I use arch btw
- Thread starter smerte
- Start date
Is your main reason for using Arch because of the AUR? Are there apps you can't get on other distros? Nothing wrong with Arch, I tired it myself, but ended up on Fedora eventually as it had everything I needed.
I used Arch to learn linux, was a good experience.
I used Arch to learn linux, was a good experience.
I used to really like Arch. I used it for a few years with no problems whatsoever. But then I went on holiday for a month and that all changed!
It turns out, my holiday coincided with the exact time that the devs decided to make a ton of massive, sweeping changes. Some of which required a bunch of config changes. Plus a new version of the kernel.
Also, there were some graphics card drivers and WiFi drivers that were updated to newer versions, which had some serious bugs/regression issues.
And to compound things further, the wiki hadn’t been fully updated to document all of the configuration changes required by some of the updates.
So when I got back from holiday and blindly updated my laptop, it was like the perfect storm. My Arch install completely crapped out. Ha ha!
The new graphics card drivers were triggering some hardware bugs in the graphics card on my old laptop, making X appear to freeze. The system was actually still running, the screen just wasn’t refreshing because the graphics card had completely locked up! But restarting, opening a login terminal and disabling X until I could downgrade the graphics drivers fixed that.
However, the updated, buggy WiFi drivers incorrectly reported my WiFi card as being hard-blocked (switched off by a physical switch). There was a physical switch on my laptop, but it was definitely turned on, ha ha!
So I couldn’t actually downgrade anything until I got my network connection working. So I had to dig out an Ethernet cable and connect directly to the router (first world problems). I managed to downgrade the graphics card drivers. But downgrading the WIFI driver didn’t fix the WiFi issues, it still reported the card as hard-blocked.
Plus I still had to make all of the config changes required by the rest of the updates. So I tried to work my way through the entire months worth of release notes on the main arch news page, to make the required config changes for each update. But I must have missed something, or messed something up because things still ended up completely borked when I rebooted!
So then I tried to reinstall Arch from scratch. But because some of the newer changes weren’t fully documented in the installation section of the wiki, it still didn’t work properly.
After a couple of failed install attempts, I finally worked out what I was doing wrong.
I got the system working, but the WiFi card was still reporting as hard-blocked. Nothing I did could change that. So I just gave up and switched to Crunchbang, before going back to trusty old Debian.
All these years later and Debian has never crapped out on me like Arch did back then. Ha ha!
It turns out, my holiday coincided with the exact time that the devs decided to make a ton of massive, sweeping changes. Some of which required a bunch of config changes. Plus a new version of the kernel.
Also, there were some graphics card drivers and WiFi drivers that were updated to newer versions, which had some serious bugs/regression issues.
And to compound things further, the wiki hadn’t been fully updated to document all of the configuration changes required by some of the updates.
So when I got back from holiday and blindly updated my laptop, it was like the perfect storm. My Arch install completely crapped out. Ha ha!
The new graphics card drivers were triggering some hardware bugs in the graphics card on my old laptop, making X appear to freeze. The system was actually still running, the screen just wasn’t refreshing because the graphics card had completely locked up! But restarting, opening a login terminal and disabling X until I could downgrade the graphics drivers fixed that.
However, the updated, buggy WiFi drivers incorrectly reported my WiFi card as being hard-blocked (switched off by a physical switch). There was a physical switch on my laptop, but it was definitely turned on, ha ha!
So I couldn’t actually downgrade anything until I got my network connection working. So I had to dig out an Ethernet cable and connect directly to the router (first world problems). I managed to downgrade the graphics card drivers. But downgrading the WIFI driver didn’t fix the WiFi issues, it still reported the card as hard-blocked.
Plus I still had to make all of the config changes required by the rest of the updates. So I tried to work my way through the entire months worth of release notes on the main arch news page, to make the required config changes for each update. But I must have missed something, or messed something up because things still ended up completely borked when I rebooted!
So then I tried to reinstall Arch from scratch. But because some of the newer changes weren’t fully documented in the installation section of the wiki, it still didn’t work properly.
After a couple of failed install attempts, I finally worked out what I was doing wrong.
I got the system working, but the WiFi card was still reporting as hard-blocked. Nothing I did could change that. So I just gave up and switched to Crunchbang, before going back to trusty old Debian.
All these years later and Debian has never crapped out on me like Arch did back then. Ha ha!
I do like the freedom that arch offers and the AUR.
I'll go for TinyCore.(And then you have the masochists, like me.....who run stuff like 'Puppy' Linux!)
BigBadBeef
Well-Known Member
Your proselyzing is going to go the same way as it did with Jehovah's witnesses.
sad :c
Arch is a good distribution and I ran it for several years, however I had packages break a few times(nothing I wasn't able to fix myself). You have to do more maintenance with Arch compared to other distributions, some of that can be automated but having to check and replace your configuration files with pacnew files is just annoying if you have to do it regularly. I don't care for the manual Arch installation since I know what I am doing so I could have switched to EndeavourOS but I would have run into the same annoyances.
So I am now running Fedora having the advantage of mostly having the same versions of software as Arch with some exceptions but those exceptions aren't far behind Arch either. Also I work in IT so when I use my personal computer I don't want to have to troubleshoot in my free time which with Arch is a higher chance of that happening than with Fedora.
