3 ms·

Why is arch so popular among switchers? It is not very user friendly and requires manual work to set up unlike, say, ubuntu

by bobsam 10y ago

eptcyka 10y ago
Whilst it may not be easy to setup (but I'd argue it's more tedious than hard), it gets out of your way once it's up and running. And, since it's rolling and not release based, once it's setup, you barely ever have to change anything about it. At least that is why I've chosen to use arch. Well, that and recent GCC releases.
- domenukk 10y ago
  Everytime you upgrade you should check their webpage before, since they sometimes decide to move folders around or break things... Not really out of the way there. (I've been using it for months before I decided it was not for me. Or was it the other way round?)
mod 10y ago
As a developer, I find arch slightly more friendly. Trying to get recent versions of development packages like ruby, java, npm, etc--can be a bitch on Ubuntu, where the repositories lag years behind arch.
- willtim 10y ago
  If you're a developer, make sure you check out NixOS. The ability to install different versions/builds of libraries and packages side-by-side safely and without containers is a huge win. I typically pin my base system at a stable release, using rolling releases for desktop and dev packages (which is possible even if different versions of libc are needed).
asamarin 10y ago
For me, three reasons: - Pacman (with pacaur on top of it) - The Arch Wiki - Bleeding-edge software
AsyncAwait 10y ago
After the initial setup, (which BTW is extremely well documented on the wiki), Arch is actually super user friendly. Compared to Ubuntu, you always get the latest software, never have to reinstall, aur has more esoteric software and pacman is faster than apt.
- johnny22 10y ago
  do you really still have to reinstall Ubuntu on upgrades? or are you using reinstall in a more figurative sense? I use Fedora, and the upgrade process tends to work. I remember there was a time when Ubuntu wasn't so great at upgrades in various situations, but I'd hoped that sort of thing would be fixed by now.
  - AsyncAwait 10y ago
    The Ubuntu upgrade process is still fairly broken if you have anything outside of the default install, but I am glad to hear that it works well enough on Fedora.

Why is arch so popular among switchers? It is not very user friendly and requires manual work to set up unlike, say, ubuntu

by bobsam 10y ago

Why is arch so popular among switchers? It is not very user friendly and requires manual work to set up unlike, say, ubuntu

eptcyka 10y ago

Whilst it may not be easy to setup (but I'd argue it's more tedious than hard), it gets out of your way once it's up and running. And, since it's rolling and not release based, once it's setup, you barely ever have to change anything about it. At least that is why I've chosen to use arch. Well, that and recent GCC releases.

domenukk 10y ago
Everytime you upgrade you should check their webpage before, since they sometimes decide to move folders around or break things... Not really out of the way there. (I've been using it for months before I decided it was not for me. Or was it the other way round?)

mod 10y ago

As a developer, I find arch slightly more friendly. Trying to get recent versions of development packages like ruby, java, npm, etc--can be a bitch on Ubuntu, where the repositories lag years behind arch.

willtim 10y ago
If you're a developer, make sure you check out NixOS. The ability to install different versions/builds of libraries and packages side-by-side safely and without containers is a huge win. I typically pin my base system at a stable release, using rolling releases for desktop and dev packages (which is possible even if different versions of libc are needed).

asamarin 10y ago

For me, three reasons: - Pacman (with pacaur on top of it) - The Arch Wiki - Bleeding-edge software

AsyncAwait 10y ago

After the initial setup, (which BTW is extremely well documented on the wiki), Arch is actually super user friendly. Compared to Ubuntu, you always get the latest software, never have to reinstall, aur has more esoteric software and pacman is faster than apt.

johnny22 10y ago
do you really still have to reinstall Ubuntu on upgrades? or are you using reinstall in a more figurative sense? I use Fedora, and the upgrade process tends to work. I remember there was a time when Ubuntu wasn't so great at upgrades in various situations, but I'd hoped that sort of thing would be fixed by now.
- AsyncAwait 10y ago
  The Ubuntu upgrade process is still fairly broken if you have anything outside of the default install, but I am glad to hear that it works well enough on Fedora.