[Dyme]

Then you clearly never tried to run a server. However I didn't say arch was unusable, but compared to Debian it is not as stable or as reliable. I would never use Arch unless I wanted bleeding edge features. For a casual use or server use, you want features that you know will work.

However I didn't say arch was unusable

It's nice, if you want an unstable system.

Lol?

Then you clearly never tried to run a server.

Because for some reason arch in incapable of running services without having stability issues? Can you provide some examples?

For a casual use or server use, you want features that you know will work.

Once again, why doesn't arch work? What types of errors/problems have you encountered that lead you to believe that arch is an unstable system? Just the fact that it uses the most up-to-date software? Until you answer these questions, you're kind of just repeating yourself without providing any examples or evidence to support your claims.

Also, I would stop using the word "casual" as I'm not sure you know what it means. Just in case:

If your talking about using a system that unstable, the best way to use it would be for casual use, as it's generally unimportant compared to the other ways the distribution could be used (I.E. a business server).

[IcanFLY]

Lol?

Because for some reason arch in incapable of running services without having stability issues? Can you provide some examples?

Once again, why doesn't arch work? What types of errors/problems have you encountered that lead you to believe that arch is an unstable system? Just the fact that it uses the most up-to-date software? Until you answer these questions, you're kind of just repeating yourself without providing any examples or evidence to support your claims.

Also, I would stop using the word "casual" as I'm not sure you know what it means. Just in case:

If your talking about using a system that unstable, the best way to use it would be for casual use, as it's generally unimportant compared to the other ways the distribution could be used (I.E. a business server).

Let's get something straight here, I do not mind Arch. However it doesn't test most of the packages that get added. This inherently makes Arch unstable. It also takes quite a long time to properly configure arch, which is where most people start running into problems. Meaning its not for casual use (as in a Facebook machine). Between rolling releases and the amount of time it takes to compile, configure, and update, several hours have passed. Plus there is no guaranty that something wont break during one of those processes. This makes it terrible for server use.

Arch is great for experienced linux users. It offers some of the best customization of any distro, and with its rolling release you can bet you have the most updated packages (READ: new, untested, bleeding edge). It's not for people just getting into linux. Unless they want to spend several hours staring at a terminal trying to figure out why their kernel is not compiling correctly.

[Oni]

Let's get something straight here, I do not mind Arch. However it doesn't test most of the packages that get added. This inherently makes Arch unstable. It also takes quite a long time to properly configure arch, which is where most people start running into problems. Meaning its not for casual use (as in a Facebook machine). Between rolling releases and the amount of time it takes to compile, configure, and update, several hours have passed. Plus there is no guaranty that something wont break during one of those processes. This makes it terrible for server use.

Arch is great for experienced linux users. It offers some of the best customization of any distro, and with its rolling release you can bet you have the most updated packages (READ: new, untested, bleeding edge). It's not for people just getting into linux. Unless they want to spend several hours staring at a terminal trying to figure out why their kernel is not compiling correctly.

It's not even for casual/experienced users either. "New", "untested", and "bleeding edge" tend to be keywords for things in development still. You don't want to use something like that as your day-to-day operating system unless you are actually willing to put in the time to maintain it. For most users, that's simply unrealistic. I do, however, applaud Arch users. I've used it before and eventually I switched because it took too much time to maintain.

[Dyme]

It's not even for casual/experienced users either. "New", "untested", and "bleeding edge" tend to be keywords for things in development still. You don't want to use something like that as your day-to-day operating system unless you are actually willing to put in the time to maintain it. For most users, that's simply unrealistic. I do, however, applaud Arch users. I've used it before and eventually I switched because it took too much time to maintain.

Once past the initial setup:

Code:

pacman -Syyu

That's literally the only thing I've been doing for months to "maintain" my system. Could you elaborate on that as I'm not sure what you mean. I'm just wondering what exactly you had trouble with as I have not experienced any issues in my half a year of usage regarding "maintaining my system" or buggy "untested" packages (although I do not know of any vendors that don't throughly test their product before releasing an official update). You guys are making it seem like the official arch repos are being populated with alpha and beta versions of products, and thats just not true for the overwhelming majority of available packages. When an update is released, it's simply made available.

Between rolling releases and the amount of time it takes to compile, configure, and update, several hours have passed.

Several hours? Are you using a toaster? Updating my kernel takes me 5 minutes tops.

[IcanFLY]

Several hours? Are you using a toaster? Updating my kernel takes me 5 minutes tops.

I said compile, configure, and update. As in, from scratch. You are ignoring the whole installation part, which takes both patients and a firm grasp of how linux works. Someone who is just starting to learn would not know what to do.

[Oni]

Once past the initial setup:

Code:

pacman -Syyu

That's literally the only thing I've been doing for months to "maintain" my system. Could you elaborate on that as I'm not sure what you mean. I'm just wondering what exactly you had trouble with as I have not experienced any issues in my half a year of usage regarding "maintaining my system" or buggy "untested" packages (although I do not know of any vendors that don't throughly test their product before releasing an official update). You guys are making it seem like the official arch repos are being populated with alpha and beta versions of products, and thats just not true for the overwhelming majority of available packages. When an update is released, it's simply made available.


Several hours? Are you using a toaster? Updating my kernel takes me 5 minutes tops.

For some reason, I'm led to believe you're being less than honest about issues you may have ran into. As an operating system, it's not reasonable to deploy in a timely manner. There's a reason a larger majority of websites run Debian or Ubuntu (eww). I'm not saying people should need to know next to nothing to deploy an operating system, but I am suggesting they should be deployed in a timely manner. Without the creation of scripts, the deploying of Arch isn't exactly a simple process. A complex system doesn't need a complex setup process. With the removal of the AIF (Arch Installation Framework), they made things increasingly taxing to set up. It's not all that much relatively better than other distributions either.

While I don't think you should be able to stick in a disk and have it do everything for you, I think there should a certain amount of simplicity when you're installing an operating system. Arch doesn't offer that and it isn't a reasonable operating system for servers or home users. Maybe advanced users and aficionados, but really... come on? I've had my fair amount of experience using Linux and I find it unreasonable to spend as much time setting things up as Arch required, maybe even with the AIF they used to offer. There is also an increased level of instability with Arch. I'm not saying that it's awful, but it's much worse than on other distributions. That's the price of being "new", "untested", and "bleeding edge".

Just to add, I still love Arch - but not for the same reasons you seem to. You seem to have a different opinion of it.