4 ms·

An Arch system with defaults is not an Arch system. The beauty of Arch is that you set it up from head to toe, so you only have the things you need most. And i

An Arch system with defaults is not an Arch system. The beauty of Arch is that you set it up from head to toe, so you only have the things you need most. And if something breaks, you're more likely to be able to fix it. Accept no substitute. Vanilla Arch forever. (I accept that some people don't care about how the sausages are made. In that case, use Fedora or Debian or Ubuntu, in order of similarity to Arch.)

timlyo 11y ago
I use antergos. It has everything I want from Arch (up to date packages, systemd, AUR) but I don't have to spend all the time configuring Arch.
freekh 11y ago
Not sure why this downvoted? This is precisely the reason I went with Arch too: it is nothing more than a package system, systemd and a huge wiki that lets you grok how everything works. For everybody else there's a huge amount of distros that does the job fine (better?) without having the hassle of having to know how things are configured and what not...
- tdkl 11y ago
  I see those "distros" for certain kind of people. They installed Arch manually once or twice, liked the result and got comfortable with it. Now they want to get the install part out of their way and just get to the usable system. This "you're using it wrong" in Linux environment baffles me. > without having the hassle of having to know how things are configured and what not Really ? User doesn't need to know how to set and fix things on Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian ? Now that's a bold statement.
  - sevensor 11y ago
    Indeed. Since I switched to Arch, I've had to spend far less time fixing stuff than when I used Fedora, which reliably broke every six months whenever I tried to upgrade.
    - freekh 11y ago
      I suppose that says more about Fedora than Arch :) (context: happy with Arch - haven't tried Fedora)
BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
> (I accept that some people don't care about how the sausages are made. In that case, use Fedora or Debian or Ubuntu, in order of similarity to Arch.) Or Apricity? I won't be using this distro, but you've done a seriously poor job of condemning it in favor of some cherry-picked alternatives.
Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
I like Arch. I would love to have it installed on my laptop, but then I don't want to spend the time actually installing and configuring it. I got fed up with that stuff using linux 15 years ago. I remember the days when you had to write your own device drivers. I don't long for them. In fact, I still cry a bit when I think about that day my RedHat 6 install configured eth0 for me. Imagine: Plugging a network cable in, and it just works! The future is here! I use Arch for my SoC devices (RPi2 and Odroid XU-4), and for that it is hard to beat. I install what I need, configure it and then forget about it. But for a desktop? I didn't get a computer so that I could spend an hour getting WIFI to work the way I want. I have built LFS more than a dozen times, I used gentoo for the better part of a decade (back in the days when linux actually was harder to use than osx/windows). I don't have to prove myself worthy any more. Give me an easy way to setup arch with stuff like X, network-manager and media hotkeys working out of the box and I'd switch any day. So: arch is a very nice distro, but online it has somewhat become what gentoo was in the early 2000: an e-penis enlarger. The only thing it proves is that you have the time and knows how to copy and paste commands from the arch wiki.
- ProfDreamer 11y ago
  Out of curiosity: What do you have installed on your laptop instead?
  - Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
    A bit of everything during the last couple of years. After Gentoo, which was my distro of choice for a long time, I used frugalware, which is slackware-ish but with pacman and an "easy" installer. Then I got a laptop and a 3g USB modem which would only work properly with NetworkManager, so I went around between distros that packaged it (Fedora, Ubuntu). Now I run emacs on CentOS 7. I only do security updates and have been using guix to handle userspace (Userspace = mostly emacs). For work I have an Ubuntu laptop. We code pascal, so I almost never leave the GUI. After configuring Unity I actually like it a lot. I might switch to ubuntu on their next LTS release (which, after all the kinks are worked out, will be 16.04 + ~4 months)
- _yy 11y ago

timlyo 11y ago

I use antergos. It has everything I want from Arch (up to date packages, systemd, AUR) but I don't have to spend all the time configuring Arch.

freekh 11y ago

Not sure why this downvoted? This is precisely the reason I went with Arch too: it is nothing more than a package system, systemd and a huge wiki that lets you grok how everything works. For everybody else there's a huge amount of distros that does the job fine (better?) without having the hassle of having to know how things are configured and what not...

tdkl 11y ago
I see those "distros" for certain kind of people. They installed Arch manually once or twice, liked the result and got comfortable with it. Now they want to get the install part out of their way and just get to the usable system. This "you're using it wrong" in Linux environment baffles me. > without having the hassle of having to know how things are configured and what not Really ? User doesn't need to know how to set and fix things on Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian ? Now that's a bold statement.
- sevensor 11y ago
  Indeed. Since I switched to Arch, I've had to spend far less time fixing stuff than when I used Fedora, which reliably broke every six months whenever I tried to upgrade.
  - freekh 11y ago
    I suppose that says more about Fedora than Arch :) (context: happy with Arch - haven't tried Fedora)

BHSPitMonkey 11y ago

> (I accept that some people don't care about how the sausages are made. In that case, use Fedora or Debian or Ubuntu, in order of similarity to Arch.) Or Apricity? I won't be using this distro, but you've done a seriously poor job of condemning it in favor of some cherry-picked alternatives.

Johnny_Brahms 11y ago

I like Arch. I would love to have it installed on my laptop, but then I don't want to spend the time actually installing and configuring it. I got fed up with that stuff using linux 15 years ago. I remember the days when you had to write your own device drivers. I don't long for them. In fact, I still cry a bit when I think about that day my RedHat 6 install configured eth0 for me. Imagine: Plugging a network cable in, and it just works! The future is here! I use Arch for my SoC devices (RPi2 and Odroid XU-4), and for that it is hard to beat. I install what I need, configure it and then forget about it. But for a desktop? I didn't get a computer so that I could spend an hour getting WIFI to work the way I want. I have built LFS more than a dozen times, I used gentoo for the better part of a decade (back in the days when linux actually was harder to use than osx/windows). I don't have to prove myself worthy any more. Give me an easy way to setup arch with stuff like X, network-manager and media hotkeys working out of the box and I'd switch any day. So: arch is a very nice distro, but online it has somewhat become what gentoo was in the early 2000: an e-penis enlarger. The only thing it proves is that you have the time and knows how to copy and paste commands from the arch wiki.

ProfDreamer 11y ago
Out of curiosity: What do you have installed on your laptop instead?
- Johnny_Brahms 11y ago
  A bit of everything during the last couple of years. After Gentoo, which was my distro of choice for a long time, I used frugalware, which is slackware-ish but with pacman and an "easy" installer. Then I got a laptop and a 3g USB modem which would only work properly with NetworkManager, so I went around between distros that packaged it (Fedora, Ubuntu). Now I run emacs on CentOS 7. I only do security updates and have been using guix to handle userspace (Userspace = mostly emacs). For work I have an Ubuntu laptop. We code pascal, so I almost never leave the GUI. After configuring Unity I actually like it a lot. I might switch to ubuntu on their next LTS release (which, after all the kinks are worked out, will be 16.04 + ~4 months)
_yy 11y ago