EvilZone
Community => General discussion => : frog December 29, 2012, 07:26:13 PM
-
I'm falling in love with Arch and I know a fair portion of the users on this forum use it. Can you tell me why you moved to Arch? What do you like about it better than other, more traditional OS's like Debian or Ubuntu(other than speed[less abstraction])?
-
Actually I'm also considering moving to Arch. Got tired of Mint.
-
It's on my to try list. I use Fedora at work with KDE. Yes I'm a rebel, I use KDE. (I've crashed every other WM including XFCE at work). We're stuck on VMs so I can't actually fix the crap that is wrong with them without just starting a whole new profile. But I think I may give Arch a try.
-
arch is amazing, but only as amazing as you configure it to be. So for someone who knows exactly what software and features he wants in his environment, arch is nice. Its also a good way to learn more about linux, as you have to install and set up most things yourself.
Its my second favourite linux distro (after crunchbang).
-
Its my second favourite linux distro (after crunchbang).
Crunchbang is awesome! You can also try Archbang (http://archbang.org/). They're both good systems for those old computers laying around.
-
arch is amazing, but only as amazing as you configure it to be. So for someone who knows exactly what software and features he wants in his environment, arch is nice. Its also a good way to learn more about linux, as you have to install and set up most things yourself.
Its my second favourite linux distro (after crunchbang).
I need control and understanding over my Linux. I am compulsive about configuration and cleanliness. Mint has too many extra sub-systems(is feature-rich) and as a result, runs very slowly compared to Arch or just debian by itself. It depends on what you need to get done. I find Arch's filesystem layout is much friendlier and more straight forward. The only thing I need now is a utility to install official Nvidia drivers to get my HDMI audio working correctly.
I just installed Cinnarch on a Pentium 4 Hyperthreaded(2 logical processors) and 2gb of DDR2. It runs better than a Athlon X2 215(2 physical cores) with 2gb of DDR2 running Mint 13. I like Cinnamon much better on Arch and this will be my official OS because I didn't have to do a whole lot as far as configuration after installation.
The most of my worries were getting some good applications installed(nmap, tor, geany, wireshark, vim, conky) and configuring my usual stuff(.vimrc, .conkyrc, .bashrc, /etc stuff).
I do have one question.. is there a way to add/remove items from init like debian's `update-rc.d -f sshd remove` or `update-rc.d sshd defaults`. I'm talking about the different systemd startup that I'm not used to. If I was disable a service from startup I would probably just chmod u-x <filename>. Is this the right or wrong way?
-
Crunchbang is awesome! You can also try Archbang (http://archbang.org/). They're both good systems for those old computers laying around.
I'm using Archbang as I type this :P
It's been my favorite so far
I do have one question.. is there a way to add/remove items from init like debian's `update-rc.d -f sshd remove` or `update-rc.d sshd defaults`. I'm talking about the different systemd startup that I'm not used to. If I was disable a service from startup I would probably just chmod u-x <filename>. Is this the right or wrong way?
Is this what you needed?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Daemons (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Daemons)
-
Well, that pointed me in the right direction as far as describing what I'm looking for..
What I'm trying to do is add/remove items from the daemon list in arch. If I wanted to keep the startup script for later, I suppose it would be best to just make it non-exec and that would do the trick.
-
Well daemons are stored in several places
/etc/systemd/system
/usr/lib/systemd/system
/run/systemd/system
To remove them from boot just do:
systemctl disable <service name>
And to stop at runtime do:
systemctl stop <service name>
-
That's helpful; thank you. I don't want to kill at runtime though, I want to set it up so that I keep something from running at boot time or so that I can start something at boot time.
-
To start or stop something from running at boot just do
systemctl enable/disable <service name>
not sure if you have to be root or not though
-
Wow, that's easy. When I searched for the sshd.service file I found out everything I needed to know. The .service file is the initscript and it calls the daemon right out of /usr/sbin/. Thank you for the reply fluxd.
One more question. If there are multiple directories for your daemons(.service files), how does systemctl know where to look to read them and enable or disable them?
EDIT: Being able to add/remove from startup and enable/disable in runtime from the same command == glorious :) also you have to be root.
-
Yea, no problem
It knows that daemons will be in those directories and keeps track of what's enabled and disabled
If you just type
systemctl
It will list all of the services, what state they're in and a description for each one
systemctl enable/disable and systemctl start/stop are different though
enable/disable will change if they start at boot and start/stop will only change the service until you reboot
-
Fair enough. It's safe to assume those directories are hard coded into the program.
-
Welcome to club archlinux.
If you got any specific questions in the future ; been arch user for ~ 1 year.
Im still running initscripts.
Gonna move to systemD soon , when I have a stable Inet connection.
-
That's whatsup. Thanks proxx
-
I'll be honest. I've apparently gotten pretty lazy over the last 10 years with GUI installers for Linux. So I downloaded Arch and goes to command line. Of course I use bash daily so zcsh is foreign to me to begin with. But then I'm like, Umm, guess I'll read the README. 'Download image'. Well hell I already did that....I think I just gave up at that point. (Overworked, don't care enough to try). But sounds like an interesting OS. When I stop being lazy I'll try it out. I have Fedora running as a test server but not really liking it for that. Too much hassle getting some services installed properly.
