OSNews

Actually he didn't say that Arch was easier to use than Ubuntu. Just that it's much simpler (in the sense of not being complex), which is absolutely correct, IMHO.

Indeed. Arch is simpler down below. What this means is that if you ever need to change something in a script or something, you will have a better luck with Arch's clean design rather than Ubuntu's 15 year old Debian craft.

But when you see it from the higher level, as an end user who would never need to fix anything, then Ubuntu is a better solution for that user.

I am using Arch for 2+ years now and it's my main distro. However, many things don't progress as fast as I would like in the higher level part, and so I am also thinking of using Ubuntu in the future. But you see, in order for me to use Ubuntu, I mist never have to delve in its under the hood scripts like I do for Arch to fix something -- because I know that if I do, it won't be a clean design as Arch's and it will piss me off.

So basically, personally I am looking forward to leave Arch for Ubuntu, but this won't happen before Ubuntu becomes near perfect in its user experience. Until that day comes, I prefer to fight with Arch's command line to fix things rather than Ubuntu's.

Well, Eugenia. I feel much like you do. Arch is simply the greatest distribution I ever tried (believe me, I've tested a whole lot of distributions in the past 9 years) but, unfortunately it has some user friendliness "problems".

Well, they're not exactly problems in the sense that they're just not what the distro is focused at.

What I'd really like to see (and even contribute if there were enough people involved -- I used to customize distros to meet some enterprise's needs a few years ago) is a sibling project with Arch, to use the Arch code base to develop a truly user friendly distribution on top of it.

ABS and Pacman (in its upcoming version) would make the job a charm to complete... well... one can dream, right ?

Fortunately I can live without this userfriendliness and will happily live with my Arch system.

I think this falls into the "userfriendliness depends on the user using it" category.

"Ubuntu is aimed at new Linux users and tries, when it can, to do the most sensible thing it can."

Um...NO. It's not aimed at new Linux users. It's aimed at DESKTOP Linux users...Ubuntu isn't easy as pie for new users..

Out of the gate:
1. They can't play music, they can't play video
2. No flash, no Java
3. Gnome isn't an easy transfer from Windows...which is what most are accustomed to.

SimplyMEPIS is a better solution to this...or PCLinuxOS. But Ubuntu is NEVER about NEW users. You need to get your thinking cap on.

Forcing a user to install something like Easy Ubuntu or Automatix is lame and means that the distro isn't "aimed at new users"

I agree that Ubuntu isn't easy enough for new users, but I don't buy your explanation that Ubuntu is for "desktop Linux users." After all, most desktop users need items 1 and 2 on your list. I also don't buy item 3. GNOME isn't really any more different than Windows than KDE is. I scoff at the suggestion that just because KDE has the K Menu at the bottom left and GNOME has its Application Menu on the top left (by default on some but not all distros), that KDE is more "Windows-like." They're both significantly different from Windows and will require some amount of adjustment. I'm not going to dwell on this in the interest of avoiding the usual flamewar.

My explanation is that Ubuntu's direct markets are the enthusiast and power-user crowds. The ones that love Linux and don't mind a little tinkering here and there, but not the hobbyists that are willing to really get their hands dirty to achieve the most optimal system. Ubuntu is also positioned as a superior project infrastructure for supporting derivatives with different target markets in mind. In essence, Ubuntu is taking everything that made Debian such a great mother distribution and repackaging these qualities with an emphasis on timely releases and a focus on Intel platforms (plus SPARC servers).

My theory is that all of the Debian-based distros that want the "easy as pie" market will be deriving from Ubuntu within 18 months. MEPIS/SimplyMEPIS and Linspire/Freespire are already onboard, PCLinuxOS and Xandros can't be far behind, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Mandriva might even kick its RPM habit if things keep progressing as they are.

We have a three-horse race shaping up in mainstream Linux land, and this consolidation is what Linux needs to become even more compelling for proprietary ISVs.

