4 ms·

Don't be so sure - I used to be an Arch guy because I loved their dead simple config, everything in rc.conf, etc. One of the big pushes for arch early on was th

Don't be so sure - I used to be an Arch guy because I loved their dead simple config, everything in rc.conf, etc. One of the big pushes for arch early on was that it was BSD-like. Arch progressively lost this feature and was one of the first distros to adopt systemd which was the last nail in Arch's coffin. When their docs suggested I manually write a unit file to configure networking rather than having 1 line in rc.conf, I was done. My move was to go to FreeBSD. I feel like I'm right back to what I liked about Arch originally. So yeah, I'm sure some people are well served by making this move.

kevinmgranger 10y ago
>the last nail in Arch's coffin Has Arch dropped in popularity since then, or do you mean "in Arch's coffin [for me]" ?
- toyg 10y ago
  Total anecdata, but the usual amount of HN comments on how this and that "just works" in Arch, seems to have dropped recently. It's still #9 on Distrowatch (I'm pretty sure at one point it was in the top 5), so it's not disbanded or anything. I could see how the core Arch users would despise systemd anyway. For all protestations to the contrary, Arch is pretty hardcore ("all upstream all the time! Configure everything yourself!"). Hardcore old-hat sysadmins are the ones most affected by systemd reinventing the init wheel.
PeCaN 10y ago
Ha, I did exactly the same thing. FreeBSD is well-organized and generally makes sense. It stays out of the way and just works. BSD documentation culture is also second-to-none. Seriously, the manual for every BSD is incredible. FreeBSD's cousin DragonFlyBSD is also (IMO) doing some of the most interesting research in Unix-like OSes right now. It's a sort of hybrid of FreeBSD and Plan9, with a cutting-edge-and-more-stable-than-btrfs filesystem.