- Digg It :::
- Slashdot It
By : vasanth
Arch Linux, which was inspired by the CRUX is an i686 optimized lightweight distribution with a great package management tool. Arch releases usually contain a core cd image (~160 MB) that has a core system without any graphical servers and an FTP install image (~30 MB) with which you can install the entire OS from an FTP server. I decided to try arch as it seems to be one of the fastest and highly customizable distribution around(The real reason was since arch seems to be more of a "geek's distro" , I thought I could check my "geek level" with it :) ). I chose the FTP install image for two reasons. Firstly, I never tried an FTP install before and secondly with FTP install, you do not have to update your system after the installation as you fetch the latest packages at the time of installation itself. The laptop I used for this review is the DELL inspiron 6400 with 1680x1050 WSXGA+, 256MB mobility radeon X1400 and a bcm43xx lan/wlan card.
Installation:
I booted the system using the FTP image and the text based installer opted for the installation source (CD/FTP,HTTP). I chose FTP and it presented the following options.
- Network Configuration
- Prepare Hard disk
- Select Packages
- Install Packages
- Configure System
- Boot Loader Installation
- Exit Install
Network Configuration:
This step does not require you to be a geek as even after the normal installation, you need to give the Internet connection details like DHCP/IP, DNS etc. If all the information provided by you are correct then you get a message "Network Configured".
Prepare Hard disk:
The installer can automatically partition the disk or you can do it manually . Manual partitioning is done with the help of cfdisk, a curses-based equivalent of Mandriva's partition utility except for not being able to resize a partition. After I partitioned I was asked to set the mount points but arch did not automatically select the existing swap partition. I set the mount points for swap as well as root.The supported file systems for root are ExT2/3, reiserfs, XFS, JFS and vfat. You can also add additional partitions like /home but I did not do so.
Select Packages:
After partitioning, you have to select an FTP mirror and the package groups such as base, libraries and support. I chose the 'base' group alone and it downloaded the package list from the FTP mirror.
Install Packages:
This step downloaded around 100 MB of packages and installed the base system. The virtual console tty5 showed the download/install progress.
Configure System:
Till this step you do not need to be a geek but to some, this step can be frightening. You can always refer to the document archdoc.txt which explains the whole installation process if you need some help. This step showed me the important configuration files such as /etc/rc.conf, /etc/fstab, /etc/locale.gen etc. I did not edit any of these files as there was no need. I set the root password and selected the arch mirror for post install usage.
The next step allowed me to choose the boot loader and I installed GRUB on my MBR. The grub did not add my existing Mint, Sidux, PCLOS and I did not expect arch to do so since arch is all about KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). After this I rebooted my system and it booted into the console login.
Installing X server, KDE and KDE goodies:
I had no idea how to install these but all I knew was pacman was there which is as good as apt-get. So I rebooted into my mint to know more about pacman.
pacman:
The best part of Arch is pacman (at least for me). Pacman is a package management system which maintains the compressed pkg files. If you know the basic options of pacman you do not need a GUI tool for package management. The important options of pacman are,
- -S Synchronize ( find the dependencies)
- -u Lists all packages that are out of date on the local system
- -y Refresh the package list with the server
- -R Remove an application
- -Q Query for an application
- -U Upgrade/Add packages
pacman -Syu -- This updates all the packages to its latest version available in the server.
pacman -S package-name(s) install the package name with all its dependencies.
I used lynx (yes lynx) to read the Xorg installation guide and from there I was able to navigate to installing KDE , ATI driver.
The 'pacman -S xorg ' installed xorg and I created an initial configuration file using 'xorgconfigure'. The 'startx' command displayed the x terminal so it was time to configure my mobility radeon X1400. The default installation of X used the vesa driver but I installed the Catalyst 7.12 using the 'pacman -S catalyst'. The 'pacman -S KDE' installed KDE . I then added the kdm in the daemons section in /etc/rc.conf.
I rebooted the system expecting a full 1680x1050 resolution KDE desktop but I got only 1280x1024. As per this post, there seemed to be a problem with the 7.12 driver and hence I downgraded my driver to 7.11 and rebooted the system.
