Any Arch Users Here?

Post Reply New Topic

I was actively involved in the Gentoo Linux distribution and held a developer position until it slowly seemed to be dying out and I looked for a project elsewhere. This all happened about a year ago, and eventually I found an amazing distro called Arch Linux.

In essence, Arch Linux is a small installation CD or USB image that installs a basic set of packages and init scripts required to build a system from the ground up, (using binary packages, not source packages like Gentoo.) This allows for a great amount of control and customization for the resulting system while keeping everything simple, and by simple, I mean lean, and elegant. In addition to the main repositories, they have a community maintained repository, and a system that allows you to build packages from source.

Although it's irrelevant, they also have one of the coolest logos of any linux distro.

I hadn't known arch existed until the other day, when I came across a slashdot entry about tracking the progress of revisions through linux distros - there was arch, hovering at the top of the list.

But I don't use it - I don't have the time or interest to keep things up to date on a day by day level. If I can run an eclipse, a firefox and a tomcat, I'm happy.

Whenever I look at a new distro, I have a few questions.

1) How good is hardware support, particularly with proprietary wifi drivers?
2) How extensive are the included repositories, and how good is the package management system? How much am I going to have to track down and compile packages from source, and then keep tabs on updates of that software myself?
3) What real benefits does it have over distros I already know how to use?
4) How up-to-date does it stay?
5) How stable is it?

Whenever I look at a new distro, I have a few questions.

1) How can I screw with it?
2) How extensive are the included repositories? Does it have enough to allow me to make a complete mess of my install. I hope so.
3) What real benefits does it have over distros I already know how to use? I think problems are fun. A good distro is like a guitar, soon to be untuned.
4) How up-to-date does it stay? Will they screw with the stuff I am screwing with? This is the best way to multiply fun.
5) How stable is it? No forget that. How unstable is it?

Whenever I look at a new distro, I have a few questions.

1) How good is hardware support, particularly with proprietary wifi drivers?
Hardware support is very well built in, with the option of installing a custom kernel if you so prefer. The Arch devs have put almost every driver they could find into the repositories, and they were also the first distro to realize that the official ATI linux drivers were ridiculous and ditched them, (they are still available in the community repository.
I have tried Arch on 5 laptops, and got wireless working with all of them.

2) How extensive are the included repositories, and how good is the package management system? How much am I going to have to track down and compile packages from source, and then keep tabs on updates of that software myself?

Over 13,000 packages in main repository, and somehwere over 5,000 in the User Repository. Every major package is covered, however extremely rare ones may need to be tracked down.

3) What real benefits does it have over distros I already know how to use?

1. Because you can make it as clean and unbloated, or messy and bloated as you want, Arch is a potentially very fast and simple distro, (simple as in elegant.)

2.Arch has some of the most extensive and specific user documentation of any distro next to maybe gentoo or OpenSUSE, and a very active and lively forum and IRC channel.

3. Arch has an init script style config system. While this may be a minus for others, there is no GUI to limit the configuration options and therefore allows more flexibility.

4) How up-to-date does it stay?
It is a rolling release system, so packages are always at the latest stable or testing.

5) How stable is it?
You can install any version of a package, from the latest testing, stable, or even older versions for support reasons.

Interesting. My wifi has always been a bit temperamental.


That's bigger than I realized.


I get a bit apprehensive when people have to redefine a term- also, Arch's declaration that it is simple from a developer point of view, rather than a user's point of view, is not reassuring to potential users.


This is a huge plus.

I like Gentoo, but I've been getting frustrated with it so I might give Arch a try on my test machine. Although I primarily use Ubuntu I like to try more complicated distros on my test machine. I'll let you know what I think of it.

Going through Arch's package search function online, it has most of what I need... but it is missing some niche applications that I like, mostly relating to chess. I'd be more likely to stick with Debian just because I already know how to deal with it, especially as they recently updated to kernel 2.6.30, which has significantly improved hardware support for my system and ext4 support. I'm excited for this spring's release of Squeeze as stable, since the short release cycle this time around means that Debian will actually make a stable release that's mostly up-to-date.

Well I couldn't get my test machine to do anything with the Arch disk I burned, so I popped it into my main computer instead and have it on dual-boot with Ubuntu. I must say that I'm really impressed. After my experiences with issues and errors left and right on Gentoo, Arch seems a lot better. Because Arch's pacman doesn't compile everything like Gentoo's portage, I installed and got gnome up and running in a half an hour, as opposed to 30+ hours. The other thing that I like is how pain-free it was getting my ATI drivers working. The catalyst ATI proprietary drivers have always sucked on Linux, and that was about the only choice for my Radeon HD 4850 when I tried Gentoo. Arch has a really nice open source radeon hd driver that I have working perfectly now. I can see why it seems as though Arch is making Gentoo a little less active everyday.

As for the install, I thought it was a little too easy. I actually preferred the way you install Gentoo over Arch because it's a lot more interesting, plus you have compile the kernel right on the spot if you're not using genkernel and I find enjoyment and feel like I'm in control when compiling kernels (although it was a little scary the first time). The thing about Gentoo is, once it's installed, it's downhill from there, whereas it's vice-versa for Arch. I might be using it for quite a while now.

Arch is a great choice for an Ubuntu user who is up for a challenge but doesn't want to be totally frustrated.

Edit: Or at least not frustrated until you realize the inefficiency of the open-source radeonhd driver. This morning, I actually tested a few 3D games that I know would normally work and I got some lag. I suppose I will have to use the proprietary drivers. Hopefully the process won't be as annoying as it was on Gentoo.

Edit again: Finally got around to attempting to install the proprietary drivers. Once I actually started, it turned out to be way easier to set up and the graphics performance is literally 12 times better. I can't remember how well my Radeon HD 4850 worked last time I was on Windows but it must be close to as good as it was. I still really recommend Arch.