Arch Linux Review
Introduction
Arch Linux is a bleeding edge Linux Distribution, that is mainly focused on simplicity, according to them "...without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications..", read its philosophy.
It has a powerful and efficient package manager Pacman
Release cycle
Arch Linux is a rolling release distribution, meaning there is no specific dates for new releases, it is continuously developing, it is almost always at the bleeding edge, with the most updated versions of packages.
This means you only have to install once, and then just keep updating arch, and you will always have the most "recent release", this is one of the aspects I like the most about Arch Linux
Installation
You can install Arch Linux from a CD or from a USB flash memory, they provide you with ISOs for the CD installation and with USB images for the flash memory installation.
They provide with two ways to install, from the network or from the media, anyway you end up with a very minimal installation, it is a base system.
From this point you have to install all the software you may need, if is more or less like installing Debian minimal CD, and choosing nothing when running the tasksel. This is another thing I like about Arch Linux, you may install only the needed software and do not end with a bunch of software you will never use, and do not be afraid about the process of installation their wiki pages are a great source of information, and everything is explained there.
Configuration
Configure Arch Linux is really simple, and I think they achieved their goal of keeping it simple, you mainly have two configuration files.
/etc/rc.conf where you can define the modules to be uploaded, and the daemons to be started, among other things, I like this way to configure modules and daemons, I am a Debian fan, and like this even more than the way Debian does.
The other configuration file is /etc/pacman.conf where you configure all necessary to install new packages and keep your system up to date, including mirrors.
Repositories
Arch Linux comes with four official repositories, they are:
- core, which contains all the packages needed to set up a base system
- extra, which holds packages not required for the base system, including desktop environments and programs
- testing, a special repository, with packages that are candidates for the core or extra repositories.
- community, which contains packages built and voted on by the community; includes packages that have sufficient votes and have been adopted by a "trusted user".
You will find all you need for a normal work on these repositories, at least they were enough for me so far.
Hardware requirements / Optimized for i686
Arch Linux is optimized for i686 and x86-64 microprocessors, so you need:
- An i686-based or x86-64 computer (PPro, Pentium 2 or higher, Athlon/Duron, etc. Note that AMD K6, Transmeta Crusoe, CyrixIII, and VIA-C3 are NOT supported.)
- 128 Mbytes RAM minimum, more is better to run graphical environments
As I said Arch Linux is optimized for i686, this means the Linux Kernel is compiled for i686 architecture, and the GNU software is compiled with --march=i686 FLAGS, this makes this Operating System extremely fast on modern computers but it can not run on old ones, if you want a system optimized for those, you can opt for Gentoo.
Pacman
pacman is the package manager utility for Arch Linux it is coded in C, and as far as I could see it is fast, reliable and secure, from the official web page we got
"pacman is a utility which manages software packages in Linux. It uses simple compressed files as a package format, and maintains a text-based package database (more of a hierarchy), just in case some hand tweaking is necessary.
pacman does not strive to "do everything." It will add, remove and upgrade packages in the system, and it will allow you to query the package database for installed packages, files and owners. It also attempts to handle dependencies automatically and can download packages from a remote server.".
It uses mirror servers to download the software you I really recommend you to look for the fastest ones in your area, you can optimize pacman to be faster.
pacman was developed by Jud Vinet, the creator of Arch Linux specially for it, but now also frugalware uses it, pacman is a great tool, fast and capable of keeping your system up to date and also can install user's compiled software using ABS (Arch Linux Build System).
Default Desktop
Arch Linux contrary to other Linux distributions does not has a default Desktop, you can install Gnome, OpenBox, KDE, or any other you may like and there are instructions in their wiki pages for each of them.
Read this Xorg configuration wiki and Desktop Environments for Arch, to configure your system with your favorite Desktop Environment or window manager.
