3 ms·

It's something you kinda have to try to actually feel the difference. I can tell you a few things I noticed after a few months of use: -Pacman (their package m

It's something you kinda have to try to actually feel the difference. I can tell you a few things I noticed after a few months of use: -Pacman (their package manager) is amazing - and if you want to install community packages from the AUR[0], you can use yaourt (if they've got dependencies on other AUR packages), or just git clone the package and run makepkg -si I've never had any problems with it, and I've messed around a lot with my system. -No bloat at all, you'll learn a whole lot from setting up your own system -No choices are made for you, it's yours and yours alone. -It's actually surprisingly stable, though you should be careful before you upgrade. -It's always bleeding edge (maybe not always a good thing, hence you have to think before upgrading packages) I have to read the article now though. [0]https://aur.archlinux.org/ https://aur.archlinux.org/

fareesh 9y ago
Feels like it's great for hobbyists and enthusiasts. I use Ubuntu LTS as my primary desktop OS for work. It sounds like my work would slow down a lot if I had to worry about this other stuff all the time. Maybe I'll install it on an extra drive at some point and tinker with it.
KozmoNau7 9y ago
"No bloat at all" Is this really, honestly a problem anymore? I'm running Linux Mint 18.2 on my 2011-vintage refurbed T420 (4GB RAM, 320GB old-fashioned hard drive) and it feels every bit as speedy as Arch on the same machine.
diffeomorphism 9y ago
> pacman is amazing From a user point of view, how would you notice this "amazingness"? Having used yum, dnf, zypper, apt-get, apt, emerge and also pacman for a while I only saw very superficial differences and maybe formatting. (packaging is different,yes, but usage? Also speed is apples to oranges and "pretty" output I don't really care for.) > no bloat at all. _Any distro_ does that. Either use the netinstall or open the archinstall guide and replace pacstrap by debootstrap. Heck, for opensuse you even get the full package manager during installation and can select/deselect any package you want. How is arch any different? > surprisingly stable, though you should be careful before you upgrade. So much less stable than, say, debian testing.

fareesh 9y ago

Feels like it's great for hobbyists and enthusiasts. I use Ubuntu LTS as my primary desktop OS for work. It sounds like my work would slow down a lot if I had to worry about this other stuff all the time. Maybe I'll install it on an extra drive at some point and tinker with it.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

"No bloat at all" Is this really, honestly a problem anymore? I'm running Linux Mint 18.2 on my 2011-vintage refurbed T420 (4GB RAM, 320GB old-fashioned hard drive) and it feels every bit as speedy as Arch on the same machine.

diffeomorphism 9y ago

> pacman is amazing From a user point of view, how would you notice this "amazingness"? Having used yum, dnf, zypper, apt-get, apt, emerge and also pacman for a while I only saw very superficial differences and maybe formatting. (packaging is different,yes, but usage? Also speed is apples to oranges and "pretty" output I don't really care for.) > no bloat at all. _Any distro_ does that. Either use the netinstall or open the archinstall guide and replace pacstrap by debootstrap. Heck, for opensuse you even get the full package manager during installation and can select/deselect any package you want. How is arch any different? > surprisingly stable, though you should be careful before you upgrade. So much less stable than, say, debian testing.