Arch Linux

Any users on here? How do you find it for stability? Ease of maintenance etc? Most of my work is done in VMs of lots of different flavours.

Setting up a new laptop for work. Been using Linux for a long time but not for work for a few years. Was on Gentoo but too much of a ball ache compiling everything. Good stability though.

At home I am on Ubuntu on the desktop but despite having a average desktop I have had more hardware issues (especially after updates) with Ubuntu than I ever had with Gentoo years ago! I would be nervous about putting Ubuntu on a machine I need for work.

I use Manjaro which is based on Arch, I think its great.

(not as my main O/S though, but you could!)

I’ve not got a vast amount of experience but Lubuntu is my go-to, basically Ubuntu with bells off. We use LTS versions for work purposes, it’s been solid.

Lubuntu is my choice to throw on old pc, live boot usb sticks etc, but on a my main p.c. I like a few bells. On the desktop I am running the latest KDE after getting sick of that horrid Uinity thing. Used to run KDE 3.5 then gnome. Coming back to the new KDE is brilliant.

Manjaro looks interesting. I don’t get what it has over pure Arch? Is it just the WM it uses?

Ahh I see MAnjaro has some install scripts and different repro

Lubuntu is my choice to throw on old pc, live boot usb sticks etc, but on a my main p.c. I like a few bells. On the desktop I am running the latest KDE after getting sick of that horrid Uinity thing.

Yeah. Unity (and a need to create a full Linux install on a pendrive) is what drove me to Lubuntu in the first place.

I’ve been using Arch for several years as my main OS at home. I’m not so interested in the technical side of things as much as I once was, but find Arch suits me. I run into some techincal difficulties now and again but the consultation with the Arch wiki solves most of them.

I recently tried Manjaro in VirtualBox at work and really liked it. It’s still essentially Arch but installation is automated and comes with a nice desktop theme from the go (I’d say it was Enduro friendly actually).

run Arch on my main box, and it seems at least as stable as anything else I’ve ever run.
Set it up once. Update it forever. No need to wipe and clean when the next alliteration is released.
It’s a bit more effort to install in that you set everything up by hand, rather than a flash GUI installer. Maintenance is only more effort due to never being able to remember the pacman commands after using sudo apt-get for so long, or if you have to build s/w from AUR rather than plain install from the normal repo.

Ubuntu with Virtualbox was always one combo that would break.

Ubuntu at work for years across many machines, and colleagues.

It’s fine, just stick to the LTS versions (so 16.04 now).

No problems with virtual box, or anything really. Obviously we buy well supported machines for Linux.

Thanks people. Reading the installation instructions doesn’t look too bad. More than Ubuntu etc but less than Gentoo was. That literally took over a day with overnight compiles!

I prefer the manual setup as I end up more familure with the system. I’ll chuck it on a VM as a taster.

I will no doubt get flamed but…. As a Linux desktop user for 13 years, I switched back to Windows after it came on a Thinkpad I bought (I was going to wipe it and install Mint) I now run my Linux distros in VMWare workstation pro and have had less faffing (I feel dirty saying that). I use mine more for pen testing/security stuff so YMMV, but WIN 10 just works (shudders). Ubuntu used to really annoy me as it felt like it was always in beta rather than a full release.
I personally haven’t used arch in anger, but I have heard very positive things about it.

I’m interested as to what issue folks have with ubuntu? I know (with any linux) there’s poorly supported hardware issues, but for work use they’re easily avoided. The big advantage ubuntu has is wide software support – whatever you want to use will likely be available, and supported, on ubuntu.

Puppy Linux – is worth a shout.[/url]

Depends what you want, if you want to be at what Arch refers to as ‘the bleeding edge’ then Arch is the way to go without question. If, on the other hand you value stability over being ‘close to the edge’ then a red-hat variant would probably suit best although since 16.04 Ubuntu has been the default ‘go to’ for Linux users.

The biggest questions I’ve discovered so far are: graphics card drivers (esp. Nvidia) and to what extent a user is wedded to MS products. A worthy mention being Excel: The open office variant currently not even rivalling MS’s offering in that area.

graphics card drivers (esp. Nvidia)

Nvidia are very well supported (or is that what you mean?) – so we only use nvidia machines.

No need to wipe and clean when the next alliteration is released.

😆

Please tell me that was intentional. It’s genius if so.

since 16.04 Ubuntu has been the default ‘go to’ for Linux users.

It probably doesn’t affect the majority of users, but a word of caution. A little while ago I took a 14.04 LTS web server to 16.04 LTS, and it completely hosed the website. Long story short, it replaces php5 with php7 and introduced a lot of compatibility issues. You’re unofficially supposed to be able to revert back to 5 with some typically Linux voodoo or other but I could never get it to work. Fortunately it was a VM so rolling back to 14.04 was trivial. Just one to be aware of if you’re doing anything with php.

It probably doesn’t affect the majority of users,

I dunno, any major version update, for any os, may hose stuff you do. If you depend on a computer working, you check out new OS and that they work correctly before moving to them. If it doesn’t matter, you just upgrade then deal with the mess – you pay your money etc..

Typically when there’s a new LTS we don’t jump on it. We test in a VM, test builds etc. Then move one or two persons to it for their main machine, give them normally until at least the .1 release to shake out any issues, and then move everyone. Even then, we don’t tend to upgrade in the middle of projects.

