Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 21st Mar 2005 11:22 UTC
Linux 2003 was the year with Gentoo written all over it in the Linux universe. Last year was Ubuntu's & MEPIS'. I believe that Arch Linux's year is the current one. Read more for a comparison of Arch to existing distributions, and why we think it rocks and where we think it still requires some work.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
my experience
by micr0c0sm on Tue 22nd Mar 2005 16:31 UTC

I've legitimately tried ubuntu, gentoo, sorcerer, lunar-linux, and arch. With arch the only geeky thing i needed to know was how to type 'dhcpcd' to start my network. Then 'pacman -syu'. I have been using it for 3 months now and dual booting with any other distro that looks nice, and overall it is at least subjectively faster, which is the only kind of faster that counts on a desktop. In addition nothing has ever been broken for me, even when using other people's pacman packages on the Trusted User Repositories list. I have been able to easily try out different window managers / desktops for x. If i wan't to see what the big deal about enlightenment is 'pacman -S enlightenment' , change .xinitrc to point to enlightenment, and startx. Like it? keep it. Don't? 'pacman -R enlightenment'. Same thing - i tried out 4 window managers in two hours (i wanted some usuability testing, not just themes) and so far im settled with xfce until I get my fvwm config done.

I digress though - arch is simple to maintain, fast, and up-to-date. The hardest thing I have encountered is that to get to a desktop you have to know what xorg is and the desktop environment you want. Which can be a big deal if you are a total linux newbie and think that KDE *is* linux. But besides that the distro is everything I have ever wanted, and in the end it isn't a debate of the merits of design etc (gobo anyone?), it's 'does the user want this?'. Arch excels in that area.