Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 3rd Jul 2006 02:42 UTC
Linux It's been over a year since the last time I reviewed (1, 2) the Linux distribution that I use most of the time, Arch Linux. Since then, while the distro-specific innovations have slowed a bit down, maturity and stability has emerged.
Permalink for comment 139785
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Arch > *
by rx182 on Mon 3rd Jul 2006 14:53 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

I've been using Linux since 1997. I started with Slackware 3.2 (good old days).

For so many years, I kept coming back to Slackware. Yeah, I do like distributions like Ubuntu but not on MY machines (thus said, I use Ubuntu at work ;) )

As soon as I consider using a box for more than a few months, I prefer something way more flexible than Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. Why? Package management goes too far. Everytime I tried to hack Ubuntu severely, I broke it. It needs to be used as-is, without too many changes.

So, I kept coming back to Slackware. But nowadays, it's not updated enough. Pat still use gcc3, linux24, etc. He didn't make major changes to his distribution in the past 10 years. Same old package tool. He should really consider making major changes to Slackware.

Anyway, not so long ago, I discovered Arch. Arch is like Slackware but just better. Pacman is a wonderful tool. IMHO, it's the best package manager out there. It helps you maintain your system current without taking the control of it. And unlike Debian, Red Hat based distributions, it doesnt include a million of useless config tools. For example, Debian includes Defoma to deal with fonts. Why? It takes more time figuring it out than dealing with fonts yourself. Arch is way more simplistic, and when you have a problem, you just take a look at the Wiki, IT'S HUGE!!!

<3 Arch

Reply Score: 2