All very sensible. I did the upgrade on a development server first of course, and specifically with the knowledge that I had a trivial roll-back if it went sideways. We’ve no compelling reason to move to 16.04 any time soon, so there’s plenty of time for the dev to sort his code out.

Hey IA, I really like the way you’re describing the way you guys ‘roll out’ new OS updates, it makes an awful lot of sense.

I’m actually a fairly new Linux user (approx 1 year) but am stumbling over graphics card compatibility for one of my laptops (happens to be an Nvidia card). For sure there is plenty of advice online etc for how to make them work under arch and I’m sure it is possible. However, it’s not as simple as the ‘plug and play’ solutions found under the likes of Ubuntu.

I’ve been reading the wikis and the nvidia site etc but I’m not making much headway currently. Any advice would be well received if you’re feeling that way inclined. Apologies to anyone else for hijacking the thread. Peace out.

monkeychild – Member

I will no doubt get flamed but…. As a Linux desktop user for 13 years, I switched back to Windows after it came on a Thinkpad I bought (I was going to wipe it and install Mint) I now run my Linux distros in VMWare workstation pro and have had less faffing (I feel dirty saying that). I use mine more for pen testing/security stuff so YMMV, but WIN 10 just works (shudders). Ubuntu used to really annoy me as it felt like it was always in beta rather than a full release.
I personally haven’t used arch in anger, but I have heard very positive things about it.

I will admit I am torn. I have been back on windows for a while and it has been much better than I remember, but still has frustrations for me. Meanwhile, as mentioned in my op my home desktop (Ubuntu. i5 Nvidia graphics, realtek wificard, nothing special) has been more hassle than my work laptop ever was when I was full time on Linux (8 years ago).

I still however prefer the Linux experience as a host machine for general tasks. Development work tends to go on in vms (I have a VS205 vm, a vs2008 vm, a various PLC vms, a lubuntu vm even an old xp vm), so its really only the host performance and environment that matters.

If I can get back the reliability I had on Gentoo, that when it did fail there was such excellent documentation I could fix stuff quickly I would be happy.

IA – Member

I’m interested as to what issue folks have with ubuntu? I know (with any linux) there’s poorly supported hardware issues, but for work use they’re easily avoided. The big advantage ubuntu has is wide software support – whatever you want to use will likely be available, and supported, on ubuntu.

For me it has been wifi and graphics issues. LTS user but every time I have upgraded from one realise to the next the same issues have come back. Despite my hardware not being new, or cutting edge and being advertised as being Linux supported. On Gentoo I could google, use the wiki and find a solon. Ubuntu has all the helpful system admin tools but they never fix the problems I have.

I still haven’t forgiven Ubuntu for an update that trashed my box the night before a pen test exam!! Ok it was probably the repos fault, but I am holding Ubuntu personally responsible 😆 If this happens again…. oh hello snapshot 😀

Any advice would be well received if you’re feeling that way inclined

Disable any intel GPU switching in the bios, just use the nvidia card. Install the drivers from the ubuntu repos (synaptic or apt). If you have issues still, nearly always cos you’ve done something to bork the kernel module or stop it auto rebuilding for a new kernel. So reinstall them to force it, and pay attention to the output.

wifi and graphics issues.

Stick with intel and nvidia (or intel for both). I don’t care if others are “supported”, intel is the only way to go in network adapters.

Broken gfx on upgrade nearly always the issue above. Or a not properly updated system prior to upgrade ( pop quiz, difference between apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade?).

Disable any intel GPU switching in the bios, just use the nvidia card.

I did that one a Windows box once. It went a bit explody.

( pop quiz, difference between apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade?).

Dist-upgrade will move you to a new version (eg, 14.04 to 16.04). Upgrade will not. No?

I always update -> upgrade -> dist upgrade.

Thanks for the pointer on bios. I will check that one out.

Thanks for the tips IA, you’ve confirmed I’m on the right tracks…although this is my arch box so ubuntu repos won’t be much help! …unless I’ve missed something. (yes, I use yaourt as-well as pacman).

Seriously tho, thankyou for the tips, I’m at the stage where any knowledge is much appreciated.

There’s LTS kernels available in Arch too (along with LTS Nvidia). Some of the older Nvidia cards might be more work to track down an Nvidia driver for, but the open source drivers will probably suffice in that case.

Arch is rolling release so updates might install new config files and you’ll be expected to update the existing configs to reflect this. Occasionally the existing configs are backed up and the update config is used instead. Arch can break spectacularly with updates, with migration from sysv to systemd being the best example of that.

Sometimes in Arch, you go to install a new piece of software via pacman and it forces you to update, you oblige, system breaks, you then spend a couple of hours fixing it.

Most of the time though, it’s solid in my experience.

Dist-upgrade will move you to a new version (eg, 14.04 to 16.04). Upgrade will not. No?

Nope.

“upgrade” will only ever update in place packages. New packages won’t be added/installed, and old ones won’t be deleted (other than those updated).

So say a new version of something requires a new library – “upgrade” won’t update it. It’ll stay “held back”. This can cause problems long term of course.

This distinction is nearly gone on modern systems with apt instead of apt-get. Presumably as folk get it wrong.

More info:

http://askubuntu.com/questions/194651/why-use-apt-get-upgrade-instead-of-apt-get-dist-upgrade