Comments on: Distro Review: Arch Linux 2009.02 http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/ Linux News, Reviews, Tips and Rambling :) Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:38:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: March http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-3820 March Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:10:27 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-3820 @Dan Unfortunately, I see these Arch Youths everywhere. Take a look here on how bad Arch fanboyism has gotten recently. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?s=18aa50b21fb55466463826305e3b876b&t=1255229 http://linsux.org/forum/index.php?/topic/5924-arch-arch-arch-arch-arch/page__s__27ef3c5f8afd892926e7a7769e05d6df @Dan

Unfortunately, I see these Arch Youths everywhere. Take a look here on how bad Arch fanboyism has gotten recently.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?s=18aa50b21fb55466463826305e3b876b&t=1255229

http://linsux.org/forum/index.php?/topic/5924-arch-arch-arch-arch-arch/page__s__27ef3c5f8afd892926e7a7769e05d6df

]]> By: Dan http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-3817 Dan Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:01:13 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-3817 @March - I have experienced over enthusiastic Arch fans who won't leave you alone once or twice, but the majority I've met had been cool. @March – I have experienced over enthusiastic Arch fans who won’t leave you alone once or twice, but the majority I’ve met had been cool.

]]> By: March http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-3815 March Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:46:25 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-3815 Most people try Arch because they think they're being clever. All this stuff about Arch being difficult to install is just rubbish, it's time consuming, not difficult. And after all that setting up you've got a system that's no better than Ubuntu that installs in less than half an hour. I actually found Ubuntu 9.04 to boot and run quicker than Arch + Xfce4. One other thing, about the Arch forums...it's a boring place....lots of people slapping themselves on the back and thinking that they're clever because they're using a system that needs constant repairing thanks to 'pacman -Syu'. Arch is for people with more time than sense. Arch fanboys are worse than mac fanboys. Not only do they think that everything else is wrong and bad, but they try to convert everyone to their cause. Most people try Arch because they think they’re being clever. All this stuff about Arch being difficult to install is just rubbish, it’s time consuming, not difficult. And after all that setting up you’ve got a system that’s no better than Ubuntu that installs in less than half an hour. I actually found Ubuntu 9.04 to boot and run quicker than Arch + Xfce4.

One other thing, about the Arch forums…it’s a boring place….lots of people slapping themselves on the back and thinking that they’re clever because they’re using a system that needs constant repairing thanks to ‘pacman -Syu’.

Arch is for people with more time than sense.

Arch fanboys are worse than mac fanboys. Not only do they think that everything else is wrong and bad, but they try to convert everyone to their cause.

]]> By: Dan http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-2706 Dan Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:06:12 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-2706 @Tom - Oh yes the hardware I was using was considerably faster and I thought I'd mentioned that in the article, I usually do in the installation bit. Looking through again now I can't see it though. Maybe I forgot back when I wrote this. It was a long time ago. I know Arch runs well on older hardware because unlike Ubuntu which comes with the kitchen sink, you choose only the parts you actually need for your system. It makes it much more streamlined and easily tuned to suit your needs. I like Arch and I can see why it has so many enthusiastic fans. It's a good system and I've recommended it to a few people who knew what they were doing, and were in a position where it could be of benefit. It's not something I'd recommend to a novice, but that's probably obvious. Really glad it works well for you and you're having fun. Keep at it! :) @Tom – Oh yes the hardware I was using was considerably faster and I thought I’d mentioned that in the article, I usually do in the installation bit. Looking through again now I can’t see it though. Maybe I forgot back when I wrote this. It was a long time ago. I know Arch runs well on older hardware because unlike Ubuntu which comes with the kitchen sink, you choose only the parts you actually need for your system. It makes it much more streamlined and easily tuned to suit your needs. I like Arch and I can see why it has so many enthusiastic fans. It’s a good system and I’ve recommended it to a few people who knew what they were doing, and were in a position where it could be of benefit. It’s not something I’d recommend to a novice, but that’s probably obvious. Really glad it works well for you and you’re having fun. Keep at it! :)

