Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Arch Linux For Newbies? Manjaro Is Here!

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the kill-a-whatnow? dept.

Linux 120

Penurious Penguin writes "Well within the top ten Linux distros, Arch Linux has a strong following for sure. But with an installation process requiring a little more involvement than the average distro, not every prospective user is ready to embrace the Arch Way, and understandably so. This is where Manjaro steps in. With a 100% compatibility with Arch, uncompromising adherence to principia KISS and a pre-configured Xfce, — or alternatively available GNOME & KDE — those who've been hesitating to explore Arch now have a few less excuses. And a little side-note for those still bitter about the lack of package-signing: You'll be glad to know that Arch fully implemented package-signing in June of 2012."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

love Arch (5, Insightful)

robot5x (1035276) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118377)

just here to say - for me, arch is what turned linux into a curiosity I tinkered with occasionally into the foundation of my home network and daily productivity.
Being short on time for the last 6 months, I've kept 4 machines right up to date with the latest packages through some fairly major changes (filesystem and udev, off the top of my head) by doing little more than invoking pacman every now and then.
When I get some time, I know I can get my hands dirty using abs if I so choose. Arch is beautiful.

Re:love Arch (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118465)

Its very neat, right until you get bitten by the bleeding edge software updates.

I've had my system rendered unbootable or at least without working wifi or graphics drivers a few times after updating.
Its a nice linux distro with a russian roulette feature built-in

Re:love Arch (3, Informative)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118685)

Its very neat, right until you get bitten by the bleeding edge software updates.

I've had my system rendered unbootable or at least without working wifi or graphics drivers a few times after updating. Its a nice linux distro with a russian roulette feature built-in

This is why I dual boot. Linux and Linux.

Manjaro with Enlightenment ? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119815)

Maybe I'm asking too much, but will Manjaro offer a version that integrates with Enlightenment, instead of the current Xfce integration ?

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41119595)

Been using Arch for years and never had a problem. You probably forced pacman to update when it told you something was wrong.

I decided to try Arch when I noticed the solutions for my problems in Debian were always from Arch's wiki. Never looked back, Arch rocks. I don't see the point of this Manjaro distro, though. Anything someone new to the distro wants to know he can find right in the Wiki, people tend to think Arch is not newbie friendly because you have to setup the system yourself but all the info is right there.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41119725)

Speed, there are things that you must do if you are installing Arch but that take some time. I set up my own archiso, but not everyone wants to do that...

This gets them there. It does contradict the "Arch Way" but using Arch as a base is great. The other thing is that the Arch guys can be a little sardonic in their treatment of newbs, but the general tone is friendly... not where Gentoo is anymore.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41121481)

Yes, all the info is right there, but how will i access it if i'm installing my computer? Print it? Lend the neighbours notebook? Browse the arch wiki on my smartphone?

And if you try, chances you get stuck are very high. Yes, for a server it's all fine - but if you want to run a desktop, you have to go trought the usual pain invoked by nVidia and AMD. While i totally agree it is them to blame, it'd be nice if the distro would solve it for me.

Getting arch up and running is fairly simple. Getting arch to show a desktop with 3D acceleration is less trivial, even for a daily linux user. And, seen this very news item, i am not the only one thinking that.

Re:love Arch (2)

jpate (1356395) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121925)

# pacman -S arch-wiki-docs

Re:love Arch (2)

spongman (182339) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120761)

without working wifi drivers

what, you mean there are working wifi drivers? ;)

Re:love Arch (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120957)

Always read the archlinux website before doing pacman -Syu, if there are expected problems with the upgrade it gives instructions how to avoid them.

Re:love Arch (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121569)

I just visit the website if I have any issues/warnings/errors (since I -Syu every day). The rule is, though, to follow arch-announce, or follow the website's rss.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41121777)

I have only used arch regularly for the last year, but Ive never experienced this. I have experienced it *several* times on Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora throughout the years though, so I do not think this is particular to arch in any way. Executing huge automated batchjobs on heavily customized systems will always involve risk of breakdowns.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41122655)

Its very neat, right until you get bitten by the bleeding edge software updates.

