    Package Management

    The package management is superb. It really comes in to its own when you need to install a program for which there is no distro supported package. Writing a MKPKG script is much more straightforward than creating DEB packages or RPMs and it allows you to create a completely reversible "make install" in a fraction of the time, it even has built in support for source controlled software from git et al. It has a huge library of unsupported packages in the Arch User Repository, so the chances are that you don't need to write that script anyway.

    The last problem I had with Arch was on a laptop I use for TV recording using mythtv. Instead of rolling back dozens of packages I was able to modify the source using an upstream proposed patch, verifying that it worked and giving upstream data about another configuration. This was all achieved using Arch's built in ABS, so it took little more than half an hour. Once upstream had pushed the patch it was childsplay to remove my modified package and install the supported package normally. On any other distro, getting my system working again would have taken much longer and waiting for the package maintainer to push any changes to my machine would likely have taken weeks if not months.

  21. Pseudonymous Clown Art

    I love Arch...been using it for eons.

    Agreed there is a small amount of elitist sounding bullshit around Arch purity and all that...but my understanding is that its more about sticking to a core set of concepts...which you don't have to follow if you don't want as the primary concept is that you should be able to build whatever you like from the base.

    For those of you wanting to take it for a spin but are somewhat intimidated by it take a look at http://www.antergos.com

    Thats where I started.

    You can pick from a range of DE options (no specific one is foisted on you) and you can specify what you want preinstalled. Its all your choice.

    Its pretty much a nice graphical installer for Arch theres a great community around it. Ive always had a positive experience. Most people there are like minded techies and have a pretty relaxed temperament.

    If you're more in line with the Ubuntu approach of bundling tons of preinstalled apps and yearn for the days of compiz take a look at Manjaro.

    Be warned though theres a lot of wankers in the Manjaro community. Theres a lot of strong opinion.

    To be fair its the only subset of the Arch community that has ever pissed me off with all of its dick waving.

    It appears to be full of weirdos with shitty respins as well. Spatry comes to mind with his crap CupOfLinux manjaro respin (downvoters of this are Spatry fans).

    In fact most respins of Manjaro are shit. They're usually just the base Manjaro install with a crap theme and wobbly windows turned on in Compiz.

    None of them seem to fulfil a specific purpose. Stick with the base edition.

  22. anthonyhegedus Silver badge

    I want a go of that vehicle at the top of the article

  23. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    A systemd-using distro being touted as the last refuge of Linux purists? Really?

    1. Reg T.

      Yes!

      And just turned to systemd. Obviously pimped.

      Devuan, Slackware or even old CentOS 6, thank you.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Void

      Agreed. I much prefer Void Linux, which hasn't been infected by systemd.

    3. dlc.usa

      ! systemd Arch

      Exactly. But there's CRUX, from which Arch arose, which is even more Spartan and devoted to KISS principles, and will never, ever incorporate the systemd madness. These days documentation for build-from-source distros is more similar than not, so CRUX lets its community search Linux From Scratch, Arch, Gentoo, etc. for insights to issues rather then spend a lot of time developing package-specific prose. CRUX may be for an even more experienced GNU/Linux user, but it should be investigated if you are considering Arch, especially if you're a real purist.

  24. jeffdyer

    "As Linux moves further into the mainstream"

    Sorry, April 1st is months away.

  25. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

    I think you spelt 'Salix' incorrectly..

    Easy to install, variety of desktop options, no systemd, and package dependency built in. Yes please.

  26. Cynic_999

    What's the advantage?

    I get it that doing everything manually is a challenge and gives a sense of achievement, a bit like building a kit car. Great for those who see a PC as an end in itself rather than a means to an end.

    But for those of us who just want a tool, what advantage is there in using an OS such as this? Will it make my OpenScad designs quicker or easier to create? Will it provide a better way to create a DTP document? Will it do a better job when I edit and print my photos? What sort of things will I be able to do using Arch Linux that I cannot do as easily with a more friendly OS? Does it protect me significantly better than, say, Linux Mint?

    I don't mind spending a lot of time learning something, but only if that knowledge is going to end up giving me some real-World advantage or pleasure. I'm quite certain that I could learn Esparanto in a few months, but I don't see the point in doing so.

    1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

      Re: What's the advantage?

      You're not the target market for Arch. The vast majority of people do not use Arch because it's a challenge, it's because you can specify precisely what's on the system. With other distributions there's a lot of supporting programs that are not always required.

      Does it provide better printing? Possibly, if by using a specific printer setup higher quality is achieved than the defaults in other distribution.

      Is it more secure? Possibly, through reduced attack surface and only the services you specify being turned on (but this also requires the system to be configured correctly).

      Personally I prefer Slackware/Salix, but Arch could be useful for an embedded/firewall box.

  27. jamesinspain01
    Thumb Up

    For Me Life Has Become Simpler

    Have now installed AntiX on all lap tops and pcs of my girlfriend`s family in the last 12 months. Only calls I have had were to thank me

  28. i1ya
    Thumb Up

    "How do you tell if someone uses arch linux? They will tell you." (c) Reddit

    I switched to Arch after discovering that most issues I googled are described and solved either in Arch Wiki or in Arch forums. The wiki, although sometimes opinionated and biased (towards "elitist" part of society), is great way of discovering more about Linux.