Edited 2007-03-01 21:58

We have a three-horse race shaping up in mainstream Linux land, and this consolidation is what Linux needs to become even more compelling for proprietary ISVs.

Interesting. That's what a lot of folks seem to think at the moment. In some ways, it could be a two-horse race, with .rpm for the enterprise and .deb for soho (or mainly so). Or a two-horse race anyway: the one that's vulnerable is SuSE, since it comes a long way second to Red Hat in the enterprise and a long way second to Debian-base distros (if you add them all together) everywhere else. On the other hand, racing is well-known for doping and already certain "trainers" from Redmond have been spotted skulking around the paddock ...

I did try to install Arch a few weeks ago as a tester but gave up when the installer said I had to consult a text file then add in the details of what time zone I'm in by hand. Just my 2 cents, but a distro that wants more than hardcore niche appeal has to do a bit better than that. It's like asking someone to crank a handle before using the telephone. I'm having more fun with Zenwalk.

Edited 2007-03-01 23:02

You might try Ubuntu again when Feisty is released. By default, when Feisty attempts to play an audio file it doesn't have codecs for, it searches for and displays the package needed for the proper codec. Not only that, after the package is installed, it restarts the media.

The magic part is that is works and works well. Here is a few pictures of the process:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28313023@N00/375559390/in/set-72157594...

When you install windows, it does not come with flash or java. As a matter of fact (unless your OEM pre-installs them), you have to install them after the fact.

In Ubuntu, firefox will prompt if you want to install java or flash and it seems to work fine. Also, you can install both from the repositories using synaptic or apt (the command line) very easily.

My computer ignorant parents seemed to have 0 problems switching from Windows XP to gnome. The only real issue is that my father needed to be taught how to resize images in the gimp.

So there, everything you said has been debunked by someone who actually uses the system.

The only real issue is that my father needed to be taught how to resize images in the gimp.

I suggest gthumb (image viewer) which has some basic/simpler image manipulation options built-in.

Edited 2007-03-02 13:53

Well, it depends.

If you can tell a user, if you want to change your IP address, change this line in that file and do "/etc/rc.d/network restart". This is something rather easy and the user can write it down.

Arch is so "KISS" that most operations needed by a desktop user basically aren't going anywhere beyond.


I don't think an Ubuntu user without advice would survive a really critical long time. If he would, he is not the "new user" we are talking about. So if he gets some advice, arch _can_ be easier to learn, as it is more straight forward ("here is your editor, that are the 3 files you need to know")...

It seemed a little convoluted ... the guy actually wanted Kubuntu 6.10, but he installed Ubuntu 6.06, upgraded to 6.10 and then to Kubuntu 6.10. How is that for weird?

Anyhow, it's commendable that the resulting system worked fine afterwards. Coming from a Windows world, I'm not used to upgrades that work fine (or that work at all for that matter).

Actually, even in regular Ubuntu you can connect to samba shares without having to fully install samba; just type in smb://hostname in Nautilus or use "Places->Connect to Server..."

I also agree, IPP is the only way to handle printer sharing these days, though standard Ubuntu will connect to SMB printers quite easily too.

Yes, you have to use Connect To Server because browsing shares is broken Gnome. That is really lame.

I agree this sometimes happen, but did you just apt-get dist-upgrade or did you use Synaptic? I think Synaptic automatically selects a default choice for you for most packages.

Whenever I do a dist upgrade on Ubuntu I use "sudo update-manager -d" which still causes all of the prompts (i.e. doesn't take defaults)

The best way to do an upgrade without prompts is to do it from a terminal (tty1-6) using sudo apt-get dist-upgrade. Better yet use aptitude which handles the dependencies better. I really suggest you DON'T use the graphical tools when you do these things. Using the graphical tools will give you prompts besides, even though apt-get supports it doing an upgrade that may entail upgrading x while you are in it is not a good idea. I know its not really necessary but its an old habit from the mess that was fedora upgrades.