Conclusion
Arch Linux is a great distro, it has almost always the latest package versions available, it is optimized to run on modern computers, and is a great option for the Desktop user, it may require a little of work to make it work, but do not be afraid it is actually easy to make it, you just need some time.
Another good thing is that you will never have to worry about upgrades, you do not need to edit any file and run upgrade process, or burn new CDs, as Arch Linux will be always up to date, and at the bleeding edge, download Arch and have a great time with it.
References
Wikipedia
ArchLinux Official web page
More about Arch
Arch Linux on Distrowatch
Arch Linux art and screenshots
Google Search
Navigation
Similar
- pacman: error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.0.9.8: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
- Arch Linux lost one of its biggest contributors
- How to install Nginx to run Drupal with boost, on an Arch Linux server
- cups: etc-cups-classes.conf exists in filesystem printers.conf subscriptions.conf
- Add a second ip to Linux - Arch Linux rc.conf
Comments
I just started dualbooting Arch installed via the Chakra usb image. I like it a lot! The reason I preferred this one to the standard arch was that I could get a GUI environment (KDEmod) immediately, which makes it easier to check the wiki pages when things are going to get configured. Further, I am definitely a KDE fan so I would have set up the KDE environment no matter what...
At the moment they only had the i686 image available so I am planning on replacing it with the x64 one whenever it is ready.
I am back to debian testing sorry.After installing a brand new system with 2 ext4 partitions one for boot root and another for home ,the update of initscripts killed my system and because it takes to much time to setting it up reinstalling it again was the only solution...
Didnt they just find a new bug for kde and ext4
You aren't supposed to use the ext4 filing systems for /boot if I remember correctly.
You forgot to add that Arch is a rolling-release distribution that NEEDS to be updated because it is as unstable as Hell. That's the price of using the latest version of packages.
I did not find unstable myself, but I think you are right in maybe it is not as stable as Debian or CentOS or Ubuntu LTS for Server, which are my favorites in that order for server purposes.
I would have to agree with that. I absolutely love Arch as my desktop OS. Absurdly fast and flexible, configurations that make sense, bleeding edge software, what's not to love?
But for my servers, I prefer something proven and rock solid.
By design Arch is "unstable". Doesn't mean it's going to crash a lot, as it doesn't, it's just the nature of living on the bleeding edge of software.. it *can* break on you, hence being called unstable. I've yet to have any serious problems with it myself, and when I did run into trouble more often than not it was user error.
For my servers, I run one with Debian Lenny, and one with Ubuntu 8.04LTS.. haven't made up my mind which I prefer yet, they both have their pros and cons. Software isn't current by any stretch of the imagination; that's the point. It uses builds that are known to be solid and reliable. Servers can theoretically run forever without any problems barring hardware/power failures.
I have been using Archlinux for 1.5 years now and linux in general (Debian, Zenwalk, Ubuntu) for almost 2.5 years, so I'm not much more than a newbie.
Stability with Arch has never been an issue. I have never had any crashes, whatosever. I did have to read up when performing some bigger updates (xorg-server and hal were the last two I guess), but if you visit the main page and read the pacman-output, I have never had any problems.
Debian stable is without doubt more stable, but not suitable for the desktop. Debian Testing is really good, but I constantly am searching for the new stuff, so Arch delivers to me bleeding edge apps and high stability. To each his own!
When you say that ArchLinux *needs* to be updated, that's not true: the pc my mom browses with/emails from has not been updated in two years and the pc my grandfather uses has not been updated for six months. They are both using ArchLinux without stability-issues.
Arch was my distro of choice for quite some time, but I'm afraid I'll have to agree with em4r1z - even the stable/current branch is just a bit too unstable... This is really too bad, since I loved the simplicity and speed of Arch from the beginning. So, the last two years or such I've been using Debian Lenny instead - which (IMHO) while having been Debian's "testing" branch for most of the time, has proven to be much more stable than Arch's "current". But, then again, nor is it as updated when it comes to software version as Arch - you'll just have to decide how bleeding edge you'll prefer to be. After all, GNU/Linux comes down to one thing: Freedom of choice!