I've had my system rendered unbootable or at least without working wifi or graphics drivers a few times after updating.
Its a nice linux distro with a russian roulette feature built-in

You are supposed to read the front page news before upgrading critical packages. Any major change will feature a news article that walks you through all the manual steps. Beyond that, you are supposed to read pacman's output and take care of anything that requires manual intervention. Doing so will prevent most problems, especially an unbootable system.

For any problems beyond that (e.g. buggy drivers), you can always downgrade the implicated package and wait for a new release before upgrading. Solutions are usually quickly found and you can always get help from the community on the forum and/or IRC.

Upgrades are expected to be run interactively and attentively. This is repeated several times in various locations on the forum and the wiki. Arch only has a Russian roulette feature if you put the bullet in the chamber yourself.

p.s. There's even a flowchart [archlinux.ca] .

Re:love Arch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118601)

The biggest weakness of arch is package management. Pac is mediocre at best, and anything that isn't available with pacman is a gigantic pain in the ass to install.

Re:love Arch (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118645)

Have you used the AUR? I find compiling on Arch is way easier than it was on Ubuntu.

The PKGBUILD system means only one person has to figure out the compile process and then they can easily share it with everyone. If it doesn't work on your system, you can often open it in a text editor and tweak it to find something that works.

Sometimes it takes a bit of effort, but learning to help yourself is the whole point of Arch.

Re:love Arch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118789)

Yeah, I was most disappointed by how often I had to try to get the thing I needed through AUR, which I don't think ever worked for anything I tried to build.

Precisely the benefit of having moved back to a debian based distro is that most everything is a package in repos, and anything that isn't is distributed in a deb that pretty much always works.

I liked Arch for being able to decide what I wanted at install, and the speediness that came from that. And the instructions were pretty good so it wasn't difficult. It was the day-to-day workings that made it too aggravating to keep using.

Re:love Arch (3, Informative)

shimage (954282) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119249)

Hmm. I use yaourt. "yaourt -S package_name" and it just installs what you want, period. "yaourt -Syua" updates everything, including your aur packages. I have something like 50 packages from aur installed, and I don't have any problems. Day-to-day, it has taken almost no effort on my part for the last 5 years. There were some big updates that took some care to do correctly (udev and filesystem come to mind), but most distros have things like that and arch's documentation is always great.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120783)

Perhaps that's the utility I needed to make it manageable. After a lot of fighting with trying to get basic software installed, I thought "this is like 1998 all over again" and switched back.

I'll give it another try one of these days and see how it has improved. The premise is good.

Re:love Arch (2)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121585)

Please don't recommend yaourt on public places like this. It has serious security issues, and you'll just make new users start using it on their first day. If you must recomend an AUR helper, it'd better be packer.

In any case, the point of not including an AUR helper ni arch, is because AUR is unsupported, and any user can upload anything there. Users are advised to review the PKGBUILD before building it (it might just say "rm -rf /").

Re:love Arch (1)

shimage (954282) | more than 2 years ago | (#41122957)

I know why arch doesn't include an aur helper in any of their repos. If you don't want to check your pkgbuilds before using them, that's on you. And I don't really care what other people use. I just said that this is what I use and it works for me. If you like something else that's fine with me too. There are so many aur helpers these days, just pick one that suits you.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41119757)

Try suse's open build system... its so good a bunch of other people started using it such as intel and nokia. One file (rpm spec file) and a few macros + pretty much svn integration. And a useful webfront-end on top of the command tools. It's my opinion that OBS is currently the best solution to building software for the distro's masses to use. It also supports a bunch of different build targets (debian, red hat enterprise, and ubuntu) but I'm unsure how easy that is given the convoluted process that is making debian packages.

I've been building and maintaining my own repository of important software (to me and my work) for 2+ years now.

Re:love Arch (1)

opus_magnum (1688810) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120489)

Have you used the AUR? I find compiling on Arch is way easier than it was on Ubuntu.

The point is you usually don't have to recompile things on Ubuntu, given the prevalence of PPA repositories.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120873)

So you add another repository for anything you may want, and you trust all of them.

Re:love Arch (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121541)

Is that kinda like trusting a distro like Arch to begin with, which has never considered security anything remotely near a high priority? Golly, I sure want to trust a distro that considered ignoring something as insignificant as package signing [wordpress.com] with my data.

