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 490021
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Arch
by Jason Bourne on Mon 19th Sep 2011 00:37 UTC
Jason Bourne
Member since:
2007-06-02

[ PROS ]

* No dev packages. I hate -dev packages! There is plently diskspace today.

* Excellent documentation through its Wiki site.

* IRC Channel support - they are very intelligent and friendly. Sometimes they kick your ass, but then it's for your good.


[ 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.

Reply Score: -2

RE: Arch
by neruson on Mon 19th Sep 2011 00:54 in reply to "Arch"
neruson Member since:
2011-09-18

"inexpressive logo" - rather trivial complaint.
"Having PACMAN on command line or using some known front-ends are extremely tiresome sometimes." - Everyone's different, but I personally prefer using the command line.
"No systemd yet..." yes, there is... Now ;)
"No splash screen..." again, rather trivial con.
"No ambition to take over Linux Mint, making a complete desktop live CD spin for newcomers." that's not the point of Arch, arch simply isn't developed for linux noobs, but if you want to try a live cd, you can use ArchBang, CtkArch or any of the other spins. There are a few other user made Live CD's floating around out there as well

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Arch
by Jason Bourne on Mon 19th Sep 2011 01:34 in reply to "RE: Arch"
Jason Bourne Member since:
2007-06-02

"inexpressive logo" - rather trivial complaint.
"Having PACMAN on command line or using some known front-ends are extremely tiresome sometimes." - Everyone's different, but I personally prefer using the command line.
"No systemd yet..." yes, there is... Now ;)
"No splash screen..." again, rather trivial con.
"No ambition to take over Linux Mint, making a complete desktop live CD spin for newcomers." that's not the point of Arch, arch simply isn't developed for linux noobs, but if you want to try a live cd, you can use ArchBang, CtkArch or any of the other spins. There are a few other user made Live CD's floating around out there as well


perhaps you may just need damn small linux with ratpoison, but that ain't kinda happiness to me.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Arch
by Laurence on Mon 19th Sep 2011 07:51 in reply to "Arch"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


[ 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: http://chakra-project.org/
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:
http://live.linux-gamers.net/

Reply Parent Score: 3