You are right, actually I have some kind of quadruple boot Desktop where my first system is Debian testing, I also have there Gentoo, Arch and Crunchbang, I use all of them somehow equal, but I agree Debian is maybe the most stable and "trustable".
Last night i installed it got it mostly working but it would not no matter how hard i tried recognize my usb drives or dvd drives so i dumped it which i didn't really like having to do considering how much time i spent setting it up.
Just a wild guess - it's been a while since I've used Arch - but due to it's "simple" nature many components that would normally have been installed by default with other more "user-friendly" distros, are not installed automatically in Arch. If you are using the Gnome desktop, I guess the component you are missing is "gnome-volume-manager". Additionally you would have to include your user in the "storage" OS-group.
And, just to be clear here, this is not an error - this is the way Arch works: You decide how the installation is to work, but you must obviously know what you need..
Yes usb volume management is not installed by default with the graphical environment. You can use autofs or hal (probably other methods also). I prefer hal at this time. ArchWiki has a very good explanation of hal and how to install it. Once installed hal autoloads usb and optical devices.
The secret to Arch is not to give up too quickly. A little time on the Wiki and forum will give you the answer you need.
The fact that OS is small e.g. does not install all possible junk and run it after boot, made me to choose this distro. So far I have seen Arch to be stable and the support web pages are really good in quality. Even a small bug I encountered was fixed quite swiftly, so clearly Arch and it's community works.
The pacman is only thing I don't like. It might be quick and powerful, but yet another package manager which switches and parameters I need to remember. Problem is not that the package manager is bad, there are just too many of them.
which netbook do you have arch Linux on?
I personally like this. I installed this last Tuesday but I could not upgrade it until Thursday due to internet problems. The problems I have had are with KDE 4.2 and just plasma crashing and also the file manager taking forever when you split the screen. I am going to uninstall KDE tonight and try E17 instead. I have tried a lot of distributions and before this OpenSUSE 11.1 which I liked a lot but had some issues mainly due to KDE. I installed Mandriva 2009.1 RC1 but did not get very far using this just because I decided to use Arch Linux. One thing I like about Arch so far as it was easy to have it use my own board video card. For OpenSUSE I had to install a PCI video card and the one I had was old but it worked. I like the fact that I can uninstall the whole desktop environment and any programs I chose. I like that I can then install any other desktop environment I like. One thing I noticed is that the updates for kmymoney2 are not kept up to date but since it is mainly a development release I can understand. I really did like Debian and kept going back to it until I found OpenSUSE and then that became my favorite as I really like KDE and like the fact that they work so closely so soon after KDE updated it was part of the OpenSUSE update. I just want to try and get away from bloated desktops when I do not do much that needs what they do.
At first the combination of easy use and detailed control braught me to Arch and finished the distro hopping ever since. Then I start loving pacman as well as the rolling update system. I'm using Arch now on 30 computer including one file and two terminal server and never had stability issues any differnt than with other distro. By sharing the pacman cache and keeping a reasonable package history it was never an issue to deal with rare troubles. Besides the community is second to none and in most cases the next day's update solved the problem.
For the server I just keep a proof-to-be-stable snapshot on another drive.
Switching to EXT4 was smooth and improved the performace remarkably!
Arch is not a tiny distro anymore so the amount of packages is grew to a respectable extend. For thos who don't like a command line based package manager there is "Shaman" which does most pacman jobs by simple mouse clicks. "Yaourt" handles even the community packages (AUR) and for hardcore Linuxers you can compile everything with ABS.
The speed is better than Ubuntu, Mandriva or Suse. By the way: My SLES10 server was killed FUBAR by the automatic SP1 update... nobody is perfect.