After the reboot, I was able to get the native resolution and the 'glxinfo' confirmed that X was using 'fglrx'. The scrolling in the touch pad was not working . As per arch's wiki, I downloaded synaptics driver and modified the xorg.conf using 'aticonfig --initial'. After a X server restart the scrolling worked without a glitch.
I was able to configure my bcm43xx wlan card but the front panel buttons on my inspiron were not working. There is a guide ( which I missed to refer before I started my installation) for configuring inspiron 6400. As per this guide I was supposed to for find key codes and set key codes etc. But I found a solution for my front panel buttons. I opened the KDE control center->Keyboard map and chose the "Dell Inspiron 6400" as my keyboard map and then the buttons worked.
As all my hardware was configured , it was then time to install the necessary applications. The 'pacman -S vlc mplayer amarok-base ntfs-3g k3b firefox' installed the applications I needed.
The package versions at the time of installation were:
- Kernel 2.6.23.12
- Xorg 1.4.0.9
- KDE 3.5.8
- firefox 2.0.0.11
- Open Office 2.3.1
I was able to play the media files without any problems but when I
opened k3b it showed the missing packages. Installing dvd+rw-tools
solved this problem.
When I tried to open vlc, I got the "cannot set locale to." message. As per the installation guide, I modified the locale configuration file and did a 'locale.gen' and the error message was gone.
The KDM theme manager(V1.2.2-1) in the KDE control center had some bug which did not allow me to change the KDM theme and whenever I tried to change the theme it crashed. I have submitted a bug( 9127) in the arch bug tracking system(flyspray). But you can always downgrade the kdmtheme package to avoid this problem.
The usb devices when connected was not mounted automatically. Again with the help of arch's wiki I installed HAL and added into rc.conf. I stared HAL manually and now the NTFS usb drive was detected and used the ntfs-3g driver to mount it.
After some surfing, I found that KDEMod is the preferred way of installing KDE. So I removed the KDE and QT components as per their instruction and added the KDEMod repository to /etc/pacman.conf. The 'pacman -S kdemod-complete' installed the complete KDE suite. If you are a KDE fan then instead of installing/configuring KDE and adding the components such as HAL, you can install KDEMod which will do everything for you. I tried a separate install of arch with KDEMod and it was very easier than installing KDE. I installed Arch in a separate partition just to check how easy it is to install KDEMod.
I did not want to download the packages once again during my second install of Arch as I had all the xorg, kdemod and kde application packages downloaded during the first install itself. I copied all the 'pkg' files from my existing arch installation(/var/cache/pacman/pkg) to the current installations cache directory during the 'install packages' step and it worked perfectly(saved me a lot of bandwidth and time as I have a 256kbps connection :) ). This made me to consider pacman as one of the best package manager around.
The only problem with arch is that when I close the laptop lid it does not power off the display. I installed 'acpid' and 'pm-utils' and as per the acpi log, acpi event called the 'aticonfig --set-powerstate=low' but not sure why it did not work. Also there was a problem with 'gtk' file save dialog box. When I double clicked on the 'root' icon, all the directory/file listing were duplicated but with a single click this did not happen. The XGL/AIGLX eye candy did not work for me even after following the wiki's guide.
If you are looking for a package which is not found in the pacman repositories, you can always look into AUR(ArchLinux User-community Repository). All you need to do is search for the package in AUR, download the PKGBUILD script and pass it to makepkg command. This will download all the dependencies (if any) and install the package.
Arch is the fastest ever distribution I have tried so far. The boot process as well as the applications were noticeably fast. As all the applications and kernel modules are chosen by you , you get the fastest and slickest desktop.
Arch's Advantages:
- Pacman package manager
- Highly customizable
- Fast
- Bleeding edge(and stable) packages
- Well documented installation manual
- Highly active user forums
- During installation and configuration arch makes you understand some of the Linux's working mechanisms such as init scripts, xorg configuration, kernel modules. After a successful installation and configuration you feel like you have archived something :) .
