3 ms·

Yea I'm not sure why they got rid of the menu-driven installer and zsh sucks imo. I can still live with the installation process though, it boils down to: parti

by yogo 13y ago

Yea I'm not sure why they got rid of the menu-driven installer and zsh sucks imo. I can still live with the installation process though, it boils down to: partitioning your disk, setup filesystems, /mnt and /mnt/boot (for my desktop), use pacstrap for base system, install bootloader. After one installation with the manual process you can still install Arch in 30 minutes, plus you can thank it for somewhat forcing you to understand how you are setting up your system. Pacman is really the best. I had to be reminded of that recently when I had the luxury of dealing with a Ubuntu system. Granted I don't have to deal with that system everyday but having to use apt, aptitude, dpkg to accomplish different things? What a fucking mess.

ce4 13y ago
apt vs. pacman: Could you elaborate a little? What's your main reasoning for this? I have tried Arch on three machines (old netbook, laptop, desktop) and all went fine during installing (all LUKS cryptorooted). What made me mad was when some stuff broke on two of them due to infrequent updates this spring (didnt use both netbook+desktop for a longer time). Alas, I can't remember details any more. Made me switch back (to debian) I almost never use aptitude and dpkg only for low level stuff (e.g, when there are errors). Apt alone is in almost all cases sufficient.
diaz 13y ago
I've been living my life mostly using pacman with archlinux and in the last year I experienced the ubuntu/debian way for the first time... Trying to get around dozen of apt commands and other tools is truly painfull. But it's probably just me that got used to a simple and easy life with pacman... There was a time that I even had to create an ubuntu package, well, don't get me started, I cried a little and lost around 3 days. Last time I installed arch was before they removed the menu driven installer and it sure had some problems and bugs, so even if I have not tried it yet, I think I prefer this way of installing. It's cleaner, simpler, so better.

by yogo 13y ago

ce4 13y ago

apt vs. pacman: Could you elaborate a little? What's your main reasoning for this? I have tried Arch on three machines (old netbook, laptop, desktop) and all went fine during installing (all LUKS cryptorooted). What made me mad was when some stuff broke on two of them due to infrequent updates this spring (didnt use both netbook+desktop for a longer time). Alas, I can't remember details any more. Made me switch back (to debian) I almost never use aptitude and dpkg only for low level stuff (e.g, when there are errors). Apt alone is in almost all cases sufficient.

diaz 13y ago

I've been living my life mostly using pacman with archlinux and in the last year I experienced the ubuntu/debian way for the first time... Trying to get around dozen of apt commands and other tools is truly painfull. But it's probably just me that got used to a simple and easy life with pacman... There was a time that I even had to create an ubuntu package, well, don't get me started, I cried a little and lost around 3 days. Last time I installed arch was before they removed the menu driven installer and it sure had some problems and bugs, so even if I have not tried it yet, I think I prefer this way of installing. It's cleaner, simpler, so better.