Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Sep 2011 00:19 UTC
Linux "Many Linux distributions have taken the path of easy GUI-based installation, in order to appeal to a broader mix of users. But not Arch Linux, which emphasises simplicity of technical complexity over general usability. Richard Hillesley explains."
Permalink for comment 489920
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
.
by Icaria on Sat 17th Sep 2011 09:21 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

I've tried Arch a few times but never gotten far with it. Weird errors that just shouldn't occur do occur (easy example being the installer using the old hda, hdb naming convention when generating fstab but installing a system that expected sda, sdb, etc and dropping me to a busybox shell with no explanation when the filesystem couldn't be loaded upon boot) and the Arch community was about as useless as Ubuntu's (all too often, responders give 'RTFM'-type responses, assuming that any errors have to be the users' fault. I never ended up bothering to sign up to the Arch forums, after seeing people who'd suffered the same problems as myself dismissed out-of-hand under the assumption that they didn't read the wiki).

Pacman and the init system are reasonable enough but Pacman doesn't seem to do anything I can't do with Apt and I'd rather the hassle of dealing with Upstart if it means I can get hardware acceleration. Debian also has the benefit of (seemingly) using the same install scripts but in Debian's case, they're actually set up correctly and I don't have to keep jumping between VTs just to partition my HDD because the Arch install screen that's supposed to enumerate my drives/partitions is just blank.

Reply Score: 2