> The installation process, and the documentation behind it, lead to the third virtue: a complete installation tends to be very small and simple, because you only install the bits you need. If you don't know what bits you need, the documentation will help you to work it out, and the result is something that is both fairly minimal and that, with luck, you understand. You know what's in there because you installed it.
I feel this gets to the core of why I like Arch so much. I’m a Linux novice, so for a long time I ran Ubuntu VMs when I needed to do stuff on Linux (this being before WSL). It worked well enough, but I never really felt that I properly knew what I was doing.
Then I tried installing Arch in a VM… and it took me several days and several attempts, but when I finally got it working I felt, for the first time ever, like I actually understood the system I was using. Now I have a webserver running Arch, and only a week or two ago installed Arch on an old PC to see if I could get a desktop working.
Of course, Arch is not easy, especially for a non-expert such as myself. Sometimes I have no idea how to solve a problem, or even what kind of software I need in the first place. For this reason, I’m planning to install Debian instead on the new laptop I’ve ordered (to replace my ~10 year old machine running Windows), in the hopes that it might have more stuff working out of the box. Still, I’d say that trying out Arch has immeasurably improved my knowledge, not just of Linux but of the underlying concepts behind modern computing.
> Still, I’d say that trying out Arch has immeasurably improved my knowledge, not just of Linux but of the underlying concepts behind modern computing.
I love hearing that, because it was a goal of Arch from the very beginning: to stop fearing the commandline.
And I was the first alpha tester, in that I wanted to learn more about how the sausage was actually made, so to speak. I was comfortable using things like Linuxconf at the time, but its beginner-friendly veneer meant that I didn't really know what to do if it _wasn't_ there.
After tinkering with Crux and PLD for a bit, I wanted to go deeper and start from nothing. So I loaded up the LFS[1] docs and just started typing in the shell stanzas to start building my compilation toolchain. In an effort to DRY as much as possible, the work also got placed into shell scripts, which eventually became PKGBUILD modules.
I started having way too much fun with it, so I put up the world's ugliest webpage[2] to share my triumphs, and a couple people found it, somehow. That begat the immediate need for documentation, which eventually brought Arch into the forefront. I can't recall who spearheaded the Arch wiki, but we owe them a great debt, because it has become a valuable resource for Linux users, and not only the Arch users.
You can install Debian the same way you installed Arch (manual, CLI) via debootstrap. It's not really advertised, Debian really wants folks to use their installer.
I built a tool that does this, you can look through the code and see how I do it--it's just bash spaghetti. Download a Debian live ISO (or use my tool to create an Arch-like minimal live USB) and you can install it however you want.
> Then I tried installing Arch in a VM… and it took me several days and several attempts, but when I finally got it working I felt, for the first time ever, like I actually understood the system I was using.
Honest question: why days?
I have installed arch multiple times in the past decade and I don’t remember anything exceptionally out of the ordinary. You just follow the step-by-step instruction and you are good to go.
It’s all fairly standard: boot on a live cd, get internet, format the disk, mount, arch provides a script to install the base and another to change the root and it’s vanilla Linux config from there.
Edit: Hmm, I guess how to configure a vanilla Linux might be quite complex for someone who has no idea of how to do that. I might have answered my own question actually.
This is a false sense of understanding that many Linux users develop. You basically built a puzzle by putting together the pieces that fit together. And you have the illusion that you learned something about the picture drawn on the pieces.
You don’t really understand anything more except how to configure a system with a poorly designed configuration system. Installing a difficult-to-use Linux distribution teaches you nothing about operating systems, compilers, linkers & loaders, shared libraries, or anything else about the foundations of modern computing.
If we could combine Ubuntu's easiness of use with Arch's simplicity and performance, that'd be my ideal distro for work.
I love Arch for its simplicity and performance.
But it just wasn't productive for me to get everyday tasks done. I'm not advanced Linux user, occasionally I'd need hours to get seemingly simple stuff done.
For a hobby desktop, fine. For a work tool as a developer, I moved back to Ubuntu (though I have moments of regret every day).
