Seeking a new Linux distro

[tiny]

Thanks for this thread. I've been using Linux on and off for 15+ years but never found a distribution that I really liked.

I was the same until I found God Arch!

(Sorry -- I fear I am getting a bit Evangelical about Arch now. I'm not telling anyone which distro to have faith in -- I'm just excited to have a system that I finally understand.)

To quote a local tech friend who after just a short brush said, "Unix people have the strangest ideas of what makes something simple".

Everyone has a different idea of what "simple" means! For Ubuntu users, it's having the OS do everything automatically without the user having any idea what's going on behind the scenes. To make that happen... there has to be a lot going on, a lot that can break. For Arch users, "simple" means, a core OS that does everything without reinventing the wheel, settings stored in simple text files that won't be automagically modified by the system or some silly app.

Windows and Ubuntu users want the experience of *using* a computer to be simple and easy -- everything installed and ready to go. Arch users want to look under the bonnet and simply/easily understand how to *control* the computer -- nothing installed unless they say so (or it avoids "reinventing the wheel").

I don't need the operating system protecting me from things or performing automated processes. Creating wheels within wheels within wheels like a Rube Goldberg machine is where Windows fails, and there is no reason to imitate that.
...
I don't necessarily need a fat GUI on top that hides the OS's inner workings.

^^ THIS is where Arch really excels. It's so simple to configure... not that it needs much configuration once it's up and running. There's one way to do things, instead of a million different GUI options that all interfere with each other. The installation process is a bit complicated because YOU are in control. But if you follow the wiki, it's not as hard as it looks. (Although it took me a few attempts at first!)

 

[Sapphyre]

I can understand why you got frustrated, Sapphyre. The Arch installation process is a bit of a baptism of fire. But there are good reasons for it being the way it is. And if you can get over the initial hurdle, it's so easy and "sensible" to maintain. Once it's installed, and you've played around and tweaked stuff... you'll think, "Ohhhhh! Now I get it! This is easy! And everything works!!! It's soooo fast!!!" It's worth the initial effort, honest!

Arch is designed to do almost anything! Not everyone wants network connectivity or X. Not everyone wants to build an Arch installation that works on the PC they are currently using. So Arch has to be modular, and start from a minimal installation so you can do whatever you want with it. The installation method (of chrooting into a live CD/USB) is exactly what you'd need to do if you totally mess up the system so it won't boot or function. It's a useful skill to learn! And the rest of the installation guide walks you through other useful things.

Unlike other distros, Arch doesn't modify or customise packages at all unless it's necessary for them to function normally. This makes it quick and easy for the latest packages to be made available, AND results in rock-solid reliability. No weird shit occurs.l There are no superfluous GUIs or daemons sneakily changing settings behind your back. If you want to change a setting, you consult the wiki (if necessary), edit the relevant text file and save it. Job done. No surprises.

Arch used to have an installer, but it was dropped because it's easier to maintain a live CD image than an installer... and because the manual method allows more control (for those who know what they're doing)... and to give new users a tour of the system... and (dare I say it?) possibly as a way to put off Linux newbies... :-o

If you can cope with the Arch installation process, then everything else will be a breeze! The installation process is definitely the most "hands on" I'll ever get with Arch... everything else has been so easy! And you only need to install Arch once. I've got systems that have been running it for a decade and are still as "clean" and fresh as a new installation.

I might have made it had things gone more smoothly; xorg-config didn't want to run, and the installation procedure was onerous enough already without having to troubleshoot where it doesn't work.

The lack of an actual installer certainly isn't a deal-breaker for me; Gentoo more or less installs this way if you use the minimal install media (as I did). I didn't mind chrooting. I did mind creating specific files per the Install Guide and typing specific lines of syntax into them… to refer back to my earlier engine analogy, Arch feels like a well-designed machine that is user-serviceable with the right set of tools, versus OpenBSD's "valves with big rubber-coated handles". For instance, similar files exist by default after install on OpenBSD, and lines of syntax you might want to activate are provided as comments within them. At a glance you can uncomment the ones you need (or use them as examples) without having to look anything up on a wiki.

Also, OpenBSD configured X for me (correctly!) after asking if I wanted to use it. Then it asked if I wanted it to start with gdm on boot or boot to console. Done and done. I really liked the quick setup. Color me lazy I guess. ^^;

 

[depends4me]

I was the same until I found God Arch!

(Sorry -- I fear I am getting a bit Evangelical about Arch now. I'm not telling anyone which distro to have faith in -- I'm just excited to have a system that I finally understand.)

You know, you had me back on page 1, lol.

I wonder when it got to the point at Microsoft that no single person understands the whole of Windows anymore? But I'll bet it's happened.

My friend's definition of "simple", and mine for that matter, is an OS you can easily grasp from a technical perspective, if not from a development one. It also helps if tries to avoid single points of failure. I remember having a good laugh many years ago when I realized that Windows 3.1's Program Manager saves all its program groups to the PROGMAN.INI file (had to look that up) and should that file be damaged, the groups just disappear. It seemed better to dynamically scan the filesystem for the "group files" (the Windows directory wasn't so big back then) dynamically on boot. I suppose this stemmed from DOS's really horrible ability to do memory management, 10x moreso for the Windows registry which we are still stuck with today, and anybody else who thinks a "put all your eggs in one basket" approach is a good idea.

