Good job on writing such a great review. Yes Arch is a very good distro and I use it on my computer and it works great. It's fast and simple. Only thing I recommend is looking over the review because there are quite a few spelling mistakes =).

Very nice review. I just arch two days ago, because I was not content with my system. This is the first distro where I had to install everything myself, but like you say already, arch is quicker, cleaner and faster than for example ubuntu or fedora even though it doesn't provide any graphical setup tools. Time will tell if I can keep arch longer than a few weeks, but the chances are better than ever

Hello.

You've done a well written, very nice and trough the whole text positive review about arch. You tell the truth about the things we're not featuring, as a fully configured and working system out of the box, but you also nicely described that it's not a goal of arch.

Though, there are developers who are developing tools for Arch, which shall make the daily business easier, when it comes to configuring your system, or package upgrading.

What i've been wondering: Is it really to be "in the bleeding edge"? I always thought it was "while you are on the bleeding edge", but my english is far from perfect.

Yours,
STiAT (Georg)
Arch Linux TU

Great review - it covers everything I like and dislike (ehm, nothing?) about Arch, so I agree almost completely.

The only thing I don't agree with is that you have to be an experienced Linux'er to be able to get it to work. When I started out with linux a year and a half ago, I tried Debian, Zenwalk and Arch and, while I had printed out the installation guide, Arch was the one that I had the least trouble with. I do agree you need some insight in the basics of partitioning and filesystems, but that was something I already knew from my pre-linux days, so the requirements you mention are IMHO not correctly defined

Thx and keep it up!

Zl.

the feeling i have after reading this review is that this is not really the first time you install/use arch...
i know arch for sure (and i like it), but some aspects of your review are just too positive to be true from a first-time user...

Great review. Covered all the bases without getting into needless meanderings. I have never tried Arch, but that will shortly be remedied!

I'd been using Arch for the last two or so years at work. I got tired of complexities in Debian, Ubuntu, BSD and Gentoo and found Arch a true KISS. It is rock solid on both production servers and my development desktop. Arch is on cutting edge; meaning that it uses stable (production) version of each software; unless you modify /etc/pacman/pacman.conf and ask the system to use test repository (unstable bleeding edge).

The cutting edge repository is much newer than other distros (except source-based ones like Lunar)
Arch is GREAT!! Good job man!

I was ubuntu user for almost year now I use Arch for 6 months.
I tested other distros alot for short time.
So what can I say: Ubuntu is best for first touch and warm up in GNU/Linux,
and after it then some Linux skill is gained Arch is the best.

I think some of you might relate. I was never happy in my current distribution, always looking for the next "big thing", and constantly reinstalling different distros. Well, after trying the latest Gentoo (where I comiled for three days before a major emerge error had me throw in the towel) I tried Arch and why the heck did I wait so long! There was some time spent getting it all working (addding rules for automount, etc) but I learned a lot more about the system in the process and it's been nothing but stable so far!!!!

It is definitely much faster, and I wish that I had installed it on my work production computer (CentOS 5 there) as yum is a complete dinosaur and the system, while stable, feels sluggish.

I think that the no frills approach is really what makes it happen as well. After a few days I grow weary of only flash, and not having to worry about tweaking your system really allows you to get more done!

Thanks for the review

As an owner of multiple Macs, I have switched all of them to debian linux. I only wish Arch had a ppc version, then I would have jumped on board no questions asked.

read your excellent review and feeling the urge to install arch. urgh!

yah thats true ppc (what im planing to buy) so no stopping

Nice review. You have piqued my interest, and I will be installing Arch to test drive it. It sounds like exactly what I am looking for.

For sure!

I, like Xenocoder was a distro whore for many a year. I've tried (chronologically) RedHat (pre-Fedora), Mandrake (pre-Mandriva), Slackware, Vector, and Libranet before settling down on Debian for a couple of years.

Ultimately my frustration with Debian was how sslloooooowww the development was moving, and after hosing my system a few times trying to move into the unstable repos, I moved on to OpenSUSE and Ubunutu, but at this point I felt like I was in Linux Elementary moving to these distros. Cent had been good to me on servers, but I wanted something cutting edge, yet without having to do a 3 hour compiled install (see Gentoo).

Then I found beloved Arch. It was like meeting a soulmate. I had gone so long just accustomed to the idea that I would always have to settle for this or that by using Linux and that I would never find that "perfect" distro.

I switched about a year ago and have never looked back. When people ask about Arch I tell them that it truly is the perfect disto for those who "know" Linux. Although, I really believe that the documentation is good enough for a newbie to jump into Arch, I don't think that you can really appreciate Arch until you've put your feet into the mire that is the current distribution pool out there.

FUzzylogiCK:

I think you summed it up perfectly

I agree with the author that Arch is not for someone new to linux. I have a lot of experience on Windows. However, when I first installed Arch about 6 months ago, I hadn't used linux much more than a few days. I had gotten through the installation of Ubuntu, Fedora, and BSD, but I hadn't really used any of them.

I had a little trouble following the Arch installation guide. But I did finally get it installed. I wasn't able to configure it though. I eventually gave up and went with Ubuntu.

I plan on staying with Ubuntu until I am more familiar with the linux command line. So far I haven't had to do any performance intensive stuff, so I can put up with the 'bloat' of Ubuntu. Maybe when I get my home-server I'll figure out Arch.

Thanks for the article.

Cheers,

FUzzylogiCK's story is pretty similar to mine. The need of having control of your system, excellent performance and latest (mostly) stable software let me end up with Arch too. Meanwhile I use it in our company and save a lot of time for managing server and clients (shared pacman cache). IMHO it is just the most convincing distro concept.
Arch of course is not harder to use than any other distro! It is requires just more understanding for installation and configuration. I believe some simple graphical (just simple scripts with some front end and an update checker) maintainance tools would help beginners to use their arch system. Still most beginners ask "experts" for installation help or look for pre-installed solutions.

