Purchase Linux CDs / DVDs / Flash Drives at OSDisc.com

Welcome to Our Community

While Linux.org has been around for a while, we recently changed management and had to purge most of the content (including users). If you signed up before April 23rd, 2017 please sign up again. Thanks!

Why should I use Arch?

Discussion in 'Arch' started by Rob, Jul 24, 2013.

  1. Rob

    Rob Guest

    I've been using Linux since 1996 and admittedly have never really looked into it.

    I normally use CentOS (or sometimes Debian) for server use and currently have Fedora on my work PC, ubuntu on my laptop and Mint on my home PC.

    (Log in to hide this advertisement)

    I've used Slackware back in the day more (usually swapped between slackware and red hat when new versions came out) and have no problem compiling programs (I know they have a package manager now) but lately have gotten used to rpm/yum and dpkg/apt because of the easy upgrade path.

    What is Arch based off (if anything)?

    Why would I like it better than CentOS as a server?

    Why would I like it better than what I use as a desktop?

    Does it have a package manager? (like rpm, dpkg.. yup or apt?)

    There ya go - convert me!

  2. Codypy1

    Codypy1 Guest

    Arch isn't based off anything just itself.

    Hmm why would you like it better than your current server? Well it's fast! very reliable. A very secure distro.

    It's extremely lightweight! What I like the most about Arch is it's install what you want. It doesn't come with all this useless junk you don't need.
    It's simple to install and configure.

    It's a rolling release which means it's always always update. You don't have to worry about upgrading like you do with other distros.

    I'm use to apt to being easy to update.

    But Arch is simple to. It' uses pacman so all you need to type is
    pacman -Syu and bam! You are up to date!

    Just give Arch a try. You'll love it when you do.
    Jeffrey Lapinski and brevis like this.
  3. ryanvade

    ryanvade Guest

    Arch can have smaller installations than Debian. So if you are low on disk space or want your server to utilize the available space in the most efficient manner Arch is your best option.
  4. arochester

    arochester Guest

  5. MikeyD

    MikeyD Guest

    I've found some people love Arch on a server and others are wary because it is so bleeding-edge, I've never used it as a server though so I can't say much about that.

    As a distro it is probably the closest one can get to really building their own custom version of Linux without actually building their own custom version of Linux. Everything is up to the user from how the devices are partitioned, what video driver you want to use (proprietary vs open-source) what shell you want to use, you can chose your DE (hell, you don't even need to install a DE if you don't want), choose the boot-loader, etc. It also gives you an intimate knowledge of what goes on when you install an operating system beyond just clicking "Next" a few times, and if you like a challenge its fun too! After all, that's the reason we all love Linux, if we wanted a cookie-cutter "Os-for-dummies" we might as well go back to the proprietary behemoths. I never felt a sense of accomplishment from using any Linux distros as I did from my first successful Arch Linux install.
    However, a guide is necessary!
    Beginner's Guide:
    More advanced installation guide:
    Jeffrey Lapinski likes this.
  6. Eric Hansen

    Eric Hansen Guest

    I use Arch on a daily basis, so I want to respond to this...

    Nothing, really. You can see similarities from Gentoo and Slackware, and if anything it draws more from Slackware than anything, but Arch has really grown to be its own over the years.

    Depends. If you're looking to use any of the OpenVZ templates you wouldn't...at least I didn't. Couldn't get it to work. However, if you're using it as the host OS, then a bare bones system can leave you with a lot of space make it fit to your standards.

    Of course that means more time spent with the system, but it also means a lot less convulated package installations that do nothing (Ubuntu...).

    Typically Arch users for the desktop are using it to be a power user. You can squeeze almost every little ounce from their system. It also allows you to install window managers such as Awesome3 which can reduce the need for a mouse (which is great if you install it on a laptop...!). Otherwise it also goes the same as a server, in that you have more control over whats initially installed.

    It uses pacman by default which allows you access to a few repos and such. There's also the AUR (Arch User Repo) that lets you install a plethora of new software, but requires a different package manager. My personal favorite is packer for this as it ties in nicely with pacman as well. I wrote a couple of aliases to make pkg_update = pacman -Syu (updates the system and installs them) and pkg_search = packer -Ss {name}, and some others too.
  7. Kitkin15

    Kitkin15 Guest

    Arch claims to have gotten their main ideas from BSD, but as said above its not really based off of anything.