I'm sorry but this is not true. I just updated a machine yesterday from edgy to feisty with your method and I got half a dozen prompts.

Edited 2007-03-02 19:28

If you dislike the command line, or you want to search for filenames in a package you don't have installed, you can try http://packages.ubuntu.com as well.

Edited 2007-03-01 21:11

<em>Wow... I'm tempted to install this superior-to-Vista OS. It's definitely ready for the desktop! [/sarcasm]</em>

Mmm... I'm tempted to try this Vista OS you mention and see if it supports my linux filesystem, or if it allows me to install on anything but the first partition and dual-boot without destroying the MBR, and allows me to configure multiple SATA disks to be used like one big disk as you can do with LVM, please no more C: D: thing, that's too '80s, too DOS; we are in 2007 you know. I'm also willing to see how does it manages my memory and how easy on resources this wonderful OS must be. I've also heard that it even doesn't touch the disk at all, so it really improves disks lifetime and power consumption. I'm pretty well informed about its much improved security and that it's virus-free, yet being released only a month ago and nobody is using it. It must be a panacea of OS, and it only costs how much? 800 bucks for an usable desktop? But hey, you've got easily configuration for SMB shares.[/sarcasm]

Edited 2007-03-01 20:47

if it supports my linux filesystem

google ext2ifs

or if it allows me to install on anything but the first partition

sure it does.

and allows me to configure multiple SATA disks to be used like one big disk

sure it does, diskmgmt.msc -> dynamic disk

I'm also willing to see how does it manages my memory

in a very efficient manner, with technologies like SuperFetch.

800 bucks for an usable desktop

Actually $100-200, for a _really_ usable desktop, not like one described in the article. [/irony]

Edited 2007-03-01 20:59

google ext2ifs

Yeah great, ext2. Or ext3.. without journalling! I used ext2ifs for a while but I got sick of running e2fsck all the time. If it was a little more stable, maybe. I ended up going back to fat32 for crossplatform storage.

usable desktop, not like one described in the article.

Some "power user" not finding things the same as in his distro of the last 3 years doesn't make it unusable. I mean what'd he complain about really? Samba had a lot of options? Upgrade wasn't fire and forget?

Actually $100-200, for a _really_ usable desktop

Paying money for a usable desktop? That'd be OSX then.. I mean Windows can be easier for a new user than Linux for sure, I don't recommend Linux for everyone. Not like I can recommend Windows either though, from what I've seen average Joe is quite succeptible to malware on Windows and doesn't know what to do about it. Oh well, Linux is easy enough for me, and Windows easy enough for you

Edited 2007-03-01 21:34

ext2ifs

This is like saying it's acceptable for Linux to support any Windows filesystems, so long as it's FAT32. The Linux community bent over backwards to reverse engineer NTFS with no low-level documentation or cooperation from Microsoft. The least Microsoft can do is take our clean, open source implementations of ext3 and reiserfs and implement a basic Windows port. Or do they expect the Linux community to do this, too?

diskmgmt.msc -> dynamic disk

What the hell is that? I haven't been using Windows very much lately, but I wouldn't even know where to begin from this explanation. Is this a registry key? Is a *.msc a kind of configuration utility? Not easy enough for a Linux user to figure out.

in a very efficient manner, with technologies like SuperFetch.

You mean in a more aggressive and wasteful manner? There's nothing efficient about SuperFetch. Anticipatory paging is only a good idea if you have a small amount of memory, lots of disk bandwidth, and no more than (3*NCPUS)/2 threads simultaneously awake on average. This is an unusual situation for a modern desktop system. Otherwise you're wasting precious disk bandwidth and evicting possibly useful pages from memory when it isn't necessary, all to try (possibly unsuccessfully) to keep the current thread runnable when there's other threads that also want to run. It's a tradeoff that could end up improving or decreasing performance, not an efficiency improvement by any means.

diskmgmt.msc -> dynamic disk

"What the hell is that? I haven't been using Windows very much lately, but I wouldn't even know where to begin from this explanation. Is this a registry key? Is a *.msc a kind of configuration utility? Not easy enough for a Linux user to figure out. "

Perhaps he didn't explain it well, but it is not much different than the standard response to a question about Linux either.