Arch's Disadvantages:
- None (Except installing arch may not be easy for a first time Linux user)
Conclusion:
Arch Linux is not at all a geek's distribution as I have not found any installation, configuring problems. All it takes is you have to make use of the well documented wiki and user forums. Arch may not be suitable for the first time Linux user but if you had already installed and used a Linux variant then I highly recommend trying arch.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
been using arch for a while now after trying pretty much all of the other distros and i totally agree with this article. it seems to be the most simple and fast and easy to use.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
not a bad review, I stumbled upon Arch a while ago and have used it ever since, it is so fast and easy to use, I can't believe it's still not very popular.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
good review. I use Ubuntu and I'm a Unix admin. That may be a simple for some, but your not gonna convert the Windows user the linux with that type of dist GO UBUNTU!
KISS
Nice review,
but 'KISS' stands rather for 'Keep It Simple, Stupid!'
and not for 'Keep It Simple and Stupid'.
Arch for Windows Users
Arch is not intended to be a Windows clone. It is designed for performance. If you want to convert Windows users, it's probably not the right distro. Windows users first have to unlearn all the things they know from Windows, then they can use Arch.
Arch for Windows Users
Well, on one hand you might be right. On another - once upon a time a tried SuSe, quite polished distro, nice, but it lasted on my box for one week only... it was miserably slow, in comparison
with Windows98SE that time. I was really disappointed, and did not try Linux for a couple of years. Then I found VectorLinux - amazing, fast and responsible distro, but a little bit primitive IMHO.
Tried Gentoo - I mastered installation, no problem if you are able to read instructions. However I was not totally impressed. When I tried Ubuntu, it lasted on my desktop only till the end of installation, untill I recognized that it messed up my WindowsXP.
I'm still using Windows (by the way - Vista, and as Windows system I'm quite happy with it, would not buy it myself, but it came with the new box). Next stop - PCLOS, which I still expect is the very best distro for guys who are not interested in the details,
how the things work, and who don't want/need highly customized and optimized system. Oh yes, and then, two years ago I found Arch, the distro which really converted me to Linux (well, I will use Windows until there will be Linux versions of AdobeCS, CorelDrawSuite,
MindManager, EndNote/ReferenceManager, not to mention dozen of professional soft which I need all the time - I don't need this soft for free, I just need it under Linux). And Arch is my distro since that time, never looked for something else. Now about Windows-converts...
My approach to such guys is following: I put PCLOS on their box, they are quite happy and impressed, and then I show them my Arch installs... I show them what Linux really could be... And I'm telling them how much of their time it might take... You know, some of them are interested
to give a try. This is all about mentality. If somebody wants to give Linux a try, there should be a reason behind. Money? Come on, they get their box with Windows installed, they are happy, they don't want to pay for MSOffice - they download OpenOffice, Firefox, etc., for free. If somebody would like
seriously to try Linux, he is probably already interested in OS. Therefore I don't think that Arch is wrong distro for Windows-converts. And by the way - one should not underestimate the knowledge and 'geekiness' of Windows users. In some aspects, like cracking registrations of Windows and other soft, they are
extremely skilled!
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Not a bad review. I'd always loved the philosophy of Gentoo, but the compile times and ease with which I broke the system always killed that enthusiasm. I have found Arch fantastic, and it has in fact given me the least issues of any recent distro, so many try to be a jack of all trades, but forget about the (master of none) clause that is often attached. By having a minimal install, the chances of being unable to boot the install disc are next to zero, and by installing things one at a time it provides a great opportunity to troubleshoot.
Anyone considering using Arch should also remember that once you have a working rc.conf and xorg.conf, make a backup of them. Having a known working copy of those two can get your install time down to next to nothing, mostly just downloading packages then.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
I tried Arch for about 6 months, coming from Slackware. I finally gave up on it and moved back to Slack. Arch was just not stable enough for me, the compile options on a number of apps didn't meet my requirements, and it was more trouble to manage than Slack (even though I have to compile about half my apps under slackware.).
So Arch is not the answer for every Linux geek. :)
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Arch was the distro which converted me to Linux, too.
And it is not designed with being "easy to use" as priority, so don't rant about that, please...