]]> By: Tom B http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-2705 Tom B Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:30:26 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-2705 Nice review, The one thing I really wanted to point out is that you said, "I didn’t find it to be noticibly faster on my hardware than most other distros but it was pretty stable. " I am sure that is true for you but I did not see in your article what you installed Arch onto? (the most important "Vital Stat" ;-) But, I suspect you are running it on a newer computer with a lot of RAM. I am running Arch with the Gnome desktop on an old pentium 3 with a 450mHz processor and 312MB of RAM that I previously had Ubuntu on it., I can tell you with essentially the same software loaded on Arch as Ubuntu 9.10 that Arch is a lot faster! Of course if you have tons of Ram and a faster processor you are not going to notice much of a speed difference because the computer itself makes up for it, but try loading Arch on an older machine and you will be blown away with the speed difference. I also run Puppy linux on this machine and by way of comparison (for those familiar with how fast and good Puppy is with old hardware) I can tell you from expereince that running Arch with the Gnome desktop and the default JRE desktop in Puppy I cannot notice ANY difference with the speed of Arch VS. Puppy even when loading video and large programs like Open Office. I highly recommend Archlinux to anyone, not only for the speed, but just because it is the most fun I have ever had with a distro! Tom Nice review,
The one thing I really wanted to point out is that you said, “I didn’t find it to be noticibly faster on my hardware than most other distros but it was pretty stable. ”
I am sure that is true for you but I did not see in your article what you installed Arch onto? (the most important “Vital Stat” ;-)
But, I suspect you are running it on a newer computer with a lot of RAM.
I am running Arch with the Gnome desktop on an old pentium 3 with a 450mHz processor and 312MB of RAM that I previously had Ubuntu on it.,
I can tell you with essentially the same software loaded on Arch as Ubuntu 9.10 that Arch is a lot faster!

Of course if you have tons of Ram and a faster processor you are not going to notice much of a speed difference because the computer itself makes up for it, but try loading Arch on an older machine and you will be blown away with the speed difference.

I also run Puppy linux on this machine and by way of comparison (for those familiar with how fast and good Puppy is with old hardware) I can tell you from expereince that running Arch with the Gnome desktop and the default JRE desktop in Puppy I cannot notice ANY difference with the speed of Arch VS. Puppy even when loading video and large programs like Open Office.

I highly recommend Archlinux to anyone, not only for the speed, but just because it is the most fun I have ever had with a distro!

Tom

]]> By: spoudumen http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-2572 spoudumen Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:50:13 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-2572 touchpad == pacman -S xf86-input-synaptics great review touchpad ==

pacman -S xf86-input-synaptics

great review

]]> By: Dan http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-2500 Dan Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:03:58 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-2500 @davemc - That's a good idea learning the install process in a VM, sound advice. As you know I favour a "head first" approach to distro testing and I try not to blame the review candidates for that, it's my choice. There's no substitute for preparation. Glad your Arch system is still up and running. I do like the rolling release cycle. I know quite a few Arch users and there's no doubt it teaches you a lot about Linux in general. I think you're right in your comment, it's a system you can be proud of when you get it all working. It feels like an achievement @davemc – That’s a good idea learning the install process in a VM, sound advice. As you know I favour a “head first” approach to distro testing and I try not to blame the review candidates for that, it’s my choice. There’s no substitute for preparation. Glad your Arch system is still up and running. I do like the rolling release cycle. I know quite a few Arch users and there’s no doubt it teaches you a lot about Linux in general. I think you’re right in your comment, it’s a system you can be proud of when you get it all working. It feels like an achievement

]]> By: davemc http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-2499 davemc Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:56:14 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-2499 Hey Dan. Late read on this I know. (You just gave me the link to this from your latest review, so thanks) I installed Arch beginning of July and had an easier time of it ~because~ I did some test installs via VirtualBox on my prior Fedora 10 install (same machine). You see, I knew Arch was no easy install so I figured I would learn "the Arch way" in a test environment where I would also still have a functioning system and if things went wrong, no harm done. Surprisingly, my VirtualBox install went flawless if not overlong due to reading all the docs. When I installed it for real I had w3m up in a vc so I had ready access to google. Thank goodness for this because I did run into a few minor issues while getting GNOME to load (same as you)! Anyway, I am still up and running today on that same install and have had no issues, no instability, no trouble with upgrades including both kernel and revision upgrades, and two full NVIDIA driver upgrades since. The boot times are slower than Fedora 11 and alot slower than Ubuntu Karmic, BUT what is important to me is how things perform after you login, and to me, there is no question that Arch truly shines above and beyond. Apps load FAST, system resource usage is remarkably less (due to no unnecessary background processes running), and overall the system is just darn snappy! Reminds me of my Gentoo install very much although without the 2 day install. I would put Arch's stability at 4/5 right at Debian Sid. Install at 3/5. Docs at 5/5. Overall user experience at 5/5 mainly because with Arch you delve into the depths of Linux in a much gentler and user friendly way than Slackware or LFS and in the end are left with a system you cant help but be very proud of. Hey Dan. Late read on this I know. (You just gave me the link to this from your latest review, so thanks) I installed Arch beginning of July and had an easier time of it ~because~ I did some test installs via VirtualBox on my prior Fedora 10 install (same machine). You see, I knew Arch was no easy install so I figured I would learn “the Arch way” in a test environment where I would also still have a functioning system and if things went wrong, no harm done. Surprisingly, my VirtualBox install went flawless if not overlong due to reading all the docs.