Re:love Arch (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121597)

Arch now supports package signing (and it's enabled by default), so your point is pretty much invalid.

Re:love Arch (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121893)

I love PPAs myself, but they aren't available for everything.

Case in point: I was interested in install Wagic the Homebrew on a Ubuntu computer recently, but I couldn't find any PPA for it.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120391)

The biggest weakness of arch is package management. Pac is mediocre at best, and anything that isn't available with pacman is a gigantic pain in the ass to install.

Errrrrrrrrrr as with the post below have you looked at pkgbuild and AUR nothing hard there at all i moved from Suse at 10.3 and what a relief Arch IS the way to go .

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120221)

I second your opinion and supplement my own experiences with Arch Linux on a laptop that has given me nothing but trouble. If the machine your installing on needs every ounce of CPU power you can get and a desktop environment is required, use LXDE instead of XFCE. Their very similar on the surface, but LXDE is far more lightweight. On my troublesome laptop it's only in LXDE that I can watch 720 resolution video without the audio falling out of sync, I couldn't even do that in Windows XP which is what the machine originally came with.

Re:love Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120595)

Okay... what is it that Arch (just a Linux distro) gives you that say Ubuntu (just a Linux distro) doesn't -- specifically allowing you to say: "turned linux into a curiosity I tinkered with occasionally into the foundation of my home network and daily productivity"?

If it helps, I'm asking that as someone who's been using Linux daily for eight years. Definitely not an expert, just undeluded about its advantages and disadvantages, yet completely lost as to what usability 'hump' Arch solves for you. Please expand.

Re:love Arch (1)

Fallingwater (1465567) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121173)

Having never actually tried Arch, from what I read about it I gather that it's more efficient than Ubuntu. Then again, pretty much every distro that isn't Ubuntu is more efficient than Ubuntu.
It's also supposedly more minimalistic (a term I've come to loathe due to its popularity among the apple zealots), elegant and with emphasis on code correctness (quoting Wikipedia here).

Still and all, so far I haven't seen any reason to switch away from Debian for Serious Business and PCLinuxOS for user-friendly stuff. I might give a try to Manjaro on a non-mission-critical box and see what happens.

Re:love Arch (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121841)

I've tried a lot of distros (Slackware, Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Gentoo, Zenwalk, Voyage, Red Hat, Fedora, SUSE, Mandriva, Knoppix, Puppy, Damn Small, Vector, Tiny Core), and am currently using Arch. Arch gets me the closest to current software, without having to spend too much time on updates, and offers a variety of desktop environments and graphics drivers. If the open graphics drivers ever achieve good 3D acceleration, Arch will have them by the next day or 2. When Firefox or kernel.org release updates, Arch is among the 1st to have them packaged. Arch used to be missing some important features, such as 32bit support on 64bit machines, and package signing, but these have been remedied.

I abandoned Gentoo when I saw for myself that compiling everything took too much time. A typical package is updated perhaps 4 times a year, there are about 1000 packages in a typical installation, and an average compile and install time is 10 minutes per package. That means roughly 11 updates every day, for a total of nearly 2 hours per day spent on updating. The killer package was gcc. Use old version of gcc to compile new version, then use newly compiled new version to compile gcc again. Plus, ought to recompile every package on the system when a new gcc comes out, but hardly anyone was that crazy. Worst was when there was some problem that manifested at the end of this lengthy process, and you had to start over after fixing it, if you could. Even Gentoo backed away from the worst pains of updating from source code, offering these different "levels" (level 1, 2 and 3 as I recall), in which some precompiled packages were provided.

I started with Slackware because there wasn't anything else, and stuck with it for a long time. Biggest problem with Slackware was the long delay between updates, and then when an update did come, having it be easier to start all over with a fresh install rather than try to update. Unavoidable, perhaps, for something major such as the change from libc5 and a.out to libc6 and ELF, but shouldn't always be necessary.

Ubuntu tends towards the heavy side. It's not so good for old computers and small hard drives. I could get an i586 version of Arch installed in a 1.6G partition on a 133MHz Pentium with 96M RAM, and have a desktop environment and browser. (Last time I tried it, Firefox 3.5 was current. Can't update to Firefox 4 or later, those take too much memory.) However, so far I prefer Ubuntu over Arch for ARM devices.