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Larry: did you look into the PKGBUILD system? While it is first and foremost a binary distro, building from source is conveniently provided through the PKGBUILD system and AUR, much like Gentoo's ebuild setup. If you really need to compile that many apps yourself, chances are you're probably never going to find a binary distro that is up to your standards, but Arch doesn't try to hide the ability to compile from source, so probably not too bad a compromise.
Stability on rolling release distros will always be an issue if you're trying to upgrade every package all the time. It is a bleeding edge distro, and if you try to keep it that way you're going to get cut eventually, while the community is absolutely fantastic, there aren't that many testers, so occasionally bugs slip through. It is just plain common sense that you should put a few core packages in /etc/pacman.conf such as xorg and video drivers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Mick, yes I did use abs and PKGBUILDs. They are excellent tools, but no better than Slackware's SlackBuilds and src2pkg.
The main reason I wanted to try Arch was the ability to easily update my system using pacman. I also wanted to be able to pick a stable kernel release, and stay with that kernel release. Arch's insistance on listing the latest, greatest kernel (and kernel headers!) as a dependency made that extremely difficult. So I went back to Slack.
Different strokes for different folks, that's all. Stability matters more to me than the ease of upgrading.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
I am a long time Gentoo user (really a geek distro!)
and because of my hardware, I suppose, could not
even install Arch. The Grub installer completely failed.
So, although I have also used CRUX, on which Arch is
based, unfortunately I can't try Arch. I know why
the install failed, but I am not in a position to change
my hardware configuration at this time, so will
have to wait. The distro looks promising though, so I
may give it another shot someday.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Good review
By : Paul - 23-January-2008 12:39:30 PM
Dear Paul, perhaps I'm not the geekiest ArchLinux guy, but nevertheless interested: could you be so kind to specify HARDWARE on which You failed with Arch???
You 'know, once upon a time I had hardware-related problems with PCLOS.... was trying to convert Windows user (I still use dual boot, till there is Linux version
of AdobeCS3, CorelDraw, MindManager, VectorNTI, DNasis,
EndNote/ReferenceManager,... the list goes on...) ... but I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH ARCHLINUX!!!!
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Thank you all for your comments.
Randy: Ubuntu lasted only to the end of installation???
which version did you try?. Ubuntu seems to be the preferred
version for the first time linux user and IMHO it makes
many things easy and one of the best laptop friendly distro out there.
Yes,the lack of applications/games is the biggest problem in Linux adoption.
I was hoping someone would answer for the 'closing the laptop lid
does not power off the display' issue :).
I too tried gentoo once but Sabayon makes me not to try it again.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Randy,
My hardware is an Asus A7v600 MB and I have 2 SATA
drives, one running Debian and the other WIndows 2000.
A third drive is IDE and holds an EXT3 FS and my linux backups.
I have been using this platform with numerous distros and the only one
that has issues is Debian - it always sees my IDE drive as the first drive
no matter what. I have to manually configure grub.conf for the right
drive designations after installation.
Gentoo installs perfectly, Suse, Fedora, PCLinuxOS,
you name it, I've installed it. Arch flat out bombs at the Grub install,
no idea why. It's the only distro that has done that, with the exception
of CRUX, but that was years back. I know Arch is based on CRUX. I cannot
remember what the specific problem with the CRUX grub install was, but I thought
it was, at the time anyway, kernel related because SATA was new then.
vasanth - Gentoo is not an easy install, in comparison
to distos with installers, but I really like it because
it allows me to tweak. I can get a stage 3 Gentoo install running in
a couple of hours, but the desktop and application builds take a couple of days...
No patience in my old age :-)
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Sorry to nitpick, but Arch is not based on CRUX,
nor any other distro. According to Judd Vinet,
founder of Arch, it was 'inspired by CRUX principles'
but was made from scratch. :)
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Paul: if you're really wanting to try out Arch, this *MAY* work.. just an idea I had.
1.) Go ahead and install Arch as you normally would, taking note of the partition scheme you use.
2.) Download and burn a livecd
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Paul: I successfully installed Gentoo(stage 3 Internet install).Sure not an easy one.
Arch was really easy to install compared to Gentoo :). I'll write a review of my gentoo experience.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
ArchLinux is the first and only linux distro I've ever used longer than a few days.