So I am now running Fedora having the advantage of mostly having the same versions of software as Arch with some exceptions but those exceptions aren't far behind Arch either. Also I work in IT so when I use my personal computer I don't want to have to troubleshoot in my free time which with Arch is a higher chance of that happening than with Fedora.
I'm a archer,,,in the ArchLinuxwiki,"Whereas many GNU/Linux distributions attempt to be more user-friendly, Arch Linux has always been, and shall always remain user-centric. The distribution is intended to fill the needs of those contributing to it, rather than trying to appeal to as many users as possible. It is targeted at the proficient GNU/Linux user, or anyone with a do-it-yourself attitude who is willing to read the documentation, and solve their own problems."Nah. Arch IS overrated; I'll agree with that.
I don't know too many folks that are concerned with deliberately using what are considered to be the "awkward" distros JUST because they consider it gives them better standing in the community. Most folks just want summat that's easy-to-use & doesn't take too much in the way of "hand-holding".
And that's why distros like the 'buntus - including 'flavours' - and Mint will always be as popular as they are.
(And then you have the masochists, like me.....who run stuff like 'Puppy' Linux!)
Mike.
To exist is to be reasonable.
I am a proficient GNU/Linux user but I don't care for having to manually setup something up or to create a solution for something that is a no brainer on most other distributions. The Archwiki is nice and I sometimes use it if I need to find information about something but it's just annoying having to following a wiki article of how to setup Qemu/Kvm while on any other distribution it's just installing the packages and enabling the services.
Just configure it once and then use it,never mind dependency.
The artifact of lazy people.
It's not being lazy, I've got better things to do with my time than having to follow a wiki article for setting up something as simple as Qemu/Kvm or something else. I only read wiki articles to figure something out I don't understand yet or to find information about known bugs or issues about something. Arch is not configure and forget, you have to maintain it as well as keep you configuration files updated when pacnew files are placed during an update.
System maintenance - ArchWiki
You are right.It's not being lazy, I've got better things to do with my time than having to follow a wiki article for setting up something as simple as Qemu/Kvm or something else. I only read wiki articles to figure something out I don't understand yet or to find information about known bugs or issues about something. Arch is not configure and forget, you have to maintain it as well as keep you configuration files updated when pacnew files are placed during an update.
System maintenance - ArchWiki
wiki.archlinux.org
Brickwizard
Well-Known Member
As I keep saying, with over 500 gnu-Linux desktop variants, none of which are any better or worse than any other, they all get the job done, whether you pick a full-blown out-of-the-box distro, or a minimal build your own distro, it's your choice, if you do it right you still end up with a solid working desktop operating system,
before you ask, yes I did try it among several others just over 20 yrs ago before I ditched windows, and after distro hopping I settled on Debian and its children as my chosen system, is it better than Slax, Arch,BSD, NO it isn't, but it is no worse either.
before you ask, yes I did try it among several others just over 20 yrs ago before I ditched windows, and after distro hopping I settled on Debian and its children as my chosen system, is it better than Slax, Arch,BSD, NO it isn't, but it is no worse either.
Terminal Velocity
Well-Known Member
I use debo btw
C
CrazedNerd
Guest
So people who like arch often talk about how it doesn't betray their users like debian systems do, but what i'm wondering is what you use arch for? I've been wanting to try it out, but there don't seem to be much in the way of valuable instructions in terms of being able to customize/optimize it however you want, which is why i just stick with Ubuntu because I can use it for almost anything I want.
C
CrazedNerd
Guest
Does it come with sed though?I used Mint for about 3 months, then tried Arch. I've been using it ever since. I just loved how it didn't come with a bunch of stuff I don't need. The installation wad straightforward; anyone who can follow instructions can do it.
I was the type who would go in after fresh install of Windows and uninstall as much adware, bloat, and whatever else I didn't need. So I just loved how clean Arch felt.
I don't consider Arch "awkward" at all. But I don't brag about using Arch any more than I brag about my coffee maker (though it IS a nice one
I recently got Gentoo working on the same same system. I'm still fiddling with it to get all the setting right and still getting used to portage, but I enjoy doing it and making it mine.
Different goats for different folks, I guess.
I'm not trying to get people to switch to arch you can use whatever distro you want I don't control you nobody controls you
I'd agree with that completely.
Arch is a great distro. But it can be a bit of a maintenance burden sometimes. Especially when there are lots of changes in a short period. Probably doesn't happen too often, but that one perfect storm I experienced was enough for me to jump ship, ha ha!
I'm a programming professional. And as much as I love tinkering with Linux, I'm not a huge fan of having to do loads of maintenance. Hence switching to Debian. It's the laziest distro going, in terms of ease of update and stability. I've literally never broken it! And I can live with the slightly older packages, if it means my experience is always going to be smooth and stable.
If I ever want, or need a newer version of something that isn't in the repos, I can always build and install from source.
But @smerte - you carry on doing you. Nobody is trying to control you either. As I said, Arch is a great distro. The others were just giving you a hard time becase of the initial "I use Arch BTW" flex. It could have been worse. At least you didn't say "I use Kali BTW". Ha ha! Then you would have faced the Spanish Inquisition!