All he is saying is open the disk management management console, by typing diskmgmt.msc, in the run box and then convert your disk drive to a dynamic disk. this allows you to set up raid, JBODs, you name it, just like LVM. An easier way to do it is just right click on my computer, choose manage, and then click on disk management. either way, it's easy to do in windows.

Edited for sloppy typing

Edited 2007-03-02 00:33

Actually $100-200, for a _really_ usable desktop, not like one described in the article.

The article is from someone moving from one Linux distribution to another, not from someone moving from Windows. The fact is that when you use a distro, you get used to its way of doing things and its quirks.

I moved from Mandriva to Ubuntu, and at first there were things I was used to doing on Mandriva that confused me on Ubuntu - however, that doesn't mean the desktop is not usable (never mind the fact that the article's author is an advanced user).

Personally, Kubuntu's printer interface (i.e. KDE's) is very usable, and easy to find.

So unless you have something of value to contribute about either Arch Linux or Ubuntu, I suggest that you abstain from bringing Windows into it. Doing so would be off-topic (not to mention trolling).

The fact is that when you use a distro, you get used to its way of doing things and its quirks

Things mentioned are not quirks, but a serious lack of polish.

Personally, Kubuntu's printer interface (i.e. KDE's) is very usable, and easy to find.

Agreed, that's why I prefer KDE for my Linux boxes, overall it seems more flexible to power user.

So unless you have something of value to contribute about either Arch Linux or Ubuntu, I suggest that you abstain from bringing Windows into it. Doing so would be off-topic (not to mention trolling).

Yeah, I got it. When Linux/MacOS users flood Windows topics with their "insightful" opinions about how superior their OS'es are -- it's ok and they got modded up quickly. But just mentioning Vista in Linux thread is offtopic, trolling and crime.

Shalom weedow. why do you say... "A difficult place for a linux user."?

I think you actually didn't really read the review open minded.

That the update from version X to Y worked flawlessly was a plus point for me.


It's something I'm used to in Arch, but my gf had Ubuntu, did dist-upgrade, and it broke. It's nice to hear this is not common.


So I think this is a better review than "I put the CD into the drive and set my BIOS to boot from CD. Hard work! But then all was great! Here are the screenshots!"


On the other side, I think this review lacks some structure and should have handled some more aspects. You don't really get a feeling about the differences of the two distros.

The Edgy release did have quite a few major changes and only a 4 month window to get them right (6.06 to 6.10), hence the name Edgy :-D. The most common problems I saw with upgrades were caused by having removed the ubuntu-minimal, ubuntu-standard, or ubuntu-desktop meta packages.
I would suggest that anyone who upgrades Ubuntu to make sure that those meta packages are installed before the upgrade so you're sure to get all the utils needed to run your system.

Edited 2007-03-01 22:19

Full ack for that! If one wants Kubuntu 6.10, why would one install Ubuntu 6.06? Dist-upgrades are risky AND time-consuming under ANY OS (Linux distros, Windows...), even though all my Dapper->Edgy updates went fine. There was lots of really bad propaganda when MS released the Vista update versions which require an XP actually *installed* (not just the update check). Here's the guy who does the same thing with Ubuntu by choice!

And, just as an example, back in the days when I used (the then KDE-based) Fedora, getting a Gnome desktop running the way it should involved serious configuration work, much more than just doing > debconf kdm

Most other points also have been pointed out already in other posts... Like, he could have done some research to find "checkinstall" as the tool he wants, etc. And I also don't see how EVERY package configuration script should be able to guess all new settings which have to be set on update without user interaction. I should really try Arch if it does that. Quite some revolutionary AI seems to have gone into their package system.