I'm still searching for better desktop environments. I'm using LXDE with Openbox, and it's okay but not great. PCManFM is still buggy. Openbox has features ("roll up/down", aka "shade", and "un/decorate") that are useless and confusing to casual users, but which cannot be turned off. Saving of sessions doesn't work. And light though LXDE is, it still takes about 100M RAM. No big deal on a modern PC with 2G or more of RAM, but crippling for an old box with only 256M. On such a machine, I go with just a window manager (usually IceWM), and forget the environment.

well in the top ten! (-1, Troll)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118385)

theres more then 10 linux distros ?

sheesh.. at this rate the year of the linux desktop will NEVER come!

Re:well in the top ten! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118451)

Than.

Re:well in the top ten! (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121031)

It's currently #7

This is good news (2)

supertall (1163993) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118401)

As someone who has been interested in Arch but turned off by the laborious installation (call me lazy but I just have better things to do), this might just do the trick.

Re:This is good news (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121609)

Really? A half-hour installation process turned you off? I don't mean to be offensive, but you're really better off using something like Mint or Ubuntu; Arch is a "configure it the way you like it" distro, so even after installation, you still need to manage you own system.

Chakra? (4, Informative)

mhh91 (1784516) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118405)

How is this different from Chakra [chakra-linux.org] ?

Re:Chakra? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118561)

Since when is a question informative? It's not like this is some kind of Zen koan. Dumb fucking neckbeards.

Re:Chakra? (5, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118873)

So subtle you were, that I almost missed the challenge!

Since when is a question informative?

Since the age of the quest.

It's not like this is some kind of Zen koan.

Indeed. To be like something, a thing must not be that something.

Dumb fucking neckbeards.

Ah! Smart abstinent prepubescents!

Have I passed the test, or has it passed me?

Re:Chakra? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120057)

>> Dumb fucking neckbeards.
> Ah! Smart abstinent prepubescents!

Nah, he's just bitter he can't grow a beard like all the important computer scientists can ;-)

http://www.codethinked.com/the-programmer-dress-code [codethinked.com]
http://www.codethinked.com/The-Programmer-Dress-Code---Part-Deux [codethinked.com]
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/08/04/29/181249/facial-hair-and-computer-languages [slashdot.org]

Re:Chakra? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41122279)

Have I passed the test, or has it passed me?

Only the gas has passed; the turds remain within you.

Re:Chakra? (1)

omni123 (1622083) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118933)

Since it includes a link to an alternate product that IS informative...

Also, neckbeards is very 4chan; summer is over, go back to school. ;)

Re:Chakra? (2)

usagimaru (2327148) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118579)

Chakra is no longer based on Arch Linux and is focused on keeping a pure Qt/KDE workspace. They've implemented things like bundles [chakra-linux.org] so you can install GTK apps without "contaminating" the system.
This project is more trying to be what Sabayon is for Gentoo. They're keeping compatibility and streamlining the install experience.

Re:Chakra? (2)

christurkel (520220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118743)

Looks like the founder of Chakra Linux moved to this project.

Arch Server (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118473)

Arch linux is nice. Don't get me wrong.
But as long they keep the rolling release model, it's nothing more than a toy.
When/if Arch Server ( http://www.archserver.org/ ) ever take off, then we could talk.

Don't think Manjaro gets the idea of Lightweight (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118505)

The package list looks like he kept adding codec support and other stuff you may not need until he hit the arbitrary 700MB limit. I know there will be a few who use it but who wants wavpack in their default install. Everyone can download these later.

I guess there is not too many look like services that slow you down but unless he used crap compression the default install size is that of Ubuntu.
Just give the user a desktop environment, a browser (to look up stuff on the wiki), the text installer for the config files and a basic init setup that gets key services.

Re:Don't think Manjaro gets the idea of Lightweigh (1, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118877)

I think that you're missing the point of the distro.

Re:Don't think Manjaro gets the idea of Lightweigh (2)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119349)

I think that you're missing the point of the distro.

