4 ms·

“Arch is the most ‘Linux-like’ of the three” Say what? Not sure how the other two are any less “Linux-like” than Arch. They’re all Linux, which is about as Lin

by jzb 3y ago

“Arch is the most ‘Linux-like’ of the three” Say what? Not sure how the other two are any less “Linux-like” than Arch. They’re all Linux, which is about as Linux-like as it gets.

jamesTee49 3y ago
[dead]
jeppester 3y ago
I was about to post the same thing. Distros the like of Arch are outliers in a landscape dominated by "batteries included" distros, neither of which are more or less Linux. It's a sentence you would expect from someone with little to no knowledge about Linux.
danielheath 3y ago
As a sysadmin of machines on several distros, IME Arch is the most "linux-like" in that I'm constantly having to figure out obscure errors to make shit work again after an update. No snark: I understand that's largely a result of Arch deliberately pushing decisions down to users rather than deciding for you, appreciate that it's a deliberate decision, and am _very_ glad it exists. I guess if "Linux is about choice" (it's not) then Arch is very Linux-like.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  I tried using Arch for my work machine for a bit. It might be better if I only manually run updates for security stuff, but that's management time I could spend doing my job, not polishing my tools.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- kouteiheika 3y ago
  > As a sysadmin of machines on several distros, IME Arch is the most "linux-like" in that I'm constantly having to figure out obscure errors to make shit work again after an update. This is interesting because it hasn't been my experience at all. IIRC in the last 3 years I only had to fix something after an update once, and that was only because of my own stupidity. I actually find Arch a lot more stable now than when I was using Ubuntu many many years ago, where something would always break after upgrading to a new version. (But maybe Ubuntu's better in this regards nowadays; I don't know.)
  - bsagdiyev 3y ago
    Arch completely broke systemd-boot after a recent update for me on my laptop. After spending half a day trying to figure out how to get it put itself back in to the loader.conf I just put Windows 11 on the laptop. My girlfriend uses the laptop and wouldn't know how to fix this if it happened again. So it still breaks stuff on occasion. Maybe not for you, but it does.
    - Vilian 3y ago
      why tf you put arch on her laptop
    - kouteiheika 3y ago
      Well, I use GRUB for booting since, let's see... well, since I first installed this system, probably something like ~10 years ago, and it just works, never breaks, and I never have to touch it. The parent poster was definitely right that Arch pushes all of the decisions down to the users rather than deciding for you, so I suppose how much it breaks depends on how good your decisions are and how much of a Linux expert you are. I could fix virtually any broken Linux system while blindfolded, so I know how to set it up so that it never breaks and doesn't require any maintenance. This probably explains the difference in our experiences.
- herbst 3y ago
  That's where manjaro hobs in. Nearly as bleeding edge, same repos, AUR but somehow less prone to total system failures on updates.
  - hiccuphippo 3y ago
    But does that make Manajaro less Linux-like? I think FreeBSD is "Linux-like"; Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora and their descendants are all Linux. Maybe the original authors meant Unix-like?
stainablesteel 3y ago
arch comes with a philosophy that is metaphysically more aligned with why people tend to move to linux when they abandon whatever OS they started with i would describe it as more "pure" in that sense, saying its more "linux-like" is oversimplifying
- jzb 3y ago
  Metaphysically? Were you trying for philosophically? Most people I’ve talked to want the freedom that comes with Linux, but also as little pain as possible. Arch isn’t it. There’s a reason Ubuntu became so popular back in the day: it was a free and easy to use into to desktop Linux. Arch has always felt more like a distribution for people who enjoy tinkering with the distro rather than just using the computer to get things done.
Levitating 3y ago
It's a terrible benchmark all-together, I don't know why it's getting so much traction. The authors themselves don't understand the differences between these Linux distributions. The website (computerbase) also seems to host their own downloads of the operating systems they review, very weird. Nobody else likes to do these kinds of benchmarks because if you do them right the performance differences should be negligible. If not you've probably stumbled upon a bug. Phoronix actually does Linux benchmarks right. [1] [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2104-gaming https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2104-gaming

by jzb 3y ago

“Arch is the most ‘Linux-like’ of the three” Say what? Not sure how the other two are any less “Linux-like” than Arch. They’re all Linux, which is about as Linux-like as it gets.

