Arch Linux 0.7.2 (Gimmick) is now available for download. This time, they’ve provided three different ISO images for you to use: an FTP-only image (13mb), a Base-only image (145mb), and our full image that contains the entire Current repository (519mb).
Arch Linux 0.7.2 Released
About The Author
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
2006-05-23 6:45 pmEugenia Loli
There are no major changes. Arch Linux does not have special advancements only found on its distro that worth mentioning as “original features”, it’s just an accumulative distro based on the cutting edge versions of packages. For example, if Gnome 2.14.1 is the latest stable version on the web, that’s what you are going to find in it.
Edited 2006-05-23 18:50
I’m pretty new to the unix/linux word, so:
the project goal of an up-to-date and optimized os sounds great, but will a more or less technically versed newb be able to install and maintain a system?
2006-05-23 7:14 pmEugenia Loli
Arch Linux is not for newbies in my opinion. With a bit of effort (up to 2-3 days of manual configurations and some headaches) you can manage it I am sure, but no, I wouldn’t recommend it to newbies. Newbies should use Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandrake or SuSE until they get accustomed with Linux’s underpinnings and how things work, and when they do, then they can try out Debian, Slackware, Arch or Gentoo.
2006-05-23 9:12 pmGullible Jones
I’d beg to differ, actually. When I started with Linux, I used ZipSlack on a Windows partition; it took a couple days to get used to the directory layout and memorize all the basic commands, but after that things went quite smoothly, and I think I benefited, at least to a degree, from being plunged into a basic and “unfriendly” environment. I suppose that some wouldn’t care for this, but if you want to learn how to use Linux, it might be a good idea to start with the command line. That said, I Am Not An Authority, and don’t expect first encounters with the CLI to be a breeze.
(FWIW, configuration and install of Arch Linux taks a couple of hours for me, depending on the speed of my connection at the moment and what I’m installing, and the time taken for actual configuration is less than 15 minutes. The only way I could see it taking 2-3 days would be if you were using FVWM.)
2006-05-23 10:34 pmthebluesgnr
It depends on what you mean by newbie.
If you never installed GNU/Linux before but you’re interested in learning it by reading the manuals then perhaps Arch could be interesting to you. If you just want your computer to work without having to understand how or having to manually make it work there are other distros aimed at users like you, such as Ubuntu and SUSE.
It all depends on how enthusiastic you are about getting Arhc Linux to work. Now days Arch is not that difficult, you just need to not be afraid of searching in the Arch Linux forums and to run Xorg -configure. I find myself getting Arch Linux configured properly in less than 15 minutes, I just love the simplicity of it and I find it to be one of the best Distros ever made. Thanks to the inspirations it had Slackware and Crux Linux, Crux Linux is what I use now but just because it is more simple than Arch Linux but no more easy. So Arch Linux deservs props for ease of use. If I weren’t using CRUX Linux, Arch would have been my desktop.
I say this because I’ve been running Gimmick (.7.2) for a good amount of time now… at least a week, if not two or three or so I’d guess. I guess they don’t consider it completed until they hit the goals they want for each release, but the title above my login screen have said “Arch Linux .7.2 (Gimmick)” for a fair amount of time now.
Just something to bare in mind. The site does say that today was its official release. But yes, this release won’t be too much different other than some good package changes. The next version will have some new material, or so I imagine and hope. If not, that’s fine too. I’m quite happy with how Arch works as it does now, provided packages get updated at a fair rate.
Yes! Editors should have enthusiasms, and while Arch is not one of my own personal ones, its nice that E has it as hers, and her enthusisam is infectious. One of these days I’ll try it.
Now Amiga and BeOS, well, not yet. But then, maybe one enthusiasm is as much as most of us can cope with.
2006-05-23 10:29 pmEugenia Loli
>and her enthusisam is infectious
I haven’t rebooted to Arch for over a month.
2006-05-24 12:11 pmLuis
>I haven’t rebooted to Arch for over a month.
I always agreed with your statement that Arch and Slackware are the best distros out there. In fact, the only ones I can use. The rest feel like using Windows (not Gentoo, but that’s another story…)
So have you been using Slackware for a month or you found any other worthy contender?
2006-05-24 4:31 pmEugenia Loli
I use XP on my desktop (does what I need to do better than any other OS), and OSX when I travel or when I use my laptop in front of the TV. I have found very little reason to use Linux. But when I use Linux, I use Arch.
Arch Linux does not have special advancements only found on its distro that worth mentioning as “original features”
I heard its package manager (pacman) is fairly original.
2006-05-23 10:57 pmEugenia Loli
Yes, it is, no reason for your sarcasm. But it’s part of Arch Linux from the beginning. Except a few changes in the base, i686 optimizations and package management, Arch Linux is vanilla Linux. Not as vanilla as Slackware is in terms of patching policy, but still, much less patched/changed than any of the big distros who aim for original features in order to differentiate.
I installed Arch a couple of months ago and pacman couldn’t install OOo2 correctly, you had to jump thru hoops to get it going. The forums had a couple of answers but it didn’t work.
Have they fixed that???
