4 ms·
This "configure and set up everything yourself" bit is overstated. It's not like Ubuntu, or similar batteries-included distros, doesn't require configuration a
by erikbye 9y ago
This "configure and set up everything yourself" bit is overstated.
It's not like Ubuntu, or similar batteries-included distros, doesn't require configuration and tweaking to get it your personal liking, anyway. And it's not like you cannot make choices during installation that affect the final state of your system. The difference between the Arch manual installation process and Ubuntu's is simply that you use a CLI and start a few scripts instead of pointing and clicking.
The amount of configuration necessary is exaggerated, probably by people that want to portray Arch as this expert-user distro. Once you've done e.g. "pacman -S gnome gnome-extra sddm && systemctl enable sddm", you can just boot into your graphical desktop and start using it just the same as Ubuntu, no extra configuration steps needed.
And, like I've said, for the nth time, use Arch-Anywhere to get a similar installation to that of Ubuntu.
I've been very impressed by Arch. Yes, it's a rolling release, so you have to update your system now and then, but this is a good thing--install once and run an up-to-date system for years on end. Unlike Ubuntu, which is outdated already on install, and if you want to upgrade, good luck with that process if you've installed a sundry of packages. Eventually, with an Ubuntu system, I've always started suffering from package-related problems, breakage, dependency issues, etc.
I won't detail all the problems I've had with other distros, suffice to say I've had none of those using Arch.
These supposed to "just work" distros haven't lived up to that in my experience.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago"Yes, it's a rolling release, so you have to update your system now and then, but this is a good thing--install once and run an up-to-date system for years on end." In my experience, this also lets the system collect all kinds of cruft over time, which can definitely impact stability and predictability when it comes to updates, unless you're extremely vigilant about housekeeping.
- skummetmaelk 9y agoA pacman -Syu a day keeps the doctor away. As long as you remember to check the website for manual intervention requirements....
- KozmoNau7 9y agoWhich is exactly my point. Put off updating for a couple of weeks because you're got better things to do? You may end up borking your system unwittingly. Not subscribed to the Arch news feed and intimately familiar with the packages installed on your system? You may end up borking your system unwittingly. Arch is good for dedicated power users, who want to tinker around. But most of us just want to get stuff done, not mess with the OS.
- erikbye 9y agoStop perpetuating this myth that you have to mess around and tinker to keep Arch in working condition. It's one update command, and it's not something you need to do daily. You can put it off for weeks, all that will happen is you'll have a bigger download. I use Arch exactly because I want to get shit done. My way.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoI ran Arch for ~9 years, and there were several cases of OS/boot-breaking updates, requiring me to boot from a USB stick and manually fix things when the updates decided to shit all over the system. Having to manually cross-reference an update list with a list of "oh damn, you need to do these manual steps or you'll break everything" errata from the Arch news feed is not my idea of a good time. The only reason the Arch forums are so informative, is because people run into stupid issues on a regular basis. Mint updates itself and gets out of my way. That makes it ideal for actually getting shit done.
- erikbye 9y agoYMMV. Mint packages tend to be quite old, even older than Ubuntu. This is no good if you want to run close to, or, upstream versions, which Arch excels at. Of course, you can install software not using your package manager, but that defeats the point of having centralized package management in the first place and can cause problems.