jamesTee49 3y ago

[dead]

jeppester 3y ago

I was about to post the same thing. Distros the like of Arch are outliers in a landscape dominated by "batteries included" distros, neither of which are more or less Linux. It's a sentence you would expect from someone with little to no knowledge about Linux.

danielheath 3y ago

As a sysadmin of machines on several distros, IME Arch is the most "linux-like" in that I'm constantly having to figure out obscure errors to make shit work again after an update. No snark: I understand that's largely a result of Arch deliberately pushing decisions down to users rather than deciding for you, appreciate that it's a deliberate decision, and am _very_ glad it exists. I guess if "Linux is about choice" (it's not) then Arch is very Linux-like.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
I tried using Arch for my work machine for a bit. It might be better if I only manually run updates for security stuff, but that's management time I could spend doing my job, not polishing my tools.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
kouteiheika 3y ago
> As a sysadmin of machines on several distros, IME Arch is the most "linux-like" in that I'm constantly having to figure out obscure errors to make shit work again after an update. This is interesting because it hasn't been my experience at all. IIRC in the last 3 years I only had to fix something after an update once, and that was only because of my own stupidity. I actually find Arch a lot more stable now than when I was using Ubuntu many many years ago, where something would always break after upgrading to a new version. (But maybe Ubuntu's better in this regards nowadays; I don't know.)
- bsagdiyev 3y ago
  Arch completely broke systemd-boot after a recent update for me on my laptop. After spending half a day trying to figure out how to get it put itself back in to the loader.conf I just put Windows 11 on the laptop. My girlfriend uses the laptop and wouldn't know how to fix this if it happened again. So it still breaks stuff on occasion. Maybe not for you, but it does.
  - Vilian 3y ago
    why tf you put arch on her laptop
  - kouteiheika 3y ago
    Well, I use GRUB for booting since, let's see... well, since I first installed this system, probably something like ~10 years ago, and it just works, never breaks, and I never have to touch it. The parent poster was definitely right that Arch pushes all of the decisions down to the users rather than deciding for you, so I suppose how much it breaks depends on how good your decisions are and how much of a Linux expert you are. I could fix virtually any broken Linux system while blindfolded, so I know how to set it up so that it never breaks and doesn't require any maintenance. This probably explains the difference in our experiences.
herbst 3y ago
That's where manjaro hobs in. Nearly as bleeding edge, same repos, AUR but somehow less prone to total system failures on updates.
- hiccuphippo 3y ago
  But does that make Manajaro less Linux-like? I think FreeBSD is "Linux-like"; Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora and their descendants are all Linux. Maybe the original authors meant Unix-like?

stainablesteel 3y ago

arch comes with a philosophy that is metaphysically more aligned with why people tend to move to linux when they abandon whatever OS they started with i would describe it as more "pure" in that sense, saying its more "linux-like" is oversimplifying

jzb 3y ago
Metaphysically? Were you trying for philosophically? Most people I’ve talked to want the freedom that comes with Linux, but also as little pain as possible. Arch isn’t it. There’s a reason Ubuntu became so popular back in the day: it was a free and easy to use into to desktop Linux. Arch has always felt more like a distribution for people who enjoy tinkering with the distro rather than just using the computer to get things done.

Levitating 3y ago

It's a terrible benchmark all-together, I don't know why it's getting so much traction. The authors themselves don't understand the differences between these Linux distributions. The website (computerbase) also seems to host their own downloads of the operating systems they review, very weird. Nobody else likes to do these kinds of benchmarks because if you do them right the performance differences should be negligible. If not you've probably stumbled upon a bug. Phoronix actually does Linux benchmarks right. [1] [1]: https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2104-gaming https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu-2104-gaming