And as for the question whether Ubuntu is a distribution for novices, I'd like to point out that I do not consider myself a novice (first Linux PC in 1995), and I feel most adequately served by Ubuntu.

Cheers!

I'm sorry, but I have to respond to that.
I did install Ubuntu using an older version, from which I basically upgraded to Kubuntu 6.10.

A clean upgrade is a necessity in the Linux world. One cannot reinstall his operation system from scratch every 6 months when a newer version is out.
Using dist-upgrade is an implemented feature. If it fails to work, then there is a bug waiting to be fixed.
It cannot be excused as something that should not be done. It was performed using the native tools. This is part of what package management is about.

I'd have to counter that the notion of downloading an entirely new iso and reinstalling the entire OS just to install kde is somewhat absurd.

(s|h)da change was due to the introduction of a new PATa infrastructure (more precisely, move of IDE to libata) in kernel 2.6.19 (IIRC). If you stick to the old infrastructure, there should be no change there. I don't know whether this change of names is due to the upstream (i.e. kernel) change or udev/Arch tricks.

Arch uses a BSD-style initscripts, unlike most of the distros, who use SysV-style ones. They're simple and fast.

There has been pretty much discussion about /opt in Arch - I remember some arguing that Arch actually _is_ conforming to LSB in that regard, more than other distros. Well, seems to be controversial to say the least - I, personally, couldn't care less where KDE or GNOME sits. Since my first contact with LSB, I thought it was kinda out of place.

As for packages, I see ~3200 packages on Frugalware ftp (they might be hiding elsewhere). Currently Arch official repos host ~4000 of them and another 4000 pieces of software are available in AUR as PKGBUILDs. Thus, your point is not valid here.

Rereading your first words, I think it's actually kind of on the contrary - it's all those different distros offering their own GUI tools for all the possible tasks that are doing it their own way. Once you get familiar with one, you're lost in another. Arch tries to follow the KISS principle here, which makes it more transparent - once you learn how to handle it, you will know how to manage on other distros (or even other Unix-likes) as well.

And if you mean "shape up" as "mature", not much to see there. Those versions number are just bumped when there's some major improvement to the installation media. Arch matures together with the OSS community, 1.0 version ain't gonna be a breakthrough in any way.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm advocating for Arch so much ;-) Maybe because it has never let me down.

(s|h)da change was due to the introduction of a new PATa infrastructure (more precisely, move of IDE to libata) in kernel 2.6.19 (IIRC). If you stick to the old infrastructure, there should be no change there. I don't know whether this change of names is due to the upstream (i.e. kernel) change or udev/Arch tricks.

I have a sourcemage gnu/linux installation with the 2.6.20 kernel and it still sees my hard drive as hda.

Arch uses a BSD-style initscripts, unlike most of the distros, who use SysV-style ones. They're simple and fast.

Agreed.

As for packages, I see ~3200 packages on Frugalware ftp (they might be hiding elsewhere). Currently Arch official repos host ~4000 of them and another 4000 pieces of software are available in AUR as PKGBUILDs. Thus, your point is not valid here.

I didn't add the AUR repos when I tested Arch, they're not enabled by default. Still, you might have a point there. If I choose all the official Arch repos on their web site (http://www.archlinux.org/packages/search/?repo=all&category=all... ), I get about 2750 (11 x 250) packages.

On the Frugalware web site I can't do a similar package search but they have 2 DVD ISO images (4.1G + 1.9G) or, alternatively, 11 CD ISO images worth of packages. (http://www4.frugalware.org/pub/linux/distributions/frugalware/fruga... ).

The bottom line for me is that I can find most of the software I need from the Frugalware repos but not from the (official) Arch repos.

