ArchLinux, Not Just For The Elite

I like arch, except for the stupid command line arguments to pacman. I wish they had just kept it more standard. There's nothing wrong with naming "install" install and "search" search. Feels to me like a case of inventing complexity just to make it feel a little more elitist.<p><pre><code> pacman -Ss gnome # searches for gnome pacman -S gnome # installs gnome</code></pre>

It's pretty stupid, but the only problem I have with using something like Arch on my desktop is I can <i>never</i> seem to get the fonts to look nice (ie. like they do in OS X or Ubuntu) when I've installed/configured Xorg myself.

I don't use Arch personally, but I have found that every time I've looked for documentation on something lately (like setting up xmonad), I would be directed to the Arch wiki and forums quite a bit. They seem to have a good community going on over there.

"Arch Linux is a very fun and stable distribution that successfully blends the bleeding edge, stability and hackability of Linux"<p>let's define 'stable' <a href="http://www.tuxtips.org/?cat=3" rel="nofollow">http://www.tuxtips.org/?cat=3</a>

Tried to install it last week, almost everything was done until GUI. Could not make to install &#38; configure one of window managers.

Google cached version: <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KJXbNFyM7jwJ:standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2011/11/06/archlinux-notforthe-elite/+http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2011/11/06/archlinux-notforthe-elite/&#38;hl=en&#38;gl=uk&#38;strip=1" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KJXbNFy...</a>

I used Arch for a while, and really loved it... in theory. In practice, updates would often break things, especially when those updates were x.org-related.<p>Using Arch also really made me appreciate all the work Ubuntu does to make a desktop that isn't ugly. I found myself installing Ubuntu-patched versions of many Arch packages just to get things like a decent notification system and non-ugly fonts. (And even then, OpenOffice fonts never did work correctly.)<p>I was raised on Slackware, so I'm no stranger to DIY-style Linux, but these days I'm happy to install Ubuntu and have a working, decent-looking desktop system in 20-30 minutes.<p>That said, if I was looking to build a minimalist dev box or something other than a general desktop system, I wouldn't hesitate to install Arch.

&#62;The installation process may take a while (several hours.. or less)<p>It depends on what you're talking about. With relatively fast internet (I have 20Mb/s), I can have a functional box up with my favorite DE in just an hour or so. It's true that I configure things here and there for the next couple days as I need them, and each configuration is simple and only takes a second or two, but several hours seems a lot longer than the average install to me.

Am I right in thinking that Arch is the new Gentoo?

[..] Arch Linux is a very fun and stable distribution that successfully blends the bleeding edge, stability and hackability of Linux. Don’t be fooled by the rumours saying it’s for the elite. [..]<p>Agree! I have been using it for almost a year and the most atractive thing is the rolling release update. I don't have to worry about upgrading the whole system like others distros.

Arch taught me a lot about my computer. I use a libre/Free Software distribution of it, Parabola GNU/linux-libre.

"almost as easy than Ubuntu or any other distribution"<p>But if Ubuntu is easier, why not use Ubuntu?

that's it ... i'm moving to gentoo.