    Pacman is amazingly easy to use, and the AUR(Arch User Repo) and ABS(Arch Build System) make everything better, so if a program isn't in the official Reps, you more then likely can find it in the AUR or you can make it into a package and upload to the AUR using ABS.

    The one thing I wouldn't suggest though is using it as a server, its highly secure because of the fact that when someone updates a program you have installed, you get the update ASAP, only issue is sometimes those updates have bugs, and sometimes it can cause some downtime. Personally, I use it as a server, but that's only because I refuse to use anything other then Arch(I've tried Debian based, Fedora based, Slaxware based, etc.... And don't like them), but most people don't.

    My BIGGEST reason for using Arch is honestly just that its pretty simple to set up (Excluding UEFI, not too much info on it and it can very depending on your motherboard) And that its BAREBONES! I love building a system from the ground up, not ripping out the current programs and then starting over again, leaves trash behind and that bothers me.
    1 person likes this.
  8. Videodrome

    Videodrome Guest

    It is Fast.

    New to Arch and I'm impressed. Pacman is neat and I like the options available in the AUR.

    I generally consider the "Big 3" to be Debian, Slackware, and RedHat, but this is something else entirely.
  9. ryanvade

    ryanvade Guest

    I LOVE Arch Linux. The only other distro that could compare is Oz Unity.
  10. JohnSerrano

    JohnSerrano Guest

    have not used it yet but getting the my good about it .. now looking forward to have it and start working on
  11. I am still too green to answer any of the questions better than they have been already, but I took on Arch to learn more about Linux in general. I still have some frustrations now and again, sometimes even frequent; but it has been very very helpful with helping me learn more and do more with my operating system. It is also a very positive feeling to be able to fix things without having to get help all the time too.
    1 person likes this.
  12. ZZs

    ZZs Guest

    Its ur choice. Im bias because Its what I know. Personally I think its great. I will rank the most difficult to the easiest. A perfect openbox is harder to me. Their are lots of AUR involved. The easiest is cinnamon, the only the only thing extra was gnome-key. It doesnt matter its what you want. If you get in trouble just ask me I help you out....

  13. chimichurri

    chimichurri Guest

  14. I have to wonder about choosing a distribution that has to be fixed out of the box; there are so many distributions out there to choose from I can't imagine not being able to find something to suit your needs with a little research. As far as user friendly goes, I did a couple of installs with openSUSE about a month ago and it was even more straight forward than Ubuntu. Just for the experience, I took an extra machine and set it up with software encryption, lvm and btrfs and it took about 20 minutes to have a fully functional operating system. That's including having the firewall set up with and the real Gnome DE setup.
  15. jerz4lunch

    jerz4lunch Guest

    Recently, I started using Arch Linux on my old headless laptop (took computer apart with a screwdriver and removed the display assembly from the unit). I used Gentoo Live Boot media to enable sshd (since it's done more easily with Gentoo (only 2 easy-to-remember commands)), and use the "Install from Existing Linux" guide on Arch's wiki once I ssh into the system. I do this because I couldn't figure out how to display output on VGA/HDMI.
  16. pane-free

    pane-free Guest

    In the past, I tried KahelOS and ArchBang and could not get into either.
    I'm with arochester. Stick with what you like (my avatar tells of my preferences)!
  17. ArchBang does not = Arch Linux. The step by step manual installation process for Arch Linux is in my opinion the most important teaching tool of the distribution. It facilitates the success of the previously uninitiated user.
  18. Videodrome

    Videodrome Guest

    Some of this makes me think of FreeBSD and the spinoffs. PC-BSD is still FreeBSD under the hood even if it's easier to install it.
  19. Yesyesloud

    Yesyesloud Guest

    I have tried "all" base distributions and many derivatives, some for longer, but always heading back to Arch, as it is frequently updated (rolling) and you can fix/downgrade the system easily once you learn how to do it.

    I leave the latest LTS kernel version installed as fallback (done with Pacman and syslinux), so that I can boot it in case the "main" Arch system breaks after upgrades. When I'm too lazy to fix it, I simply boot into the LTS kernel. It doesn't often break anyway. I settled on Arch for good.
    #20 Yesyesloud, Sep 14, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2014

Share This Page