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."
Thread beginning with comment 489922
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: .
by Laurence on Sat 17th Sep 2011 09:32 UTC in reply to "."
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

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.

I've installed Arch on a dozen different systems with vastly different hardware configurations and never encountered those problems.

I'm not dismissing what you're saying though. Any bug is a pity, but all distros and all operating systems have bugs. So what fails on your hardware might (and indeed does) work on other peoples hardware. Case in point: the last Debian install I performed failed.

This is why I struggle with threads like these; when people have technical gripes (eg dependencies in pacman, preferring non-rolling release distros, etc) then I can sympathise with their argument. However when people complain about a specific distro not behaving on their hardware like it does on other peoples hardware, well that kind of anecdotal reasoning I find more de-constructive to conversation.

Sorry if this makes me sound like an Arch-fanboy, but I just get tired of people publicising their own anecdotal misfortune as persuasive arguments against one product compared with another.

Edited 2011-09-17 09:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: .
by Icaria on Sat 17th Sep 2011 09:40 in reply to "RE: ."
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

but I just get tired of people publicising their own anecdotal misfortune as persuasive arguments against one product compared with another.
Well that wasn't what I was doing; I was offering an anecdote explaining why I don't use Arch.

Hell, I'm someone who makes a point of repeating the mantra 'results may vary'.

Reply Parent Score: 2