That is a lot of time with Arch, thanks for your comment, and thanks for sharing your experiences with us, you are really a experienced Arch user with 30 PCs and even servers running Arch, makes me think that maybe I could try an Arch Server and not only Debian at server side.
thanks again.
Guillermo.
Ola Guillermo,
It depends on the server you are planning. For a small company where the worst case of a reboot is acceptable Arch is a very fine solution. I had problems with SLES10 and my new hardware. Drivers are simply coming too late. With Arch everything works right away. I didn't install any desktop environment on the server and do a manual snapshot of the operating system on another hdd. The rolling distro requires a different OS backup strategy. For the data of course there is a RAID. For administration Webmin is nice, but most of the jobs are easy to do with command line and Arch Wiki. I learned a lot since then!
Terminal server with NX are GREAT and reduce administration and request for new hardware. You can have your whole desktop from anywhere. VPN with hamachi which is in the Arch community repo. It just works and I know exactly what the computer is doing or not.
As long as you are willing to learn i little about Linux Arch fits. There are enough good distros for those who just want to put a CD in and get a ready computer out. This is OK and can convince people to switch to Linux. Most Windows folks still think Linux is just a geek OS for people who regularly wake up inside yesterday's pizza ;-)
It's perfectly fine if someone doesn't like Arch and there are no deficit of alternatives. What I can't understand though is how a misfit, user and system, immediately is defined as "unstable as [word of choice]".
Either you accept the KISS philosophy of Arch and the rolling-release implications, either you choose another distribution. What some view as a sign of it being "unstable" is the reality of dealing with a rolling release when crucial software as xorg and hal are going through major overhauls. This isn't instability, this is the work you signed up to do when choosing Arch.
In times of changes Arch is a blessing to work with. It's so easy to track down what's going on and why. It has one of the easiest file structures. The Wiki is one of the best and the community does give constructive help. This maybe sounds too good, but my point is that even though Arch is demanding at times you've got really good tools at hand to deal with it.
I've honestly not experienced anything that fairly can be blamed at Arch being unstable in the two years I've used it (I've six computers constantly running in different places and countries). I know this isn't any scientific proof of any sort, but even though not being a geek I suppose I've some basis for my view.
Nice article, but you really need to work on your grammar, use of punctuation and spelling :)
I would have listed the spelling errors but there are too many to count ;)
Thanks you are right, I have corrected the spelling, grammar is more dificult, as I am not a native English speaker, sorry.
regards,
Guillermo.
Well, whoever you are, I think accusing a non-native speaker of being careless in spelling, syntax or choice of expressions is a little bit unfair. The fact the person chose English is his/her own good will to share his/her experience with the wide public like you and me, but he/she could have easily written it in his/her mother tongue and share it just with the people of his language. So instead of teaching her/him you should have thanked the person, I think. If you do not like it, go ahead and write your own contribution in fluent Hungarian, Portuguese and Swahili and then we shall see...
greetings
Peter
topiarz [at] post [dot] cz
Edit by ggarron, to keep spammers away from the email address
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your support, I am a Spanish speaker, I live in Bolivia.
And you are right, I have chosen English because that way I can reach more people that writing in Spanish.
Thanks a lot again for your support.
Regards,
Guillermo.
PD. I have Edited your email address to keep it safe from spammers.
Most people try Arch because they think they're being clever. All this stuff about Arch being difficult to install is just rubbish, it's time consuming, not difficult. And after all that setting up you've got a system that's no better than Ubuntu that installs in less than half an hour. I actually found Ubuntu 9.04 to boot and run quicker than Arch + Xfce4.
One other thing, about the Arch forums...it's a boring place....lots of people slapping themselves on the back and thinking that they're clever because they're using a system that needs constant repairing thanks to 'pacman -Syu'.
Arch is for people with more time than sense.
Arch fanboys are worse than mac fanboys. Not only do they think that everything else is wrong and bad, but they try to convert everyone to their cause.