Not anymore. Archinstall, an easy-to-use installation script, now comes included in the ISO and so now anyone can install it and get a full-fledged OOTB distro ready within minutes.
Installing arch used to be a lot easier before they deleted the Beginners Guide and redistributed the contents to a bunch of different pages in the wiki.
edit: Beginner's guide, not install guide, is what was deleted
I've been using Arch for well over 10 years, they say it's true that you "learn Linux" using Arch. It's an excellent distro, but a few things make it a great learning OS.
First it's as vanilla as possible, which mean that packages are modified as little as possible from upstream. This means you don't learn anything distro-specific by mistake, and you actually learn more how the package is intended to function.
The second is great documentation and community. The Arch wiki is full of common tweaks that you'll likely have to do, many other distro's may have just held your hand and assumed you wanted those boxes checked, but Arch makes you check them.
Being minimal also helps, it really doesn't overwhelm you. Arch doesn't, it's just that only at a time is usually broken, so you're doing something like that.
I'm not so sure about learning. I think that you're mostly just learning how to administer an Arch Linux system.
After using and contributing to Gentoo for a few years, I don't think I could confidently explain how all of the pieces of the desktop graphics and audio stack fit together - I just installed it and it worked.
What I miss mentioned here is AUR and the fact that almost any software that you can think of is packaged there. You read about some cool software (like git-bug I learned about today here on HN), you do `yay -S cool-software` and it's there. On Ubuntu or Debian? Not so much...
The AUR is the main thing I miss after moving from Arch to Gentoo, the scope of the applications on the AUR is crazy, and for the most part in my experience it's usually up to date and reliable. In my opinion, the AUR alone is enough reason to install Arch or an Arch-Based Distro.
I agree. The AUR is one of the biggest reasons I use an Arch-based distro (endeavour). If it wasn’t for the AUR, I, a pretty quick learner but also lazy person, would be using fedora or something.
What I really like about Arch is how minimal & fast it can be without resorting to 'exotic' software or libraries.
I recently installed Archlinux32 on an old Pentium II machine just for the fun of it and was pleasantly surprised that it still feels reasonably responsive (I didn't get X11 to work yet though as the GPU driver for that machine apparently never reached mainline or was removed in the meantime).
Everything is managed by systemd/networkd the way it's authors intended. No custom scripts or other cruft or bloat. No 'helpful' background services to update man pages or the package database.
It's also refreshing how fast pacman is compared to apt.
Interesting to see the documentation emphasized here. I don't use Arch, but I often see the arch wiki in google results for linux stuff I look up. Makes me wonder why wikis aren't used more for documentation.
Other distros have wikis but tend to focus more on documentation the distro specific details. Since Arch packages have very minimal modifications from upstream, this means much of the content from the ArchWiki is applicable across distros. But then once you have one wiki covering the generic advice, there's less motivation for others to duplicate that effort anyway.
Wikis take a lot of maintenance by a determined core of contributors, or else the pages deteriorate into a pile of incoherent edits. Occasionally I see this even on the Arch wiki. Main text says “do this.” That’s followed by some text saying “I tried this and it didn’t work.” That’s followed by a text box saying “that method is deprecated.”
I'm a deb-based user but I constantly refer to the Arch wiki to understand best practices and solve problems. No other distro has this level of self-serve documentation that's actually updated and easy to understand.
The main benefit of Arch Linux to me is that when you do a drive-by patch to some software project, it is not unthinkable that the fix reaches you through upstream and an Arch package update in a matter of hours. This flow is not possible with distributions that run pretty out of date software and have long release cycles: the version that's included with the distribution is usually too old to be able to check out the source, test and directly apply fixes to the upstream repository, and getting those fixes back would take months. This also applies to security updates, as it's easier to rely on instant upstream project updates than on some distribution package owner to remember and backport those fixes.