Rereading your first words, I think it's actually kind of on the contrary - it's all those different distros offering their own GUI tools for all the possible tasks that are doing it their own way. Once you get familiar with one, you're lost in another. Arch tries to follow the KISS principle here, which makes it more transparent - once you learn how to handle it, you will know how to manage on other distros (or even other Unix-likes) as well.

No, I meant that I find myself a bit lost on the command line in Arch when compared to the other distros I've used -- the file system hierarchy is different in some aspects (their use of /opt, for instance).

Honestly, I don't know why I'm advocating for Arch so much ;-) Maybe because it has never let me down.

Yeah, Arch seems to be a fast, reliable and decently up-to-date distro. I also like their KISS philosophy. But I just find some aspects of Arch a bit weird -- it all comes down to personal preference, I guess. If Arch would comply more closely with standards, I would like it even more than I currently do.

It appears to me that your major hangup is the use of /opt for, as the Arch Packaging Standards call them, "Large self-contained packages" (see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Direct... ). If you'll give the LSB a read-through, though, you'll see that, actually, this is the preferred use of /opt (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard ). Thus, I don't feel it's fair to accuse the Arch developers of not being "standards compliant". Technically speaking, Debian and its derivatives violate the LSB by not using RPM, if you want to be nit-picky

Also, a straight-up and simple package count (using Pacman) gives me 8,035 packages in Arch's repos (including the 'community' repo). Frugalware gave me 3,296. Even without including the 'community' repo, Arch still has 5,426 packages available. Hopefully this resolves any confusion over repo size (although I encourage everybody to check my numbers).

Of course, I'd be interested in which packages you can't find in any of Arch's repos. I'd recommend you give the AUR a look-through and, if you don't find what you like, submit something (making packages for Arch is so ridiculously easy, I almost prefer it to binary installs... almost).

Regarding the hda->sda debacle, I believe that this is, indeed, due to an underlying change in the kernel structure (see http://www.archlinux.org/news/272/ ). Maybe SourceMage is doing some magic (no pun intended)?

And finally, I've found most of the devs and maintainers to be helpful, affable, flexible folks. If there's something you don't like, the community seems pretty open to debate and criticism (assuming you don't come out swinging with accusations, presumptions and foregone conclusions).

Arch *does* comply with standards, arguably more closely than any other major (or minor) distro. I think you might just be confusing "standards" with "your comfort zone", in which case, the entire OSS world isn't complying with Microsoft's "standards"

Give it another go. I think you'll like it once you get used to its eccentricities (like any other distro).

It appears to me that your major hangup is the use of /opt for, as the Arch Packaging Standards call them, "Large self-contained packages"

It's just that very few distros install Mozilla and/or the DE's under /opt. In this sense I find the Arch solution non-standard and inconsistent.

Regarding the hda->sda debacle, I believe that this is, indeed, due to an underlying change in the kernel structure

Maybe you're right. It seems to be a recent change in Arch and if I see a similar change happening in other distros, then I'll admit that it's not specific to Arch alone.

Of course, I'd be interested in which packages you can't find in any of Arch's repos.

There were several pieces of commonly used software that I couldn't find from Arch repos using pacman's search function. Unfortunately I've already forgotten what I searched for. Terminus-font, at least, was one of those that I missed -- it's my favourite font for terminals.

I have a sourcemage gnu/linux installation with the 2.6.20 kernel and it still sees my hard drive as hda.

I hope that you understand what would happen if Ubuntu would switch from hda to sda within 1 version release....
(hint 99% of ubuntu users with formerly hda devices would scream that kernel panics and can't boot)

Anyway, since 2.6.19 you can eaither select old way of device naming (separate hda and sda) or new (experimental) way of naming: all pata and sata are sda now.

This has not much to do with Arch but more to do with kernel development. Simply read lklm.

This is something I was wondering too about the article. Why search for synaptic and then a samba gui package before browsing the menus for a preinstalled tool. If he really ran ubuntu for two weeks, I wonder how he could overlook that.