    My conclusions after using Arch for 3 years, both on laptop and office machine:

    1) Yes, the manual installation is a pain, but after doing it at least once you will know how to boot from CD or pen drive to mount and recover your broken system (and how to chroot to it to fix). It saved me several times, even with other distros. Also, it gives interesting insights if, for example, you want to get full-disk encryption.

    2) Yes, Arch always has latest-and-greatest, and, since I love to binge through Linux and OSS news (began doing that before using Linux), it's very cool to read about new release of your favorite %package% and then use it in a week or two. Also, since I'm web developer, I'm able to prepare my websites for latest Apache and PHP way before they are included in current Debian or Ubuntu which my servers run.

    3) Arch is about a choice. If you love reading, choosing, trying something new, tweaking and tinkering - it's ok. If you don't like to spend time toying - it's ok too, but, IMHO, you're missing the fun. If you want something to "Just work", go with Fedora/Debian/Whatever.

    4) Package management (pacman) is great. Once I updated 32-bit system to 64-bit without any issues (aside from forgetting to install 64-bit kernel to bootloader). Another time I borked attributes of the whole filesystem, and was able to fix everything using pacman.

    5) Yes, things do break with updates. Especially when you combine them in perverse ways. No, I won't install it on the server. (Although some people do)

    6) After Arch, I began to much better see and understand the common parts and the differences between different distros. I even stopped to be afraid of Debian Sid ))

    P.S. First distro I installed was Slackware. But it was in 2005, and turned out to be so difficult to use and maintain, that I returned to Windows for 3 more years until successfully switching to Ubuntu 8.04.

  29. a_yank_lurker

    Arch Derivatives - Manjaro and Antergos

    While Arch still uses the CLI to install there are two derivatives that use a graphical installer: Manjaro and Antergos. Of the two Antergos seems a little stabler.

    The main point with Arch based distros is that it is a rolling release. New versions will be pushed out relatively quickly. One does need to pay attention, particularly AUR packages, to conflicts which are usually well documented.

  30. thisllub

    In 9 years of using Arch on over 100 mixed purpose computers I can tell you what the advantages are.

    # Nothing but what you install runs on your computer. - this is big if you need to run servers for dedicated purposes.

    # Most software updates are for bug fixes. Arch gets them first.

    # You can quarantine systems you don't want to update e.g. desktop managers

    The system I am running now has evolved through four computers from my first Arch install in 2007.

    I transfer my home directory and package list to a new computer and everything is as I left it - just running on new hardware.

    Compare that with a Windows 10 upgrade. That took me a whole weekend.

  31. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

    What's the obsession with graphical installers?

    I'll grant a graphical installer is useful for disk partitioning, but frankly that's rare, and otherwise the installer should ask a few questions and get on with its job. The OpenBSD installer excels at this.

    Arch perhaps goes a tiny bit too far the other way, but as its purpose is extreme customisability, and it's absolutely necessary to have a certain level of technical competence to use it, it's forgivable.

  32. Tom Paine

    It's amateurish! Ugly! Useless!

    Why does this thread give me flashbacks to that scene in Micro Men where Chris Curry is trying to get Clive Sinclair's head around the notion that the MK14 might be the start of a whole new market for home computers. "What on earth for?" Clive asks. After Chris has stumbled through the explaination of what seems obvious to him, Sinclair eventually concedes "Well, some people like putting these things together, I suppose. " <beat> "Is this the best furniture you could get?"

    (It's on YT in the unlikely event anyone here hasn't seen it.)

  33. Skymonrie
    Thumb Up

    Didn't think I would be so excited

    To see Arch Linux cross The Reg desk but, I am.

    I have been an Arch Linux user for about 6 years now, at home and at work and only have praise to give. Sure, you need to set it up yourself but, It is incredibly stable once setup.

    As many say, the install manual is excellent and to be honest, the amount of knowledge needed to install is NOT that much (I understand people who say otherwise but, really, it's not) and in the process you learn things that you can use across every distribution.

    There have been many times the knowledge I picked up using Arch saved a boshed Ubuntu / Cent installation. Just don't make it your first Linux distribution though!

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I am glad Arch exists the same way I am glad Debian Exists. Great contributions to stability and innovation.

    For home use, however, I prefer Manajaro. With Arch you have to know too much and read too many install and update instrauctions.

    I can imagine that some intensive users will want to stick with Arch, but for me Manjaro is more suitable.

  35. Alan1kiwi

    Tried most distros

    And couldn't be bothered.

    If it took more than half an hour to work out what was happening, my eyes closed over. Ubuntu came along, and that was interesting, then it turned into a corporation. PCLinuxOS came along, and life was much easier. I have been there for almost 10 years. Quite happy with it all on the desktop.

  36. DJ Smiley

    Gentoo here! Far more pure!

    Or something.

    I have nothing useful to add :(

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like