> This flow is not possible with distributions that run pretty out of date software
I use Debian Stable and Fedora on my systems and I have the latest versions of all of the software of which I want the latest versions because I can install software from source like a big boy. And my installers don't have version numbers hard-coded in them like PKGBUILDs do, so I get the latest versions immediately.
Arch has served me well over the years on almost every piece of hardware I owned and is still my goto for a "traditional" FHS distro. The documentation is top notch, it's fairly unopinionated and I love the simplistic nature of it (everything in the repos is just unpatched upstream software, for the most part at least).
Recently made the jump to NixOS though and been really happy with the additional features it offers.
While some may see it as a learning tool I have used Arch on my workstations for 14 years. The last time I remember having to manually fix things was when it migrated to systemd. I am a linux sysadmin so I might be biased but I think people overestimate the effort required to get exactly what you want and nothing more out of an Arch setup.
I'm in the same boat. I started my linux use with everything-bundled distros like Ubuntu but I really appreciated Arch for giving me a better sense of how things tend to hang together. Made me much more comfortable transitioning into sysadmin/sre stuff.
It depends on how uncommon what you want is, although I agree it is very low effort in general. For example, there was not too long ago an issue with the kernel not booting from syslinux for a few weeks. Also, arch-announce mentions a manual fix needed if you have a particular package installed every few months, so good to subscribe to that and fix as described if needed.
My suggestions:
1) Keep both linux and linux-lts installed since otherwise you have no backup if the one you normally use doesn't work.
2) Always fully update the system since dependencies aren't always fully specified and a partial update can damage the rest of the system. If you need to hold back a package, add it to the IgnorePkg= line in /etc/pacman.conf until it works again.
3) Avoid AUR except for rare cases where you review the package manually (always avoid AUR helpers).
4) Don't be too lazy even though things mostly just work, check your boot logs at least every year or so to improve the chance of fixing issues before they cause trouble and look for and deal with pacnew files at least a few times a year.
I use it on all my personal linux boxes at home: laptop, router, nas, a nuc, a couple of rpis and a bunch of VMs. Main thing I love is that I've never found myself in the position of just giving up and starting again on any of them. I've switched a few of those over to arch when I reached that point with what I was running on them before. Most distros effectively force you to do that eventually.
I upgrade them when I get round to touching them for some reason so sometimes months will go by. I've never encountered a problem after upgrade that I couldn't quickly resolve with a brief bit of tinkering, and I'd take that over starting from scratch or leaving things mouldering away on outdated software any day.
A more recent update that required some work was switching to PipeWire for audio. But it was mainly about knowing which packages to remove and replace, and now audio works without a hitch for me, better than PulseAudio ever did.
Arch isn't just simple, it is smart too. With alpm-hooks [0], it is possible to run specific commands pre or post-install/upgrade of packages. E.g re-sign secure UKIs with my keys after the intel-ucode package updates.
This example and more such refined tools such as the AUR that add massive quality of life improvements to the overall Linux user experience is what keeps me happy at Arch.
Arch is awesome and was the distro that finally got me to stop sticking to Windows. Every other distro I tried had some flaw that kept on making its experience subpar, and I have tried a lot of distros - Ubuntu, Mint, Debian, Manjaro, Fedora, and a few more. I was staying away from Arch for its reportedly complex installation. But this month I decided to take the bullet and, to my surprise, got a fast and flawless system installed within minutes! Archinstall now makes it just as easy to install as anything else, the AUR is awesome and has everything you'll ever need, and the wiki is just unparalleled.
This distro leaves all others in the dust in terms of speed and software availability; I will highly recommend it to everyone looking for a no-nonsense and up-to-date system.
> the AUR is awesome and has everything you'll ever need
But what if I need packages created and maintained by vetted, qualified devs rather than the unvetted randos that upload PGBUILDs to the AUR? Many of the AUR contributors I've looked into have no publicly-accessible real names, no personal websites, no LinkedIn accounts, and their GitHub accounts are only a couple years old with Japanese cartoon characters as their account photos.
Been using Pop OS for a while for the It Just Works(tm) experience, but I'm missing Arch more and more.