No they are not clear. Still can't tell if they newbie in the arch or linux sense.
My initial understanding was that they wanted to help you skip the install, which is not fun without prior knowledge and the beginners instructions were a little out of date.

Installing user-space programs that most will never use does not fit the arch way. They appear to want to make Debian with an "arch core", which provides none of benefits of arch as the core arch utilities are only average.

Re:Don't think Manjaro gets the idea of Lightweigh (1)

4wdloop (1031398) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119077)

Re:Don't think Manjaro gets the idea of Lightweigh (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119535)

I or users still want access to these packages, I just don't want to have to track them with rolling releases or taking up space on my hypothetical SSD if I don't chose them.

Can it be made friendlier and stay true to Arch? (5, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118549)

One of the main points of installing Arch is that it forces you to learn about how your system is built.

While some people have reported problems with Arch's rolling updates, I have had zero troubles in my 6 months of using it. When something pops up that requires you to do anything more than "sudo pacman -Syu", you can always find the solution on the forum announcements.

It's absolutely true that I would not bother to spend the time setting up an Arch install for someone else. I gave a friend a Kubuntu install and I was surprised to see how much stuff was buggy on it compared to my own KDE Arch. So maybe there is a niche for this, but I am not at all convinced that things can be made "user-friendly" without them also becoming non-transparent.

Re:Can it be made friendlier and stay true to Arch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118671)

i find it funny that all of my hardware works out of the box using Arch, but ubuntu gives me problems after problems

Re:Can it be made friendlier and stay true to Arch (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119939)

While some people have reported problems with Arch's rolling updates, I have had zero troubles in my 6 months of using it.

Six months doesn't seem like a very long time to vouch for the stability of the updates.

I'm not talking about Arch here specifically, but it seems to me any system accumulates bits of custom configuration and slight deviations from the common use patterns over time. In a word, entropy. As your particular setup becomes more specialized and rare, it becomes less likely to have been covered by testing and therefore more prone to conflicts with new updates. So while a good six months is a good six months, it may not say that much about stability years down the road.

Re:Can it be made friendlier and stay true to Arch (2)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120995)

Well, I've been using Arch since... had to actually login into the forum to see how long, since 2004. At some point I when I was finally able to use Linux at work, I told myself I should use a more "professional" distribution, as I'm partial to KDE I tried OpenSUSE. That didn't last long, it was a really buggy and generally unpleasant experience, I promptly returned to Arch. In my experience, given how bleeding edge Arch is, it's really amazingly stable. Yes, every now and then the updates require some manual intervention, but if pacman refuses to upgrade for some reason, check the home page instead of forcing the upgrade and you should be fine.

Having said that, the rolling release system also means you have to go with the flow - you don't need to upgrade daily, or weekly even, but still every now and then. My MythTV backend (which I've retired since I found I really don't watch that much tv) was on Arch, and was pretty much unattended for a few years. Trying to upgrade that box simply didn't work. Mind you, it worked fine for what it was intended to do, and probably still would should I turn it on, so as such there was no need to upgrade.

Re:Can it be made friendlier and stay true to Arch (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41122099)

Having said that, the rolling release system also means you have to go with the flow - you don't need to upgrade daily, or weekly even, but still every now and then.

And that's the problem with Arch. You can leave a Debian installation unattended for years and it will still correctly update. Why can't Arch do that?

Re:Can it be made friendlier and stay true to Arch (1)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 2 years ago | (#41122367)

I'm not an Arch developer, so this is just my impression as a user. Arch seems to target for simplicity and also being bleeding edge. As such, there are points when some very fundamental changes have to be made - for the benefit of the user, in my opinion, but it also means the user has to make the changes as well. It's been so many years that I can't even recall what it was called... but way back when men used to walk uphill both ways and edit their xorg.conf to get two monitors (actually, it wasn't even xorg.conf back then... X11.conf? It's been too many years. But I digress), device hotplugging and detecting in the first place on boot involved quite a few hacks. I can't recall what the most popular hack was, but Arch never embraced it (naturally, being Arch, those hacks were available for those who wanted them) - instead, once udev became available, that was the solution. And while it took some time for the popular DEs to utilize it as well, once they did, everything worked great without any unneeded (and buggy) layer in between.