When I installed it for real I had w3m up in a vc so I had ready access to google. Thank goodness for this because I did run into a few minor issues while getting GNOME to load (same as you)! Anyway, I am still up and running today on that same install and have had no issues, no instability, no trouble with upgrades including both kernel and revision upgrades, and two full NVIDIA driver upgrades since. The boot times are slower than Fedora 11 and alot slower than Ubuntu Karmic, BUT what is important to me is how things perform after you login, and to me, there is no question that Arch truly shines above and beyond. Apps load FAST, system resource usage is remarkably less (due to no unnecessary background processes running), and overall the system is just darn snappy! Reminds me of my Gentoo install very much although without the 2 day install.

I would put Arch’s stability at 4/5 right at Debian Sid. Install at 3/5. Docs at 5/5. Overall user experience at 5/5 mainly because with Arch you delve into the depths of Linux in a much gentler and user friendly way than Slackware or LFS and in the end are left with a system you cant help but be very proud of.

]]> By: Dan http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-2377 Dan Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:36:30 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-2377 @sherry - Glad you like Arch, it is a great distro :) @sherry – Glad you like Arch, it is a great distro :)

]]> By: Sherry http://danlynch.org/blog/2009/04/arch/comment-page-1/#comment-2376 Sherry Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:05:18 +0000 http://danlynch.org/blog/?p=729#comment-2376 Hi Dan, Thank you for your interesting and informative review. I started out on Slackware back in the 90s, and have distro hopped to just about everything over the years. I ran Gentoo for a couple of years, but decided to try Arch after hearing you mention it on Linux Outlaws at one point. I've been on Arch now on my Macbook, for a couple of months, and other than a short setback when a jpeg library was updated before the packages that depend upon it, and consequently a frantic search to find the pacman log, so that I could roll back what was broken, it has worked very well for me. If I'd waited a few hours and updated again, everything would have been fixed anyway... I think it really is a nice compromise between gentoo and slackware. I like having the package manager and the speed of a binary based distro, yet the freedom to keep my system as minimalistic as I choose, and I absolutely fell in love with rolling releases when I was on Gentoo, so of course that caught my eye on Arch immediately. My son has a very similar layout using Debian Testing on his laptop, but I also found I like the way Arch sets up the rc.conf as a "one file configuration", which Debian doesn't give you. At least for the present, Arch has won me over. "yaourt -Syu --aur" sounds complicated, but it's great what you can do in one simple command. Hi Dan,

Thank you for your interesting and informative review. I started out on Slackware back in the 90s, and have distro hopped to just about everything over the years. I ran Gentoo for a couple of years, but decided to try Arch after hearing you mention it on Linux Outlaws at one point. I’ve been on Arch now on my Macbook, for a couple of months, and other than a short setback when a jpeg library was updated before the packages that depend upon it, and consequently a frantic search to find the pacman log, so that I could roll back what was broken, it has worked very well for me. If I’d waited a few hours and updated again, everything would have been fixed anyway… I think it really is a nice compromise between gentoo and slackware. I like having the package manager and the speed of a binary based distro, yet the freedom to keep my system as minimalistic as I choose, and I absolutely fell in love with rolling releases when I was on Gentoo, so of course that caught my eye on Arch immediately. My son has a very similar layout using Debian Testing on his laptop, but I also found I like the way Arch sets up the rc.conf as a “one file configuration”, which Debian doesn’t give you. At least for the present, Arch has won me over. “yaourt -Syu –aur” sounds complicated, but it’s great what you can do in one simple command.

]]>