-
Archlinux is not meant for human beings.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_Guide
All you need to know and more.
Its a fair game really.
You give something and you get a lot in return.
But indeed its not ubuntu spooning all the shit for you.
-
I'll be honest. I've apparently gotten pretty lazy over the last 10 years with GUI installers for Linux. So I downloaded Arch and goes to command line. Of course I use bash daily so zcsh is foreign to me to begin with. But then I'm like, Umm, guess I'll read the README. 'Download image'. Well hell I already did that....I think I just gave up at that point. (Overworked, don't care enough to try). But sounds like an interesting OS. When I stop being lazy I'll try it out. I have Fedora running as a test server but not really liking it for that. Too much hassle getting some services installed properly.
Why do you think I downloaded cinnarch? It comes with a pre-configured desktop and then you can use the arch wiki to tweak little bits and pieces from there.
-
Why do you think I downloaded cinnarch? It comes with a pre-configured desktop and then you can use the arch wiki to tweak little bits and pieces from there.
That's what I did with Archbang.
Cinnarch comes with Cinnamon and Archbang comes with Openbox so just choose whichever one you would like more
-
I dont really get it.
Whats so hard about installing arch?
its just reading basically.
I can do the install in roughly 25 min.
If I wanted all kinda bloat i'd just install ubuntu.
-
It's difficult for a lot of beginners because it's a lot of command line work. Even if you've used Linux for a while, it doesn't mean you know much about the command line, especially if you're switching over from Windows or Mac
-
I dont really get it.
Whats so hard about installing arch?
its just reading basically.
I can do the install in roughly 25 min.
If I wanted all kinda bloat i'd just install ubuntu.
Not that it's hard, just being lazy. I'll eventually get around to reading on how to do it. I mainly deal with Fedora and CentOS (With cPanel/Plesk <-- yuck) and a very rare Ubuntu when we run into it. I'll skip the easy configs for this one and go the hard way when it comes around to it.
-
I dont really get it.
Whats so hard about installing arch?
its just reading basically.
I can do the install in roughly 25 min.
If I wanted all kinda bloat i'd just install ubuntu.
It's very logical actually. Why spend time configuring X, your login manager and init scripts for everything when you can install Arch with a preconfigured system.
Think about the difference between Debian Linux and Ubuntu. Then think about the speed difference between the two.
If you know anything about plain Debian then you know that it runs faster out of the box than Ubuntu; in Debian you don't have nearly as many kernel modules or add-on software. My point is Debian runs fine out of the box and is not a bloated piece of shit.
You should be comparing Cinnarch or Archbang to Debian and Debian is not as 'bloated' as Ubuntu.
Why waste time configuring a system for desktop use? If it were a server I wouldn't even install a window manager.
Any good hacker knows to reuse resources and conserve time whenever possible.
-
Id expected to step on some toes here.
Look preconfiguration is what im heavily against.
Sure it costs some time do configure stuff.
But I can honestly say I know my system.
Every single package and every single conf.
The install is just a great learning experience by itself.
I did 'not' know linux before I used arch
-
Id expected to step on some toes here.
Look preconfiguration is what im heavily against.
Sure it costs some time do configure stuff.
But I can honestly say I know my system.
Every single package and every single conf.
The install is just a great learning experience by itself.
I did 'not' know linux before I used arch
I definitely appreciate where you're coming from; once you've been through the whole process and you get to know what all the parts of linux or bsd are and see how they work together it is glorious but at the same time:
why waste your time with all that bullshit?
Yes it is nice to know what is going on with your OS down to the last file for configuration. At the same time; there is a plausibility for rootikits(stealth code) to run on your system, in which case it doesn't matter one bit how aware of the OS you are(unless you build a bad-ass debugger which can monitor things like system calls, execution flow and driver code then you are just as ignorant as the next man).
-
Well since this is a board driven by hackers/security enthusiast Im suprised about your statement.
Having deep internal knowledge about any system is what seperates the hacker from the end user.
Stamping it "a waste of time" is curious.
Or am I really missing something here.
And that thing about rootkits, how did that get into the discussion ?
-
I agree with you, it is important to know your system; but there's a line to be drawn. Why do monotonous things like configuring X, gdm, etc.. when you can download a distro that's ready to use?
The fact that rootkits exist defines the notion of fine grain control you are defending.
Yes I am for control and knowing your system(like you said this is a hacker board), but like I was saying before it's a waste of time to configure a base system like bsd or arch and turn it into a desktop system.
That is my opinion; nothing more, nothing less.
The argument is sound and straight-forward: It is not necessary to configure your linux/bsd from the ground up if there is a pre-configured system already out there.
This is my OPINION..
-
We clearly have different opinions about the subject and thats fine.
Im not disrespecting nor smiting you for this.
I just noticed the longer iam a linux user the further I tend to go back to the roots.
Me started with some ubuntu cd back in the days, I didnt know shit.
Hell thats not even that long ago.
I discovered that I could do a lot of clicky clicky but still I didnt really understand what was happening.