But I'm genuinely curious - I've never really used Debian. From what I've gathered, there are three "branches": stable, unstable and testing. And sometimes, unstable (or is it testing? do correct me if I'm wrong) becomes stable, and a new very-much-unstable branch is formed. So, you are telling me that such an upgrade is always flawless? How about should you skip a few major releases (given how long they take with Debian that is highly unlikely, but bear with me), could you still upgrade?

Anyway, would I run Arch on a production server? Certainly not. Nor would I Debian, or any other "community" distro. When the shit hits the fan, there must be a corporation you can hold responsible. But for my own (also professional) use I've found Arch to be very likeable. YMMV, HTH, HAND. But at the moment, instead of rambling online, the scotch next to me seems more desirable at the moment. Perhaps I'll continue rambling further later, even more incoherent than now.

Re:Can it be made friendlier and stay true to Arch (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121647)

That depends a lot. On a distro like Ubuntu, 6 months means a single real update really. On Arch, since it's rolling release (and bleeding edge), every single package may have been updated several times, as well as some not-so-minor changes to the filesystem [archlinux.org] , for example.

I've been running two PCs with arch for about 18 months now, and have never encountered any real issues with the rolling-update process.

"a few less excuses" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118565)

those who've been hesitating to explore Arch now have a few less excuses.

Can somebody tell me what is wrong with this sentence fragment? FUCK

Re:"a few less excuses" (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118733)

Double negative?

Re:"a few less excuses" (2)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119883)

In traditional English "less" is about amount whereas "fewer" is about count, ie. the correct sentence fragment would be "fewer excuses." You can have less water, but you can't have fewer water, for example. However, "less" is these days used as a substitute for "fewer" in many cases in American English so whether or not the traditional way matters anymore is subject to debate.

Re:"a few less excuses" (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121927)

However, since "more" and "less" are opposites, if "a few more excuses" is valid English, why shouldn't "a few less excuses" be valid too?

Of course, nobody says "a few less excuses" (Googling "a few less excuses" with quotes gives this slashdot article....), but it's not so easily explained through "logical" application of grammar rules....

Re:"a few less excuses" (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#41122209)

However, since "more" and "less" are opposites, if "a few more excuses" is valid English, why shouldn't "a few less excuses" be valid too?

Because there is no single-word substitute for "more." "More" is used both for describing increase in arbitrary amount and for describing increase in count. It'd be a different situation if there was a suitable substitute.

Been there, done that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118631)

Archbang, anyone?

http://www.archbang.org

Re:Been there, done that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118811)

Where's my Archbuntu!

I want Archbuntu!

there is also (1)

CorvisRex (1266594) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118683)

Bridge linux, Pure ARCH, but installs xfce as well, a good way to ease into arch linux.

Linux, Newbies? (1)

leshii (960272) | more than 2 years ago | (#41118747)

Just installed arch for the first time and in some ways loved it. It has the minimalist feel of Gentoo but without the time taken to compile all of the source. But still has a lot of the work in doing a stage 3 install al be it somewhat quicker. Hmm do I prefer Gentoo or Arch or the ease of something like Ubuntu. I hate all of the crap that is installed with a base install of Ubuntu but if you go with Ubuntu server you can trim it down loads. Then again I Love Gentoo's Portage package management system, it is awesome!!!! pacman is good but does not have le flexability of overlays. Ubuntu provides for adding additional sources which are handled by the builtin package manager. But with arch you have to have wrappers for pacman such as pacaur to install non-official packages which is'nt really intuitive. In so many ways this could be a good thing, bringing a powerful linux system to the masses. But in others a bad thing bringing a powerful tool with out knowing how to use it!

Re:Linux, Newbies? (1)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121077)

If you want transparent AUR access, try yaourt instead of pacaur. It has the exact same syntax as pacman. I hardly ever use pacman anymore, since yaourt handles everything.

Re:Linux, Newbies? (1)

XFire35 (1519315) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121789)

Actually, you can easily add additional repos by editing /etc/pacman.conf

Stack cookies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41118875)

Has arch been able to enable stack cookies at all yet? Without these it seems pretty unusable for many purposes.

Re:Stack cookies (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119101)

Has arch been able to enable stack cookies at all yet? Without these it seems pretty unusable for many purposes.