Good article!

Hi Guys,

I suggest Debian. It is also extremely lightweight - NetInst comes in ~250 MB.
Debian doesn't force a particular desktop environment down your throat.
I have debian installed with Enlightenment Desktop, Firefox, MPlayer and Prozilla in just 592 MB. It boots in about 20 seconds.

And of course - Debian is rocksolid. But guess the best part - you have 23000 applications free to download and install!

I will give Arch a try anyway. I have downloaded the ISO and lets see how it pits against Debian.

Arch gets better and better with each release, and surprisingly, also more "user friendly" without losing the Arch feel. Still, I won't be switching over until some of the third-party GUIs and installation tools become a little more automated and polished. I love the speed, the bleeding edge packages, and the community. I'm not afraid of the command line, either, but there are times when I really just don't want to spend an afternoon configuring my ATI video card and making my laptop's buttons work. So it's something I play with when I have the time and energy, but not something I'd ever install on a whim.

Of course, "easier installation" is not an Arch priority, but some community members are slowly implementing configuration tools on the side. Once they mature a little, I'll be back.

I downtrodden distro called Wolvix needs some attention. I tried it on 17 different computers and it installed on each one of them. The beauty of Wolvix is that it can be installed from DOS prompt. So oldest computers can be revived by copying it to one partition. deletering all other partitions and boot to dos through floppy to a prompt. Run wolvix.bat and presto you have a fast and functional Linux distro. Just wonderful I say. What is great about arch if wolvix does the same thing in graphic mode and is as fast? I tried Arch through a CDRW it does not work as is mentioned in the installation guide. Why? Judd are you listening? I install many distros from DVDRW or CDRW including Wolvix and BSD? Why one should waste CDS just for trying out a distro? When I tried Arch it just booted saying Kernel is wrong or some such thing. Now one CD is gone. At least if it worked through CDRW I could have saved a CD? Folks, please tell me if something with command lines only can work fast? Then why MAC is so fast and beautiful? this is a nerd attitude. Everything can be made to run through graphic mode and fast!!!
That is the challenge. Try Wolvix if you do want to see this? thanks
canape, Peru

Hi, I would like to add my comment to this nice review. Im very new to linux. I have begun to experiment four months ago with Fedora, but it was too bulky for my laptop. My next choice was Ubuntu, a very good distro for newbabies like me, but I had some problem with overheating, so I have jumped to Mint, which is a very good distribution. I have no complains about it, so far. But, as my taste for linux grew, I wanted to tried something for the geeks, as they say, and I went to slackware. I was able to establish it on my laptop, but it proved to be time consuming and still beyond my reach. So, that is how I have ended up with Arch linux. It is what I wanted. After the base system was put in place, without any problems, I have all the choice to experiment with all sorts of desktop environments from KDE to fluxbox, and pacman package manager is fantastic. Arch linux is the fastest OS, I have so far been using. The only problem I have, and till now I was not been able to solve it is with hal, which seems to be related to my laptop brand Fujitsu S6000. Im not yet enough geek to fully understand some of the comments regarding how to fix bugs. But, Arch has great community support, people ready to give help if something gets wrong, and many other positive aspects. Im very happy with arch; i have learned many things about linux with this distro and would also suggest for others to try. "Don't punic" is a fitting name for this distro, because it tells newbabies that they should not be afraid to try it; it is also for us who are new to linux. Blessing.

Hey. I need to add that my hal problem was solved thanks to a one person in Arch forum, who simply sent a file that fixed the problem. Amazing. Now, I run one among the fastest and stable distros among all the linuxes I have tried so far. It is really joy to use it.

it might be difficult for absolute beginners but for those who did some distro-hopping for some time it is great.
on their website they say it is "...a small..." distribution but some girls told say "small" doesn't mean ...i think you know what i am talking about.

after distro hopping from Fedora, to Ubuntu, to Gentoo, to Debian, back to Ubuntu, to Fedora, to Ubuntu, to Fluxbuntu, I feel at home with the straightfoward and well documented installation and configuration of Arch Linux.

Just installed the software I want.. nothing else.. no bloat. Arch linux lackage management is amazingly fast! Maintaining my system has never been easier.. It is also incredibly stable, and not having to install -dev packages for libraries makes things so much easier as a developer. Its like all the best things in the linux world put in one system....

I was a distro hopper too. I installed everything from redhat 9, to mandrake, to suse, debian, slackware, ubuntu, kubuntu, mint, etc... until 4 days ago I've met Arch. This distro is just incredible. Instead of automatically installing all kinds of stuff I don't need it lets me install the software I want to use and only that software. The past 4 days of my life are just amazing with Arch. I really love it. I'm using a dualscreen with openbox and it works just perfectly fine! I think the power of arch is the configuration. Everything is just logical and not r*ped by GUI configuration tools. Everything has its place but can of course be changed as you want. You install it step by step, and because of this you really know how the system is configured, and you know where to search when something isn't working. I'm planning to use Arch on a Dedicated Server to serve a Ruby On Rails app. I have a strong feeling that this is going to work out really well!

I fell in love with it the moment i saw it, and i see its magnificient and promising try it...

Most of the comments, and I assume the original review, are two to three years old. It is very well written, but I feel it could be outdated? Would love to see a new review that reflects the rapid changes that have taken place in Linux, especially one as well written as this one.

ugg fashion shoes--classic,cove,nightfall,sundance,mini...