Did I get your attention?
I actually used Ubuntu as my very first Linux Distro. Now after using Arch, I can't imagine going back to Ubuntu. I've tried using it and other derivatives of it. And I find it very hard to use.
Yes installing Arch is harder...much harder, but after that everything is just easier to use. Especially installing programs.
I don't even use a Desktop Environment. I just use a simple i3wm and I can't imagine using anything else anymore. I tried other DEs and just can't get the feelings.
Update: Arguing about stability is a weak argument. You do not have to constantly update. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. + if you installed Arch (vanilla, not manjaro) on your own you pretty much know 99% of what is going on with your system. You will know how to fix things.
If you said you used Arch, but was actually referring to Manjaro, then you really
can can't say you are an Arch-user.
Top comments (63)
yeah, you did get my attention. I use Ubuntu and never used Arch - (I shall use arch in the future). Installing Ubuntu is not difficult and installing programs on Ubuntu not also difficult.
I can't imagine going back to Ubuntu. Try Ubuntu again.
Totally agree, both installing Ubuntu itself, and installing programs, is trivially easy.
If you know how to type
apt-get installin a terminal then you know how to install programs under Ubuntu. And the community is way bigger, which means that if you run into problems it's easier to get help.
Ubuntu FTW ... :-)
Ubuntu needs too many repos for certain programs.
You should try Arch. Ubuntu isn't hard, my post was to be sarcastic, but it's true I can't imagine going going back to it. Arch is superior in every way
Superior in every way, in which ways then? Be more specific, or you're not convincing me.
Just the repos alone is already better
Arch is a rolling release, Ubuntu is a point release.
Did you ever even use Arch? Or installing it turned you away? Because if you did used Arch, you wouldn't be offended(from the sound of your comments)
In Arch, if you run into problems, you pretty much know what's wrong. Because you've built Arch from scratch.
There's plenty of help enough for the average user. If you are constantly seeking for help, then stick with Ubuntu.
I'm not offended :-) but I was just curious about the reasons why it's better ... and "better" is often completely subjective, it depends a lot on your goals, priorities and preferences, what's great for one person may suck for someone else.
By the way, is it Arch based on Debian (like Ubuntu), with all of the packages that come with it?
If someone wants to convince me then I like to hear reasons and arguments rather than just "it's better". And of course there's inertia, most people stick with what they're familiar with unless something else is vastly superior. Most of the time these things are a toss-up and one choice isn't that much better of even different than the other one.
Arch is Arch, I know Ubuntu is Debian based.
Honestly, I didn't know anything about Arch. I was an Ubuntu user for a long time. I used all kinds of Ubuntu based distros.
I learned Arch WHILE I was installing it. Lol
I used to use the arch UI/theme on my Ubuntu.
On a scale of 1 to 5, would you recommend arch to a friend?
Definitely. Awesome OS
Its not that,Arch rocks man😇 definitely try it
Are you using vanilla arch or arch-based distro?
Not harder but more annoying and bloated 😝😂, arch is much more like AOSP roms and Ubuntu is like a MiUi which had lots of packages pre-installed. The learning is curve is steep with arch, finding solutions on archwiki and youtube but you'll get used to it. Ubuntu is more Noemie feiendly distro😂 no hate though, Ive been through the phase and anyone wants to progress in linux ecosystem they should try out arch it's pain in the ass in start but when you get used to it you can't go back.
The more I learned using Arch, the less I remember for Ubuntu and was like why didn't I use Arch first?
I think I tried installing Arch more than 6-8 times and it was a pain.
Me too man i've watched a lot of videos on youtube for installing after so many failed attempts I got this time right, and previous manjaro exp help too because of same package managers and other configs.
something i learned is that you need to just read the wiki, Youtube videos are helpful but not complete. The wiki is key.
The biggest issue I have with arch is it not being used for any professional work. Why should I learn pacman when I'll have to use apt/dnf anyways? Arch will never be more than an enthusiast distro imo.