Mainstream Linux distros feel a lot more like Windows these days. Sure they require less condiguration, but they're also mich harder to mess around with. Starting up htop reveals a jungle of daemons and weird systemd shit I don't even know what does. Systemd is a terribly documented nightmare to configure, etc.
It's so nice in Arch to know pretty much know what everything is for because I was the one who installed it. And to have documentation that isn't infuriating to navigate.
It's been two weeks since I installed Arch on my daily driver laptop, and I have to say it actually gave me a more flawless OOTB experience than Pop, Ubuntu or Fedora could. The archinstall script automatically selects and installs all required packages for you'll need to get a working system up and running, and it configures xorg and proprietary drivers for you so that you don't have to. I haven't had to mess around anything honestly, I'll suggest you give it a look again.
I've been using Debian Testing on my personal Notebooks since ~10yrs: throughout university, and the subsequent work life.
During that time, I oftened wondered whether I should "play"/experiment more with other distros; after all I loved tinkering with my vim config and network setups etc.
However, I've been just satisfied with the status quo, and more importantly: I just wanted to get shit done.
Apt, dpkg, systemd. If I want to get bleeding-edge SW I'll build the upstream source manually. No big deal - won't happen too often.
Getting older, I'm beginning to despise fixing the os more and more ... I just want the machine to work. This results perhaps from my day job, which involves openbsd-developing/tweaking ... And general a lot of cursing.
Granted: I'm not a gamer or graphics-enthusiast, and use my computer primarily for development, writing, watching movies/pictures ... Your typical senior resident trapped in the body of a 30ish guy.
I'm often wondering whether I'm just lazy and/or whether my attitude is the norm or rather the exception respective to Unix/Linux (power)users.
Edit: forgot to say "big thank you" to the arch community! Over the years I consulted the archwiki endless times! Almost everytime really helpful (in contrast to the debian wiki, lol)
I consider myself a Linux power user at this point; been running Linux as my primary os since 2007. I enjoy tinkering, but I like my distro to be rock solid; all of my Linux servers run debian stable. In no way would I say that you're "lazy", you just know what you're looking for in a daily driver. Debian is a fantastic choice and I used it as my primary OS for years.
That being said, I do run Arch on my laptop and desktop these days; I like being a little closer to upstream. I don't run a ton of bleeding edge software, but using aur makes it incredibly easy to stay up to date. I am also extremely appreciative of the Arch wiki, no matter what distro I'm using it's one of the first places I check out if I'm having an issue.
I run arch on my VPS. Before, I ran Debian, but if you need a special package version, or something, it just feels almost as hard as getting a newer IIS version on Windows. I got sick of it, removed Debian, and installed Arch from scratch.
My Linux experience was pretty minimal. Some trying out on desktop in the early 2000s and later again after Ubuntu became a thing, but I always got weird errors. Then some in university, and again a bit to administer my VPS or rPi.
Arch was a breath of fresh air, not only could I get current packages, everything was so well documented! The wiki is, as the article rightfully says, amazing. Now, even when I’m not using arch (I have a small Proxmox server with Debian and Debian containers), I still use the archwiki as I know it will help me for everything but Debian specific things. My first arch install (before that, I never installed an OS without an installer) took maybe 2 hours.
I bought a Librem laptop and was trying to install Debian on it, only to find that there was a firmware bug that prevented me from using the installer. So instead, I read the Arch wiki and installed Debian Arch-style using the live ISO and debootstrap, and I've been installing Debian that way ever since. I've never used Arch because I like everything as boring as possible, but someday I might take the plunge. They're the first place I go for docs, regardless of what distro I'm using, except for maybe Alpine when I have to read docs on something strange like OpenRC, and have to go to Gentoo's wiki for that.
The thing that makes the Arch docs so great is that it covers edge cases and has lots of examples.
I appreciate the straightforward install and wide availability available of packages, but in practice always using the latest packages system wide can be annoying.