I went from WinXP straight to ArchLinux 3 years ago and am still using Archlinux now as main OS, on multiple PCs.
It's a perfect distro for a software developer who wants to use his PC to develop on, not to maintain the OS. Archlinux requires less maintanance than Windows AND other distros.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Sorry about the Arch mistake - thought I'd read it was based on CRUX.
Appreciate the correction! As much as the distro interests me,
I can't imagine a modern disto in that has trouble with
a grub install. Not trying to slam Arch by any means,
I just think the bootloader install should work out of the box.
Anyway, pretty happy with Debian testing/unstable at the moment.
Decided against spending a week with Gentoo again because
even after a week's worth of tweaking and compiling, it still
isn't any faster than my Debian testing box, and you
flat out can't beat Apt for package management.
Maybe one of these days I'll give Arch a spin again. I never can
stay with one distro too long...:-)
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Paul:
"You flat out can't beat Apt for package management."
I Personally I agree.
No other package management has satisfied me more than Apt.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Yes, very nice article. Ubuntu was my first Linux desktop O/S.
Until, I read about Arch. Tried it and never looked back.
Yes, there is a learning curve with Arch, but I think an intermediate
Linux user can get the hang of it. Plus, the Archlinux Wiki rivals the Ubuntu Wiki.
All you need to know is in there.
For me, its been rock solid, I've had zero problems with it.
On my Dell laptop, everything works, wireless, dual monitors, USB,
Browse Windows network shares, etc. I use Fluxbox as my window manager
and Arch just screams past Ubuntu in performance. The Archlinux philosphy sits very well
with me. Install just the base O/S, install and configure ONLY what you need.
If you're ready to move to the next level from Ubuntu, I recommend Archlinux.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Don: I think the ArchWiki is better than the *buntu one. It has the answers to more problems I have.
Paul: Try not installing Grub, and then adding the menu item in debians bootloader. I did that on my first install and it worked wonderfully (my box then was Ubuntu/Gentoo/WinXP).
Shingo: I beg to differ on that, but different strokes for different folks, right?
Arch is awesome! I can't stay with one DE for long, so I have FVWM/E17/KDE4.1 on my box right now running Arch and (unfortunately) soon WinXP.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Ihave just switched from Ubuntu to Arch. I really like this distro.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Hi Paul,
I've had a similar problem with my Linux Mint install. I have 2 hard drives, 1 a SATA HDD (windows installed), and IDE HDD. While the Sata HDD is the primary (first) hard drive to be detected in Windows. Linux Mint selects the IDE drive as the first. Hence when you install grub, it can't find the loader. All I had to do was to change the drive details in device.map (/boot/grub/device.map).
For e.g. I installed grub on hd0. Which according to Mint was /dev/sda. Whereas it should have been /dev/sdb (the SATA drive). I just had to change it to (hd0) /dev/sdb and it worked fine.
Cheers!
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
"Arch is not intended to be a Windows clone. It is designed for performance. If you want to convert Windows users, it's probably not the right distro. Windows users first have to unlearn all the things they know from Windows, then they can use Arch."
I agree with the following catch: Windows users don't need to unlearn anything about how to use a computer, they haven't learned anything to begin with!
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Interesting forum here, I may be giving arch linux
a try in the near future. I've tried many distros and
have always come back to slackware. From what I've read
of the Arch install process, it seems that slackware
might actually be a little easier, perhaps it's just that
I"m used to it. I've got slackware 10.1 and 12.1 installed
on two different machines. The recent slackware 12
install only took about an hour, and it's running great
on an old compaq deskpro 500 mhz machine with 128
megs RAM I found in an old abandoned building. Everything
works 99% 'out of the box', I prefer the KDE desktop.
Other notable slackware based distros I like are slax, Vector Linux
and Zenwalk. Don't mean to get off topic, but Arch
definitely sounds worth a try.