The cookies come in two stacks of six wrapped in celophane. Yum.

Re:Stack cookies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41119177)

Wrong, Arch doesn't use YUM.

I thought Arch was already pretty user friendly? (1)

shimage (954282) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119153)

But I was running Gentoo before I switched to Arch, so maybe my perspective is just skewed. Also, it's been several years since my last OS install; my memory of it may be a bit fuzzy by now.

Re:I thought Arch was already pretty user friendly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41119707)

i think arch used to be easier to install before this most recent release.

Re:I thought Arch was already pretty user friendly (1)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121067)

I was using Gentoo before I switched to Arch, as well.

The main draw for me is that Arch doesn't make specialized versions of packages, plug their own configuration tools or intentionally cripple itself due to ideology.

Apart from the boot-up message saying "Welcome to Arch Linux!" and the package manager, I could just as well be running Linux From Scratch. I like that, to me it's the closest to what Linux actually is, and it really isn't that hard to deal with compared to Fedora or Ubuntu or whatever, because I don't have to look up distro-specific guides for anything. Everything is vanilla and just as the developers intended.

I just recently migrated to Grub2 and Systemd. Couldn't have been easier.

newbie (2, Funny)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119323)

It's a newbier version of a newbie bistro :D

Re:newbie (2)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119665)

The Newbie Bistro, on 4th and Wilshire right? Good biscotti.

YALD! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41119381)

Yet Another Linux Distro
Film at 11

Curiosity Expanded The Mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41119577)

As for me i am now learning Gentoo, learning and compiling tinkering with the system is how i want my Linux Experiment to be.....
I don't like Vanilla Flavor's i drink my coffee black

User-friendliness can wait (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41119627)

I just want an Arch community that does something other than flame its own mailing lists with systemd discussions.

What's the selling point? (0)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#41119743)

Debian has ideology and a huge community, fedora has corporate clout, ubuntu has support, Linux Mint has "like ubuntu but not batshit insane" what has Arch to offer?

If the only thing new about Arch is it's package manager then you better give me an awesome sales pitch because I'm sick of centralized servers. The thing I want to see succeed most than anything is a distro based on Zero Install [0install.net] or something like it. What good is arch for?

Re:What's the selling point? (2)

twelveeighty (2715145) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120095)

That's what I like about Arch. It's not trying to "sell" / offer ANYTHING. They (or I) don't give a flying f*** about getting more users on the distro. You either like it or don't. If you don't then move along, nothing to see. It's by far the least "preachy" of the distros I've used; and it doesn't pretend to be the replacement for Windows for grandpa either.

Re:What's the selling point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120111)

The main thing arch has to offer is how vanilla everything is.

They try not to modify the vanilla kernel with their own patches, they don't modify the libs, etc. etc. etc, which means that they don't introduce all sorts of problems.

Arch is more "linux" than most other linuxes. It's sort of the new slackware.

Re:What's the selling point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120423)

Debian has ideology and a huge community, fedora has corporate clout, ubuntu has support, Linux Mint has "like ubuntu but not batshit insane" what has Arch to offer?

For you? Nothing. Nothing because you can't be bothered to spend a few minutes skimming the FAQ which is very easy to find. The Internet is very fast these days. I'm sorry you haven't figured out how to use it. What are you doing? Using Bing?

Re:What's the selling point? (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121663)

Arch is "bleeding edge", and also KISS.

Damn Distrowatch (1)

collet (2632725) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120179)

Unless I'm mistaken, Distrowatch rankings are not a measure of "most popular" (first link).

Even Distrowatch says Distrowatch isn't a reliable measure of popularity.

(My definition of popularity is usage share.)

Re:Damn Distrowatch (1)

NotBorg (829820) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120543)

It's a decent measure for what people are curious about. I have to admit every time I consider switching distributions or am trying to find a specialized distribution for a project, I usually end up there. It may not be a good estimate for what people are actually using, but it is still an interesting measure of what people are looking at.

It's not an absolute, but if you look that the top of the list... the interesting and relevant distributions are all at the top. You'd probably have a hard time arguing that any distribution in Distrowatch's top 10 isn't decently relevant. While it might not be an accurate indicator of absolute popularity, it's not all that useless to look at either.