For example right now the latest gdb is broken on both my machines, and since i’m not as keen to participate in troubleshooting new software I think I’ll be moving to a more stable distro pretty soon
I've been runing arch for 7 years,
I had to reinstall once to fix something I broke with deleting python packages but I never had problems with just updating the system ...
Using Arch Linux since 2009 as my main desktop OS, and after 3 complete PC ugprades, I never had to reinstall it.
It has been working pretty well for me, except for a couple of issues that I ran over these years (e.g. the transition to systemd in 2012/2013, or no pacman -Syu for several weeks).
I just discovered Arch Linux this year, and I’m running it on a few raspberry pis. I love getting the latest packages, and the docs are great. Arch works well for me because I like updating my homebrew Mac user land daily, and updating Arch just feels natural.
[+] [-] bradrn|3 years ago|reply
I feel this gets to the core of why I like Arch so much. I’m a Linux novice, so for a long time I ran Ubuntu VMs when I needed to do stuff on Linux (this being before WSL). It worked well enough, but I never really felt that I properly knew what I was doing.
Then I tried installing Arch in a VM… and it took me several days and several attempts, but when I finally got it working I felt, for the first time ever, like I actually understood the system I was using. Now I have a webserver running Arch, and only a week or two ago installed Arch on an old PC to see if I could get a desktop working.
Of course, Arch is not easy, especially for a non-expert such as myself. Sometimes I have no idea how to solve a problem, or even what kind of software I need in the first place. For this reason, I’m planning to install Debian instead on the new laptop I’ve ordered (to replace my ~10 year old machine running Windows), in the hopes that it might have more stuff working out of the box. Still, I’d say that trying out Arch has immeasurably improved my knowledge, not just of Linux but of the underlying concepts behind modern computing.
(Oh, and the documentation’s amazing too!)
[+] [-] jvinet|3 years ago|reply
I love hearing that, because it was a goal of Arch from the very beginning: to stop fearing the commandline.
And I was the first alpha tester, in that I wanted to learn more about how the sausage was actually made, so to speak. I was comfortable using things like Linuxconf at the time, but its beginner-friendly veneer meant that I didn't really know what to do if it _wasn't_ there.
After tinkering with Crux and PLD for a bit, I wanted to go deeper and start from nothing. So I loaded up the LFS[1] docs and just started typing in the shell stanzas to start building my compilation toolchain. In an effort to DRY as much as possible, the work also got placed into shell scripts, which eventually became PKGBUILD modules.
I started having way too much fun with it, so I put up the world's ugliest webpage[2] to share my triumphs, and a couple people found it, somehow. That begat the immediate need for documentation, which eventually brought Arch into the forefront. I can't recall who spearheaded the Arch wiki, but we owe them a great debt, because it has become a valuable resource for Linux users, and not only the Arch users.
Arch is my happiest accident.
ps: btw, I run Arch (is this still a meme?)
[1] https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20020328043401/http://www.archli...
[+] [-] candiddevmike|3 years ago|reply
I built a tool that does this, you can look through the code and see how I do it--it's just bash spaghetti. Download a Debian live ISO (or use my tool to create an Arch-like minimal live USB) and you can install it however you want.
https://github.com/candiddev/forge
[+] [-] WastingMyTime89|3 years ago|reply
Honest question: why days?
I have installed arch multiple times in the past decade and I don’t remember anything exceptionally out of the ordinary. You just follow the step-by-step instruction and you are good to go.
It’s all fairly standard: boot on a live cd, get internet, format the disk, mount, arch provides a script to install the base and another to change the root and it’s vanilla Linux config from there.
Edit: Hmm, I guess how to configure a vanilla Linux might be quite complex for someone who has no idea of how to do that. I might have answered my own question actually.
[+] [-] realgeniushere|3 years ago|reply
You don’t really understand anything more except how to configure a system with a poorly designed configuration system. Installing a difficult-to-use Linux distribution teaches you nothing about operating systems, compilers, linkers & loaders, shared libraries, or anything else about the foundations of modern computing.