I have been 'windows free' for almost a year and a half
now, except on the rare occaisons when I boot to
DOS 7/ win98 to play some classic DOS games.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro...
i've been playing the last fiew months with arch and gentoo, among other distros.
actually i started with ubuntu and derivatives, then moved to gentoo (and tried funtoo which is a gentoo variant maintained by daniel robbins, gentoo's first developer) and now I'm on archlinux. What I can say at this point, is that it all falls to one's priorities and aims behind choosing a distro over another. Installing a desktop on gentoo for a newcomer is damn good way to learn about linux. The only problem, is gentoo's learning curve doesn't stop there, and one should develop a set of good practices to maintain the OS stable and it's time consuming and not something affordable on an everyday workstation.
arch is the best alternative I found till now for an easy to install/maintain system. The only problem, is as some mentionned here, stability. from time to time, the system may hang on startup, or a system upgrade pulls in a new version of xorg that requires new settings to be added.
but on the whole arch fits most of what I expect of KISS os :
-easy install of the base system
-easy install of the desktop
-easy maintenance (with the mentionned reserves about statbility)
and all of this is the front of reliable package management system.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
I started with Ubuntu.. but i felt gnome was a lil too heavy.. so i moved to Kubuntu.. and i loved KDE.. Then i used fedora 10. but i wasn't satisfied.. I wanted a distro that gives users a 'bottom-to-top' approach. Came along Arch.. :) And I'm living with it happily..
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Well, this is refreshing. Typically whenever I have seen an Arch review, the comments are all Fanboi rants taking issue with any hint of negativity about the distro. These are much more balanced comments. Personally, I have hopped around quite a bit, and do like Arch, but more for fun than work (ie if I need a rare package for work, it's usually not the time to build it). I found the install more difficult than most say, but that is because I had to do it with only wireless (let me just comment that copying firmware over is MUCH easier if you already have X installed, which of course you don't with Arch until you have internet!). I do like the rolling release, and the build service, but I don't find that it runs any faster than Xubuntu or Zenwalk (my two current favs) on my laptop. I have never really understood all the negativity towards the *buntus, though. They're great distributions. And I don't think they "hide" anything from you. If you want to know what's happening under the hood, all you have to do is look. It is open source after all...
One downside of the rolling release model: no release day excitement (Christmas comes twice a year in Ubuntuland)
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
I don't think beginners should shy away from Arch. I've been running Linux for a week now and I believe that the 3 hard days I spent on building and installing my ethernet driver have paid off. Arch is like a hands on study course.
I love it because I prefer installing rather than uninstalling. Maybe there'll come a time when I will try other distros, but atm I'm more than happy with what I've got.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Are there any distros--based on Arch--that come with all the 'unfree' codecs and whatnot?
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
@Adam C. Sieracki:
This could help.
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=50779
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Try Chakra live CD based on ARCH. though this is alpha one- has all the bell and whistle 'Shaman' the front end for the pacman is greatest package manager(no offense to synaptic).. I am eagerly awaiting it full release..
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
Good review, but I disagree with the conclusion: "not at all a geek's distribution as I have not found any installation, configuring problems". You're saying that a distro has to be difficult to install in order to be a geek's distro. I really disagree with this. Arch _is_ a geek's distro, simply by merit of it being minimalist, manually configurable, etc....]
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek's distro?
@ Anon:
In my opinion, Gentoo is a geek's distro because it can be as complicated as you want it to be. Arch requires the user a bit capable than an average desktop user.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
arch is a geek distro its just as capable as gentoo except that you dont have to compile things if you don't want to ;)
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
Great thread and most insightful observations! ............. I am a Linux/Windows convert ....... and because of the acquisition of a P4 clunker I decided to try a dual boot Windows/Linux setup using Win XP and Arch Linux! ........ failed miserably but learned an lot about the Arch Linux Distro in the process! .......... decided to start over and install a standalone Arch Linux O/S! ..... and I have to say that as a Windows user with no previous experience with a Linux Distro I have achieved a fully functioning and stable O/S and I can see the day when I will be saying "Bye" to Windows! ........... just wish Canon would lend a little more support to the Linux platform with their Printer Drivers! ........