2006-05-24 12:13 amraskolnikov
I had no problems at all with openoffice. More information here : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenOffice
I have long used debian on my laptop, and I think I know now the distro very well. I start to feel the wind of change… something optimized would probably do very well on my laptop. I am gonna try Arch.
Arch is FOR Newbees and masters alike. Installing and maintaining is as simple as reading manuals.
http://wiki.archlinux.org is your best friend. It explains almost all normal working of the distro.
It takes arround 15 min to install from a CD and then depending upon the internet connection speed, you can install kde/Gnome.
I agree that initial work is on command line, like issuing
pacman -S kdebase
but all it takes is 4-5 commands and then you have regular xorg. From then we can use and of the GUI package manager like Jacman……
now here are the best things about Arch
1) Its very fast, compare it with any of the regular ones like SUSE, Ubuntu, Fedora and we find that for almost all operations, Arch is at least 1.5 times faster (Disclaimer:: I have no data to support it, just personal experience).
2) Very low on resources, as almost all the packages are installed by the user, so only the required ones are installed. We have a few demons running, thereby light on resources.
3) Latest packages, Arch is a bleeding edge distribution that is stable. It is one os the firsts to incorporate latest packages like KDE/Gnome in its stable tree. Regular ones like SUSE, Ubuntu take a very long time to do this. Even the likes of Gentoo are not so quick to have packages in their stable tree as Arch is.
4) Rolling tree, this means that we never have to re-install Arch, all new releases can be simply updated from the current installation.
pacman -Syu is all we need.
5) Provides for binary packges like SUSE/Ubuntu at the same time it is very easy to compile our own packages, a la Gentoo.
AUR is one of the biggest repositories of packages I have Seen.
6) Here comes the best part…..
Arch has a big and very friendly community, where people are ready to help others. The willingness to help other can be compared only to Ubuntu Community ( which I guess is the best in business).
This is one of the most diverse community I have seen, with even people from developing countries comprising of the core Trusted Users, having the right to approve packages.
All this just at the cost of reading a few pages of wiki.
2006-05-24 5:50 amevilmegaman
I disagree with your statement That it’s for newbies as much as it is for advanced users. To take a newbie, give them a command line and tell them to read the wiki would scare them off in a flash. I have NEVER seen ANY newbie not freak out when they found out they booted into a command prompt.
just my 2 cents..
Before I forget: Arch r0x0rs my s0x0rs
2006-05-24 6:01 amEugenia Loli
>Arch is FOR Newbees and masters alike.
>Installing and maintaining is as simple as reading manuals.
This is like saying that humans like all bananas, even the ones that have their skin on. That aint’ gonna happen. Newbies don’t want and don’t understand most of the wiki stuff that ask the user to open terminals and figure out things “for their own installation”. For example, when you have to create a xorg conf file you have to know what your gfx card on the computer is. Newbies don’t know and they don’t care about it. Hence, no, Arch is not for newbies. It CAN be used by DETERMINED newbies who will spend many days figuring things out and googling and using forums for help, but this is not what the average newbie wants to do.
So, save your Arch propaganda for another, Linux, website. OSNews does not have too many stupid readers.
2006-05-24 10:02 pmNathan
I really don’t like the term “newbie” because its totally non-descriptive in terms of WHY the new user is using the software.
If the new user is keen on learning to use the CLI, how to use and configure various daemons, etc. then ArchLinux might be the way to go (I don’t know, I’ve never used it).
If the new user is your typical desktop user, has no desire to use the CLI and NEVER will, then it sounds like ArchLinux is definately not appropriate.
Both these users are new to Linux, but have such radically different goals that generalising them as “newbies” is inherently meaningless.
2006-05-24 11:54 amraskolnikov
You’re damn right my friend : I run only the daemons I need so Firefox can eat more and more memory everyday
Run ‘/opt/openoffice/program/soffice’ to setup OpenOffice2 for a regular user on first startup and to start OpenOffice2.
OpenOffice2 introduces the ability to use several toolkits for drawing and integrate into different desktop environments in a clean way. To choose by hand, you need to set the OOO_FORCE_DESKTOP environment variable, either systemwise (like in /etc/profile.d/) or in the specific shell OpenOffice is running in.
To run OpenOffice in GTK2 mode, you can issue (using bash):
# OOO_FORCE_DESKTOP=gnome soffice
Perhaps you would like to put it in /usr/bin/soffice:
Whatever hapenned to:
pacman -S <package> ?
What if I don’t use gnome? why can’t i install and go ahead and use it? What kind of devs they got, that they can’t make it simple like the other apps in Arch?
apt-get install openoffice.org
that’s all you need.
2006-05-24 4:54 pmraskolnikov
Yeah the first run (aka “setup”) of OpenOffice ask for your username and some other infos before let you do actual work. What a deal.
The package manager has no way to know what DE an user want to use, so users can define OOO_FORCE_DESKTOP to have gnome, kde or default look. You have not to define it, but if you want, it’s here.
OpenOffice in Arch ? Yes, pacman -S openoffice-base.
just like on geek.com
This is going to be interesting. So what are the major changes?