What's so great about Arch?

Posted by The-Daleks@reddit | linux | View on Reddit | 10 comments

So, I've been looking around this subreedit a lot lately, and I've come across a lot of people heralding Arch Linux as the Next Best Thing.

Why is this? What is it about Arch that makes it so much better than other distributions like Mint or Fedora?

[-]

merlin_theWiz@reddit

The arch wiki is extremely good. Also pacman and the aur. Software is always cutting edge.

[-]

the archwiki is pretty decent, but I don't find pacman to be better than most other package managers. I don't understand why everybody thinks it's so great. All the ones that aren't similiar to nix and guix are average at best.

[-]

B_i_llt_etleyyyyyy@reddit

pacman is a damn sight faster than apt, which is what a lot of people see when they use Linux for the first time.

Then again, zypper on openSUSE is almost as fast, and it'll give you suggestions if a package name is wrong; the search functionality is also better, imo. A big reason why Tumbleweed isn't my daily driver is the AUR. Having an Arch mirror in my town doesn't hurt, either.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

I can't remember if i ever cared at how fast a package manager is. After the initial setup, it's not like you're using it all the time.

[-]

benjumanji@reddit

Depends on what you are doing. I am always using a package manager (software dev / sysdamin)

[-]

Wrong_Building_8918@reddit

Arch isn't faster at anything over Debian Ubuntu. Just look at how long it takes to install Ubuntu over Arch. Ubuntu Debian smoke Arch and install in less than 30 min on a newer machine. I like proprietary software because it's tested by a team of paid people and often works just fine . Don't give yourselves too much importance with Arch the true test will be how it inovayes in the next ten years or if it falls by the wayside line Mandrake / Mandriva which was "highly touted "also.

[-]

Wrong_Building_8918@reddit

Doesn't matter who is fastest it matters who offers security, stability and reliability and ease if use.

[-]

Wrong_Building_8918@reddit

Cutting edge doesn't mean Good Bro

[-]

idontchooseanid@reddit

I have been using Arch for ~10 years. I will write the stuff that makes Arch better for me as a developer and advanced Linux user. These differ from overrepeated sterotypical and extremely over-memed crap.

Rolling release model is much more suitable to work with actual application developers. The actual Linux developers often use up to date versions of libraries. Regular distros often ship older versions. There may be corner cases or well handled cases in the up to date versions of libraries that actually makes them more reliable or easily debuggable.
GNU/Linux is binary hostile. For free software purists source is the only form of software matters so their development process and software design is often incompatible with the stable binary distribution. GNU and FSF originated components are quite essential and even the most core components break compatibility sometimes. It is hard and tedious to maintain stable software interfaces while innovating. Many developers are volunteers so they don't care about unrewarding software stability. This makes developing applications for Linux a challenge (esp. closed source ones). Stable distros are designed for 3rd party developers and system admins to keep them sane. They achieve this by creating stable binary interfaces by locking the library versions down and then patching them with bugfixes while trying to keep binary compatibility. This results in Frankenstein's monster kind of forks and they are harder to debug for upstream developers. On the other hand compiling everything is a waste of user time and energy. Arch is a compromise. You have to update the system completely but you get binary packages. This is more friendly for FOSS developers.
Arch is simple. It often refrains from modying FOSS software as other distros do. It carries a lot of bloat because of this. However, this bloat of non-separated dependencies and development stuff in packages makes it a better development environment. Arch avoids modifying configuration of the packages in an overzealous way. It is up to user to figure everything out.
Arch does not ban proprietary packages as other distros do. While FOSS is fun and great, some software is written as closed source for many different reasons primarily financial. IMO, it should be user's decision whether to or not to use proprietary software. Arch as a simple distribution refrains making this decision for you. If a proprietary software manages to survive Linux ecosystem, it often works under Arch.
Again Arch is simple. The configuration does not have abstractions and guard rails around it as in the other distros. It forces user to be completely aware of the system state. If it breaks, it is 90% user's fault because it is user's responsibility to maintain their system. In the recent years maintaining Linux systems got a lot easier and the many components have matured so it is a lot easier to be a control freak. Arch provides tools and guidelines to ease this.

[-]

Wrong_Building_8918@reddit

DEBIAN is the Oldest and one of the Best. RPM based Linuxes like arch used to be full of issues with Dependencies and so much time was wasted finding dependencies and more dependencies to patch the system that should of worked right away. The only thing you learn with arch is how to install arch. Debian, Ubuntu, are more mature and More secure and Stable. Remember Mandrake, Mandriva, Fedora Redhat ? Arch came from them. Debian Ubuntu is very stable , Solid and you can learn as much as you want or as little as you want with them without blowing your system or affecting the boot loader with simple errors. Try Arch if you want . It's way off the mark IMHO.