I like it (1)

skipperczt (1472021) | more than 2 years ago | (#41120249)

This works. Uses systemd already which looks like something arch will be going too... so saves a little hassle, especially if you are new to arch. I ran the xfce version and no hassles. Bridge Linux is cool too, and has a nice post-install script which I really like. It's weird to think of installing Arch so easily... but it seems to be picking up steam!

ArchBang, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120289)

You get the brevity and coolness of #! plus the beautiful versatility of arch, and it actually works on modern hardware. It also uses openbox.

And I know this is just a plug for DistroX (sorry, didn't RTFS), but for people insterested in other Arches that aren't:
List of Arch Based Distros [archlinux.org]

Ubuntu (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41120939)

Sadly, Ubuntu+Unity is the only working distro currently. Bye bye KDE, Gnome and QT.

Re:Ubuntu (1)

David89 (2022710) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121149)

He's obviously an expert

Why is "easy to install" for "newbies"? (5, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121165)

I'd consider myself a pretty experienced Linux user, having been using it since it came on two HD floppies. I use Ubuntu, and keep hearing people going on about "oh Ubuntu is for n00bs, only n00bs use it, use $other_distro because you get more control of what gets installed".

I don't care about controlling what gets installed. I want to take a bare OS-less machine and have it up and running with the minimum of hassle. If I'm spending time watching pages and pages of compiler output scroll past, I'm not having fun and I'm wasting time - and more importantly, I'm not getting *real paying work done*.

So, fine, if you want to *play* then stick with distros that take two hours to install to a basic command prompt and ask you all kinds of pointless questions about how you want /opt/srv/lib/ formatted. If you actually want to get stuff done and learn about Linux, stick to the "easy to install" distros.

Re:Why is "easy to install" for "newbies"? (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121669)

Because experienced users usually want to configure their own PCs to their likings, and Ubuntu makes this way harder than Arch.
While installing Ubuntu may be easier, configuring Ubuntu to my liking can take a lot more time than it takes to configure Arch.

Or course, newbies will customize neither, so Ubuntu is the way to go for them.

Re:Why is "easy to install" for "newbies"? (1)

XFire35 (1519315) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121827)

I've been using arch for about 4-6 years now and I've never had to sit and watch compiler output. It takes about 20mins to actually install and set-up (a bit longer if you count downloading the packages and updating them). I've never been asked about the format of /opt/srv/lib (I don't even have one). Other than the occasional update requiring a bit more intervention than pacman -Syu, the up keep on Arch is as simple as pacman -Syu and the install wasn't much more difficult.

Re:Why is "easy to install" for "newbies"? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41122141)

Because once you know what you're doing every distro is easy to install.

Re:Why is "easy to install" for "newbies"? (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41122179)

Computers aren't supposed to get you to the applications you want and let you get work and playing done! They're supposed to be time-sucking vampires from hell that make you throw them out windows.

Sillyface.

Re:Why is "easy to install" for "newbies"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41122389)

All good if you are happy with the standard ubuntu packages, not good at all if you want to tweak your system substantially without the packagemanager hosing your system at the next update, not to mention the next dist-upgrade (Which does not exist in arch).

It takes a good workday to build an archsystem from scratch, but from there on it just works until I upgrade my computer, and I really cannot say that about ubuntu.

But the most important aspect of arch is the excellent wiki with clear consise howtos. Ubuntus forums is riddled with unsolved questions, nonworking hacks, etc.

Arch Linux for tech savvy freedom lovers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41121509)

Try https://parabolagnulinux.org/ [parabolagnulinux.org]

Awesome for a Barebones machine (1)

voxner (1217902) | more than 2 years ago | (#41121741)

In my stint in previous company I was given a machine with 256 mb ram. Running ubuntu was a nightmare & so I installed arch with openbox, feh & rxvt-unicode. I never looked back. The only issue was the hibernate but that never worked for me in ubuntu anyways.

But . . . why Manjaro and why Arch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41123167)

Do they boot faster?

Do they run faster?

Do they detect hardware better?

Do they add software application better, or faster, than Debian or Ubuntu?

What are the real advantages?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?