[+] [-] rmbyrro|3 years ago|reply
I love Arch for its simplicity and performance.
But it just wasn't productive for me to get everyday tasks done. I'm not advanced Linux user, occasionally I'd need hours to get seemingly simple stuff done.
For a hobby desktop, fine. For a work tool as a developer, I moved back to Ubuntu (though I have moments of regret every day).
[+] [-] hutzlibu|3 years ago|reply
Maybe have a look at manjaro, it is based on arch, but comes prepackaged, so you can just boot up the luve image and install, if everything works.
[+] [-] dartharva|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway62132|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] me551ah|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghostpepper|3 years ago|reply
edit: Beginner's guide, not install guide, is what was deleted
[+] [-] mcbuilder|3 years ago|reply
First it's as vanilla as possible, which mean that packages are modified as little as possible from upstream. This means you don't learn anything distro-specific by mistake, and you actually learn more how the package is intended to function.
The second is great documentation and community. The Arch wiki is full of common tweaks that you'll likely have to do, many other distro's may have just held your hand and assumed you wanted those boxes checked, but Arch makes you check them.
Being minimal also helps, it really doesn't overwhelm you. Arch doesn't, it's just that only at a time is usually broken, so you're doing something like that.
[+] [-] matthews2|3 years ago|reply
After using and contributing to Gentoo for a few years, I don't think I could confidently explain how all of the pieces of the desktop graphics and audio stack fit together - I just installed it and it worked.
[+] [-] dvratil|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coletonodonnell|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] green726|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pantalaimon|3 years ago|reply
I recently installed Archlinux32 on an old Pentium II machine just for the fun of it and was pleasantly surprised that it still feels reasonably responsive (I didn't get X11 to work yet though as the GPU driver for that machine apparently never reached mainline or was removed in the meantime).
Everything is managed by systemd/networkd the way it's authors intended. No custom scripts or other cruft or bloat. No 'helpful' background services to update man pages or the package database.
It's also refreshing how fast pacman is compared to apt.
[+] [-] anthk|3 years ago|reply
Alpine is. If you think Arch is fast, try Alpine x86.
On X.Org, VESA works everywhere.
[+] [-] amadeuspagel|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Macha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] massysett|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilyt|3 years ago|reply
... till they had a failure and discovered none of their backups was working.
Check your backups kids.
[+] [-] digitallyfree|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wvh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subsection1h|3 years ago|reply
I use Debian Stable and Fedora on my systems and I have the latest versions of all of the software of which I want the latest versions because I can install software from source like a big boy. And my installers don't have version numbers hard-coded in them like PKGBUILDs do, so I get the latest versions immediately.
[+] [-] _piif|3 years ago|reply
Recently made the jump to NixOS though and been really happy with the additional features it offers.
[+] [-] trabant00|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autophagian|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joveian|3 years ago|reply
https://lists.archlinux.org/mailman3/lists/arch-announce.lis...
My suggestions: 1) Keep both linux and linux-lts installed since otherwise you have no backup if the one you normally use doesn't work. 2) Always fully update the system since dependencies aren't always fully specified and a partial update can damage the rest of the system. If you need to hold back a package, add it to the IgnorePkg= line in /etc/pacman.conf until it works again. 3) Avoid AUR except for rare cases where you review the package manually (always avoid AUR helpers). 4) Don't be too lazy even though things mostly just work, check your boot logs at least every year or so to improve the chance of fixing issues before they cause trouble and look for and deal with pacnew files at least a few times a year.
[+] [-] omnicognate|3 years ago|reply
I upgrade them when I get round to touching them for some reason so sometimes months will go by. I've never encountered a problem after upgrade that I couldn't quickly resolve with a brief bit of tinkering, and I'd take that over starting from scratch or leaving things mouldering away on outdated software any day.
[+] [-] jasperry|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Operative0198|3 years ago|reply
This example and more such refined tools such as the AUR that add massive quality of life improvements to the overall Linux user experience is what keeps me happy at Arch.
