938
i hate that it's very often like this
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
938 points (95.9% liked)
linuxmemes
19701 readers
727 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is why Arch is the best. Forget the rolling release, it's the sheer size of the repos for me.
I've daily drivered arch for a couple months now. Only a few time have I not searched and found a wiki/forum with the precise error/comment and a solution/fix for the problem.
It's almost literally insane.
How would you compare it to Ubuntu? I have never tried Arch before.
Well for a start it's compulsory to tell everyone you use it.
I have run all kinds of distros. Loved them all, btw. But nothing comes even close to arch and its derivatives. I've been running emdeavourOS for almost 1.5 years now and it's been fantastic. The AUR is godsend. I have never bothered with flatpaks, snaps or appimages. AUR has everything I need.
I'm going from Ubuntu 16 or so (took a break since then). The flexibility/customization/wikis of arch make it better IMO
If you're moderately comfortable with the command line, Arch is amazing. I find it considerably easier to find software I want to install, and find answers to problems I have.
I would say that if you're not interested in
learningwhen something goes wrong, so you're not really interested in anything other thani don't care I just want it to workthen it's not the distro for you.The rolling release style is really great and Arch is rock solid, so if you are looking for something a little more user friendly, Endeavor is worth a try as it is Arch based but focused on an easier to use system.
I installed Arch for the first time in March of last year for my primary gaming PC. Previously my gaming PCs were windows but I keep a separate file server and HTPC each running Ubuntu. I'm in the process of switching both of them over to Arch now because I just consider package management and updates so much easier.
Truly don't mean to be argumentative, but, I read all the time how an update will semi-brick it, requiring repair. ?
There's the primary maintained software repository, then there's the AUR. I think most of the times people's systems break because as inexperienced users they find a specific piece of software a site told them to install and its only available in the AUR, instead of finding something properly maintained that already exists to do the same thing. Over time you end up with a mess of a system relying on user maintained build files.
I learned a lot in my first year of Arch (probably my 15th+ year of Linux though and I was not afraid of the command line) so I decided to reinstall my system after that first year and one of the choices I made was to not use AUR packages (except in very specific cases). I also changed bootloader's and a few other things.
I've had mine break twice I think. The first time was because I didn't know the general rule was "if you're doing an update, update everything". I saw an updated GPU driver was released so I installed it, but didn't bother with anything else. Turns out you're supposed to update the graphics drivers and kernel at the same time, so i wasn't getting output after booting the kernel. The beauty of Arch though is that when you learn to install it, you also learn how to fix it. Booted off the USB installer stick, mounted my root partition, chrooted to it, then ran a system update. I was back booted up, logged in, and gaming in less than 10 minutes from discovering the problem.
In general, I would say people's systems getting bricked "all the time" is a bit hyperbolic.
I'm going to need to push back against that. I don't believe I was being hyperbolic.
For the record, I said "semi-brick it", and used that term specifically so thst I would not be hyperbolic. My point was that updates could go wrong and the OS would require repairing and was not usable until the repairs were done.
I keep reading over and over again in various places on the Internet that things break with some reoccurrence, and they have to be repaired, so I don't believe I was being hyperbolic.
Perhaps you are being defensive?
If you read the various responses, including your own, to my comments you get people who are knowledgeable with it talking about learning how to repair it when something goes wrong, in a semi-defensive sort of way.
It doesn't seem like a good choice for someone who just wants to use their computers a tool (to game, etc.) and not enjoy it as an OS hobby.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but people who use this OS seem to have a very specific perspective about its ease of use that wouldn't align in my honest opinion with people who use computers just as tools, and do not wish to take the time to be overly knowledgeable about their OS.
Happens every once in a while but usually it's a trivial repair
Fair enough, but not sure I I'd classify that as "rock solid".
Also I'm assuming it's a "trivial repair" for those who are technically knowledgeable, but not so much for those who are not.
Well, I should have worded it better. Minor issues happen every once in a while, not semi-bricked systems. On my current installation of Endeavour (an Arch derivative) which is about 1 year old, the only thing that broke for maybe a few days was Steam when they rolled out their new UI, but I could work around that by using a command line argument which I found through simple googling - no technical knowledge required, at least not more than an average gamer would have. And the issue was solved with the next nvidia update.
Your mileage may vary of course, but for me I don't feel I've had more issues on Arch than other distros.
Fair enough. Thanks for replying.