So I went to to commandline.
Some things about ubuntu started to piss me off big time, such as apt-get and network-manager.
God please erase network-manager world wide.
I decided to really burn my fingers and install arch.
Tried dozen of distros before including ; suse , debian, mint shit, fedora, centos and many more.
I stuck to arch.
-
I gotta take proxx's side on this one. When I first installed Arch it took me forever and since I had never done it before the reading didn't seem to make sense. Now that I've done it plenty of times(because I'm stupid) I can install the whole system in about 20 minutes. Really all it is is a series of simple commands. I wouldn't call it a waste of time. I've never used cinnarch or any of that but my knowledge of GUI installs and preinstallation is that it takes just as much and usually more time to install anyway. Plus, I think it's fun. 8)
Also, I really like systemd. At first I was a little outraged that they switched up. I thought that removing /etc/rc.conf was the worst thing in the world. After all why would you go from one config file with all the daemons and modules in one place to systemd. Then I realized how easy it is to enable/disable services. I also didn't like that the startup looked different. Now I can't even remember what it looked like before. Like at all.
As for the original question:
- Fast
- Clean filesystem
- Completely mine
- Logo looks cool :P
- Best name for distro imo
-
+1 to what lucid said
And in my opinion, it's way faster to install and setup now than it used to be
-
And in my opinion, it's way faster to install and setup now than it used to be
Word
-
Looks like we understand each other lucid :)
Good to have a fellow archer on the board.
(amongst all the windows users :P)
-
I switched from Ubuntu to Arch a year ago and still love Arch. I use it with xmonad as WM, I have no desktop manager, so I am forced to use the command line for every shit.
Arch is great for learning more about your system. It forces you to learn. This was quite what I needed.
The only thing I can't use it for is my laptop. I only use my laptop for presentations, so I rarely update the system. Updating Arch when it hasn't been updated for a long time is a pain, which is why I still have Ubuntu on that one.
-
Yep the rolling release can be a pain in the ass.
Sometimes I think; heck lets just update and then im going to do this and that.
Well NOT, it appears the devs had something wicked in mind and your shit is bricked.
Thats arch I guess.
*Where did that smite come from??*
-
*Where did that smite come from??*
Who knows. Even though I don't care about karma it upsets me when I get a smite and yet no one has responded to my posts so I have no idea why I got it.
I used to have trouble updating my system. Every time I updated the kernel I would reboot and when I went to login X wouldn't work. Or I wouldn't be able to type anything in slim. Then one day after beginning to try Gentoo and realizing I missed Arch too much I said fuck it and went through the Arch install process again. Magically, everything worked. My kernel has probably beeen updated at least 8 times since then and I've never had a problem.
Still bothers the shit out of me that I have no idea what the problem was and probably never will..
-
Good to have a fellow archer on the board.
(amongst all the windows users :P )
Do you use "Windows user" as a pejorative for those who use more high-level, user-friendly distros or are there really a lot of Windows users on this board? Seemed to me most are *nix people, but I haven't been here long at all.
Also if I use Slackware, does this mean I'm not in the club?
-
No there actually are alot of Windows users. Disappointing really.
And yes you are in the club if you use Slack
-
Every time I updated the kernel I would reboot and when I went to login X wouldn't work. Or I wouldn't be able to type anything in slim. Then one day after beginning to try Gentoo and realizing I missed Arch too much I said fuck it and went through the Arch install process again. Magically, everything worked. My kernel has probably beeen updated at least 8 times since then and I've never had a problem.
Still bothers the shit out of me that I have no idea what the problem was and probably never will..
I've noticed this too. Several months ago it seemed like I was having to re-install Arch just to get everything working together again but recently after all the improvements and changes, I haven't had a single problem
-
Just for the record, I didn't smite anyone. I appreciate all of your guys' insight. I love that ppl here use Unix or the like on a regular basis. It's fun trading conf files and continueing to learn new things through others. I've been on a few different hacking boards(binrev, extreme sec) and so far this one is my favorite. This community is active yet knowledgeable. Thank you for your replies.
-
I'm both a Windows and Linux user. Each have their advantages. Personally I just don't feel like fighting with my Nvidia drivers on my main PC. My laptop I only boot Linux on. I have 2 VM's on my main PC with Linux running. 1 Backtrack the other Fedora. So I dunno why it would be disappointing that there are a lot of Windows users.
-
I dual-boot. But only for the rare occasion when I can't do something on linux.
// God I'm glad I don't have nvidia drivers.
-
I don't have any installed copies of Windows on any of my machines at the moment, personally. I haven't really found any use for it either, since I don't game or anything (when I feel like it, I just start up PlayOnLinux).
-
^
Yeah me to.
Yesterday I switched to systemd, finally.
Mostly because I have a solid internet connection since couple of days.
Still got some errors in my bootlog but Ill work on that.
This was so smooth, I never found archlinux to be difficult.
Its the best documented distro ive seen so far.
(maybe gentoo)
-
Yesterday I switched to systemd, finally.
Yikes! A little late to the party are we? Yeah I had one [ FAIL ] messages but they were easily fixed.