Please tell me why Arch can't be used for any professional work.
pacman is much simpler to use and plus that they wrapper for it, I personally use yay and it is really easy to use instead of sudo apt-get install/upgrade
sudo add-apt-repository "deb blahblahblah.com/ saucy-update universe multiverse"
and then making sure to sudo apt-get update. this is just plain annoying.
No it isn't an enthusiast distro. Did you install arch before? if not, don't knock it without trying it.
It isn't stable enough to maintain on hundreds of machines.
That's a weak argument; non Arch users do not have any problems with stability. But feel free to stick with Ubuntu.
I'm not really sure what you mean, the software industry avoids rolling releases for no reason in your opinion? I have tried arch, but I didn't really see a benefit to it so went back to something more useful for me. Manjaro was interesting too, but my system broke at some point and I couldn't be bothered to fix it.
Manjaro is not Arch, that's why when it "broke" you wouldn't bother fixing it. Manjaro would be the equivalent of Ubuntu.
Arch would be the equilavent of Debian.
To clarify, I tried both arch and manjaro and neither worked out for me.
I am tempted to try Debian as well; but I am at Manjaro for hope of Rolling releases.
Maybe I should try Arch. But I fear only one thing - proprietary drivers.
Debian is a good choice if you want something which will translate to software development. Many container images are based on debian.
I don't remember anymore; can you upgrade only system packages in Arch to get latest kernel improvements/fixes and security patches?
In e.g. Gentoo Linux you can do
emerge -avu @systemto update kernel, compiler(s), glibc, init system and core system utilities and libraries (like ssh, ssl, etc.) but not X, desktop managers, browsers or other user installed packages.
Do you mean;
That is just a Linux kernel. Operating system is much more than that.
I know OS is just more than that. Sorry I'm typing on my phone and not really looking into just partial upgrades. And why would you want to do that especially on a rolling release?
Arch is all about how you want to make it.
But only doing partial upgrades will typically cause the system to break.
I update on a daily basis that's why my system is stable. Literally takes 3 seconds to update
sudo pacman -Syu --noconfirm
Update package list and upgrade all packages afterwards.
Sometimes you don't want to update everything. I have several SWs that I intentionally mask and hold back because they are less stable in new versions. Especially with Arch that does not care about backporting fixes and rather prefers rolling forward it is crucial to be able to pause updates. For this you have ignore options with pacman.
In modern day when most of my SW runs as FlatPack, .appImage, Snap package or Docker image you don't risk breaking the system by not updating.
Yeah I agree, but ubuntu ain't harder for normal usage, but it's harder for installing few packages, specifically using snapshots and alot of other stuff, but arch have a wonderful user repository (Aur), all though it have a good repos and wiki, but it's not as stable as debian based, & sometimes user might end up in errors while system upgrades, but can roll back using timeshift's , I probably I agree the arch is easy in installing apps or updates, but rest all same to same.
Earlier I commented about stablility, if you are runnin' vanilla arch, you shouldn't really have much of a problem with stablility, in fact, I think it is more stable because I get to choose if I want to upgrade any packages and even if the packages messes up something, I can always roll back and I knew what happened.
I'm an ubuntu user since the past 1 year. I actually started using linux because I wanted to use arch but was scared because of a lot people claiming that its pretty difficult and is not a beginner's choice. So yeah I'm kind of waiting for maybe 1 more year of using linux so that I can make a switch. By the way switching from windows to ubuntu was one of my best decisions. It's just so fast and smooth. And I can't wait to join the arch community, I'm just waiting that I can be more prepared for it. I've heard so much about it. And I'm surely gonna switch, just not now, but yeah soon.
I recommend using an Arch based distros such as Anarchy, endeavour, Archlabs, or Manjaro. Ubuntu is Debian based.
if you want to use vanilla arch then these are the installation steps: codepen.io/murali-sree-krishna/pen... ,
i use this install base system, later i change to desktop or window manager depends on work
Oh gosh I finally installed arch today. I am so happy to join the arch community.