FYI, my computer friend and I both adopted our philosophies as Amiga computer users. Amigas have nothing to do with Unix, but did rely on a command line for some features back when Macs were hobbled with a GUI-only approach and DOS users were just starting to contemplate graphical front-ends. While it does take some technical know-how, Amiga OS is incredibly small and easy to understand. There are only a handful of startup scripts and system directories, and only a handful of files inside. Amiga OS is still around today, updated for PowerPC motherboards but strictly a hobbyist OS. As a UK citizen, you may remember it, as the OS had much longer staying power in Europe that in the States. My 68K system is still here, but hasn't booted in years. Could be bad capacitors, as the motherboard is really that old. Snif.

I currently have bigger fish to fry, but will give Arch Linux a try when I get some free time.

While I'm thinking of it, can anybody recommend a Linux window manager where the window buttons in use (minimize, maximize, zoom, close, etc.) are configurable? Maybe a web search would turn up something?

 

[tiny]

I might have made it had things gone more smoothly; xorg-config didn't want to run, and the installation procedure was onerous enough already without having to troubleshoot where it doesn't work.

Is running xorg-config part of the installation guide? (I can't remember.) If not, you probably don't want to run it -- systemd takes care of X without needing the old-style X.org config files... I found I needed to install both X and a WM/DE (Window Manager or Desktop Environment) before troubleshooting any errors. Don't assume anything you've learnt from other distros -- always check the wiki first.

Arch feels like a well-designed machine that is user-serviceable with the right set of tools, versus OpenBSD's "valves with big rubber-coated handles". For instance, similar files exist by default after install on OpenBSD, and lines of syntax you might want to activate are provided as comments within them. At a glance you can uncomment the ones you need (or use them as examples) without having to look anything up on a wiki.

Yes -- Arch doesn't become intuitive until you've read the wiki and wrapped your head round it. But, finish the installation process, try to do a few things, and... the simplicity becomes gradually apparent. The big rubber-coated handles are there, but there's a lot of them. Nothing is hidden. You just need to read the wiki to know which ones are of interest to you.

Also, OpenBSD configured X for me (correctly!) after asking if I wanted to use it. Then it asked if I wanted it to start with gdm on boot or boot to console. Done and done. I really liked the quick setup. Color me lazy I guess. ^^;

Was it Bill Gates who said he'd rather hire people who were lazy because they'd find the easiest and simplest solution to a problem...?

I'm lazy too... and that's why I love Arch. Yes, installation is an ordeal, but once it's installed, it works so well with minimal intervention. Every other Linux distro I've tried had required a *huge* effort to maintain, or does things in a certain way. And if you want to do things differently, everything will break. Or just running updates breaks stuff. Argh!

 

[Sapphyre]

Is running xorg-config part of the installation guide? (I can't remember.) If not, you probably don't want to run it -- systemd takes care of X without needing the old-style X.org config files... I found I needed to install both X and a WM/DE (Window Manager or Desktop Environment) before troubleshooting any errors. Don't assume anything you've learnt from other distros -- always check the wiki first.

Yes. The guide suggests configuration using xorg.conf files and xorg-config: Post-Install GUI Setup. It does suggest that default configuration is provided for "most systems", but that didn't work for me and I had to (attempt) configuring myself. o.o

 

[tiny]

Yes. The guide suggests configuration using xorg.conf files and xorg-config: Post-Install GUI Setup.

Hmm... It looks like the installation guide might be a bit outdated. :-/

These days, the xorg.conf file is deprecated. (I don't have one at all). Instead, systemd (I think) automatically handles everything by default on "most systems". If you need to keep certain settings, you should move them to modules in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/. The filenames must be prefixed with two digits and a dash, and end with .conf. And they're in exactly the same syntax/format as the old xorg.conf file.

So... instead of an xorg.conf file to get my keyboard and video card working perfectly, and to re-map the extra buttons on my trackball, I have the following files:

/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/00-keyboard.conf

Section "InputClass"
        Identifier          "system-keyboard"
        MatchIsKeyboard     "on"
        Option "XkbLayout"  "gb"
        Option "XkbModel"   "microsoftinet"
        Option "XkbVariant" "extd"
        Option "XkbOptions" "terminate:ctrl_alt_bksp"
EndSection

/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/10-libinput.conf

Section "InputClass"
    Identifier      "Marble Mouse via USB"
    MatchProduct    "Logitech USB Trackball"
    Driver          "libinput"
    Option          "ButtonMapping" "1 0 3 4 5 6 7 2 2"
EndSection

/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/20-nvidia.conf

Section "Device"
    Identifier     "Device0"
    Driver         "nvidia"
    VendorName     "NVIDIA Corporation"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
    Identifier     "Screen0"
    Device         "Device0"
    DefaultDepth   24
    SubSection     "Display"
        Depth      24
    EndSubSection
EndSection

Apologies if you know all this, or don't care because you've given up on Arch! I'm no Linux guru, but I'm always happy to share what I know if you get stuck in future.