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
I have just installed Arch on one of my staff's home laptop. It was seriously slow using Vista Home edition. She is sooo happy, and it only took me minimal effort to set it up, plus some download time. I had to read the wiki to set up her touchpad (gsynaptics required). I tried many linux distros, including centos, gentoo, ubuntu and a bunch of others. Once one learns to install hal immediately, and then xorg, and install a user, the rest of the install is only a matter of choosing the gui and download time. I havent used windows on my home machine now for a long time - and given that I dont play games, I can see no reason for even wanting to. I cant think of a Windows specific program for which there isnt an open source alternative. As for the issue with Ubuntu - I also had a bad experience there with Ubuntu 8. It simply screwed up my machine to the point I swore I would never use it again - and this is on a quad opteron that should have had no problems. Do you need to be a geek? I dont think so. You do need to install hal early on (it should be part of the core install). After that you just need to read the wiki carefully. The wiki is brilliant.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
I have just installed Arch on one of my staff's home laptop. It was seriously slow using Vista Home edition. She is sooo happy, and it only took me minimal effort to set it up, plus some download time. I had to read the wiki to set up her touchpad (gsynaptics required). I tried many linux distros, including centos, gentoo, ubuntu and a bunch of others. Once one learns to install hal immediately, and then xorg, and install a user, the rest of the install is only a matter of choosing the gui and download time. I havent used windows on my home machine now for a long time - and given that I dont play games, I can see no reason for even wanting to. I cant think of a Windows specific program for which there isnt an open source alternative. As for the issue with Ubuntu - I also had a bad experience there with Ubuntu 8. It simply screwed up my machine to the point I swore I would never use it again - and this is on a quad opteron that should have had no problems. Do you need to be a geek? I dont think so. You do need to install hal early on (it should be part of the core install). After that you just need to read the wiki carefully. The wiki is brilliant.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
Discrete mathematics is the study of mathematical structures that are fundamentally discrete rather than continuous. Real numbers and rational numbers have the property that between any two numbers a third can be found, and consequently these numbers vary "smoothly". The objects generally studied in discrete mathematics – such as integers, graphs, and statements in logic[1] – do not vary smoothly in this way, but have distinct, separated values.[2] Discrete mathematics therefore excludes topics in "continuous mathematics" such as calculus and analysis. Alternatively, discrete mathematics can be characterised as the branch of mathematics dealing with countable sets[3] (including rational numbers but not real numbers), but there is no exact, universally agreed, definition of the term.[4] It is more what is excluded (the notions of a continuously varying quantity and related notions) than what is included that describes discrete mathematics. The term finite mathematics is sometimes applied to parts of the field of discrete mathematics, particularly areas relevant to business.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
Gentoo!!!!
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
Yes, it is. Just because a distro is easy
to install for you doesn't mean it's not
a geek's distro. I found it easy to install
as well, but that's because I have been
using Linux for over 10 years now, and I
am an oldschool, dyed-in-the-wool geek.
Take any other distro out there and compare
it to Archlinux. Only a handful could be
correctly called a geek's distro. Fancy-schmancy
distros like Ubuntu or Fedora Core are definitely not
for geeks. Archlinux is a geek's paradise!
Full control over your system, terminal-based
package management, raw, unadulterated access to
configuration details, and a complex build system
that requires research and extra thought to
truly understand and master. Geeks like
me love challenges, especially of the
computer-based variety. Try to show someone
who has only worked with a luser-friendly
distro how to install Archlinux and see
how much of a geek's distro it really is.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
@p0i0s0n0x50:
I agree with you but my point of view is that people should not think Arch as a geek's only distro.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
You say \"since arch is all about
KISS (Keep It Simple and Stupid)\". It\'s keep it simple
, stupid. You should really learn before you write such
things.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
@schaiba:
Yes, and I should have updated it long back. Sorry for that.
Re: Arch Linux - Is this really a geek\'s distro?
I think that Archlinux is user friendly , \'cos it have awesome community, and if u can\'t do it your self > u ask > u get realy fast respond Oo
well that is me , i realy dont want to offend anybody i just put a vote to arch :)
p.p : if anyone is still distro-hopin\' maybe it\'s time to give it a try :-)
Dual boot
Can Wi XP n Arch be installed as dual boot