[0] https://archlinux.org/pacman/alpm-hooks.5.html
[+] [-] dartharva|3 years ago|reply
This distro leaves all others in the dust in terms of speed and software availability; I will highly recommend it to everyone looking for a no-nonsense and up-to-date system.
[+] [-] subsection1h|3 years ago|reply
But what if I need packages created and maintained by vetted, qualified devs rather than the unvetted randos that upload PGBUILDs to the AUR? Many of the AUR contributors I've looked into have no publicly-accessible real names, no personal websites, no LinkedIn accounts, and their GitHub accounts are only a couple years old with Japanese cartoon characters as their account photos.
[+] [-] pndy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lproven|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtlmtlmtlmtl|3 years ago|reply
Mainstream Linux distros feel a lot more like Windows these days. Sure they require less condiguration, but they're also mich harder to mess around with. Starting up htop reveals a jungle of daemons and weird systemd shit I don't even know what does. Systemd is a terribly documented nightmare to configure, etc.
It's so nice in Arch to know pretty much know what everything is for because I was the one who installed it. And to have documentation that isn't infuriating to navigate.
[+] [-] dartharva|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morbusfonticuli|3 years ago|reply
During that time, I oftened wondered whether I should "play"/experiment more with other distros; after all I loved tinkering with my vim config and network setups etc.
However, I've been just satisfied with the status quo, and more importantly: I just wanted to get shit done.
Apt, dpkg, systemd. If I want to get bleeding-edge SW I'll build the upstream source manually. No big deal - won't happen too often.
Getting older, I'm beginning to despise fixing the os more and more ... I just want the machine to work. This results perhaps from my day job, which involves openbsd-developing/tweaking ... And general a lot of cursing.
Granted: I'm not a gamer or graphics-enthusiast, and use my computer primarily for development, writing, watching movies/pictures ... Your typical senior resident trapped in the body of a 30ish guy.
I'm often wondering whether I'm just lazy and/or whether my attitude is the norm or rather the exception respective to Unix/Linux (power)users.
Edit: forgot to say "big thank you" to the arch community! Over the years I consulted the archwiki endless times! Almost everytime really helpful (in contrast to the debian wiki, lol)
[+] [-] tcrenshaw|3 years ago|reply
That being said, I do run Arch on my laptop and desktop these days; I like being a little closer to upstream. I don't run a ton of bleeding edge software, but using aur makes it incredibly easy to stay up to date. I am also extremely appreciative of the Arch wiki, no matter what distro I'm using it's one of the first places I check out if I'm having an issue.
[+] [-] Semaphor|3 years ago|reply
My Linux experience was pretty minimal. Some trying out on desktop in the early 2000s and later again after Ubuntu became a thing, but I always got weird errors. Then some in university, and again a bit to administer my VPS or rPi.
Arch was a breath of fresh air, not only could I get current packages, everything was so well documented! The wiki is, as the article rightfully says, amazing. Now, even when I’m not using arch (I have a small Proxmox server with Debian and Debian containers), I still use the archwiki as I know it will help me for everything but Debian specific things. My first arch install (before that, I never installed an OS without an installer) took maybe 2 hours.
[+] [-] 4oo4|3 years ago|reply
The thing that makes the Arch docs so great is that it covers edge cases and has lots of examples.
[+] [-] BaculumMeumEst|3 years ago|reply
For example right now the latest gdb is broken on both my machines, and since i’m not as keen to participate in troubleshooting new software I think I’ll be moving to a more stable distro pretty soon
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=274056
[+] [-] pantalaimon|3 years ago|reply
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/downgrading_packages
[+] [-] nathias|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] datsudo|3 years ago|reply
Oh that distro is great. Is there some community package repo in that, equivalent to Arch's AUR? None? NVM.
[+] [-] kreig|3 years ago|reply
It has been working pretty well for me, except for a couple of issues that I ran over these years (e.g. the transition to systemd in 2012/2013, or no pacman -Syu for several weeks).
[+] [-] samgranieri|3 years ago|reply