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 490042
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Arch
by Laurence on Mon 19th Sep 2011 07:51 UTC in reply to "Arch"
Member since:

[ CONS ]

* Inexpressive logo. Hate it.

* PACMAN is good, very good. Much better than yum, apt-get. However, PackageKit support would be SUPER-B! Having PACMAN on command line or using some known front-ends are extremely tiresome sometimes.

* No systemd yet...

* No splash screen...

* No ambition to take over Linux Mint, making a complete desktop live CD spin for newcomers.

* To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the logo either. But it's just a logo, not a coat of arms that you're obliged to have stitched onto your whites

* Agreed

* Can't say I miss systemd. Arch's init system is better than traditional SysV anyway plus daemons can be loaded in parallel via the background toggle in rc.conf.

* There is. In fact I run one myself (splashy). Admittedly it's not the simplest thing to set up though.

* Again there is:
It may not be an "official" ArchLinux live CD, but then Linux Mint is just derivative of another distro (Ubuntu) anyway.

There's also an Arch Live CD that focus on gamers:

Reply Parent Score: 3