What DE are you using?
I am not using any DE, I am using i3WM
That's awesome. I use only i3wm as well. Well i3-gap. Same stuff.
I totally agree with you, u can build it to your specs, beautiful wikki and forum to help you get out any problem. Rolling release. Who could ask for more. I too tried Ubuntu first, but now I even have Arch on my Raspberry Pi
My Linux experience is perfect for this article. I started off in highschool using Ubuntu but in my mid 20's realized I wanted to know more about GNU/Linux so I Installed my first Arch distro on an old netbook which compared to what I knew at the time, it was like having my Linux 3rd eye opened. I now knew how to perform almost anything from the command line, so going back to Ubuntu should be a cake walk right? I cannot tell you how hard it was for me to officially install anything on Ubuntu without needing to know file hierarchy structure. Some Debian packages just aren't as well maintained so you build and install on Ubuntu, it doesn't always go as planned.
This is where Ubuntu can now teach you what makes Arch so special. The AUR combined with the necessity of PKG Build files allows you to have the most up to date method to running anything on your system. Basically your biggest comparison you can make between Debian and Arch is that Debian focuses strictly on stability while Arch is truly bleeding edge. That doesn't mean Arch is unstable, you can choose to install stable packages or to only install from tested package repositorys. I'm sure there are ways to do this in Ubuntu, but since Ubuntu adds that extra layer of testing and stability you can expect it to be a while before the most up to date software runs bug free on your system. Especially if you use any of the desktop environment variants Ubuntu has to offer, but that's a whole different conversation
That is my personal experience and I know I have much much more to learn. I don't even know how to properly make my own PKG build files right now, all files I used were found from other users and have at the most been edited by me to work with my system. I think it'll be a huge step in my learning if I can truly comprehend PKG Build files and how they work with Arch's package manager.
That doesn't mean Arch is unstable, you can choose to install stable packages or to only install from tested package repositorys.
This is the biggest argument/excuse that Debian/Ubuntu users seems to always use to say Arch isn't stable. You nailed it on this one.
I have used Pop_OS, Ubuntu, Deepin during 2020, they are all good and solid but I had drivers issues on dell xps 15 9550, especially bluetooth. I switched to Manjaro few days ago, and so far I'm happy about it. The support for Snap, Flatpak and AUR is awesome. And for some reason, my battery life has increased without having to do some tweaks.
I am not a fan of Manjaro, I have the Manjaro ARM for my pinebook pro, but I haven't touched that pinebook pro after 1 month of having it. Manjaro is just ehh to me.
I consider switch because I don't want to add more PPA to the sytem ( I use Pop_OS.). One good thing about Arch is it has official Minecraft launcher. I use Linux desktop for gaming because it's better for currently potato computer.
make the switch, you will love it. Do the Vanilla Arch install, don't use Manjaro otherwise you won't ever learn the system and won't have the pleasure to actually build it from scratch.
Are there more than one way to install Arch? Like from Scratch?
I like Arch and Arch based distros, fairly because:
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade
sudo pacman -Syu
sudo apt-get install software-properties-common; sudo add-apt-repository ppa:some/repository(Run the second command for every new software not found in the official repos)
sudo pacman -S git;git clone https://aur.archlinux.org/yay.git;cd yay;makepkg -si(No need to do anything again. Almost every software is found in the AUR)
sudo apt-get install ...
pacman -S ...
Agreed. I love using yay I haven't had any trouble finding programs.
I have used Mint, Manjaro, Arc and recently Deepin and I can't say that Arch is easier to use than Ubuntu. For me it is exactly the opposite. Well, to be honest I like Deepin the most but it needs more resources to run smoothly than the other distros and in my company you get Ubuntu by default und you can't change it.
I see, but install Vanilla Arch on your personal PC. Best of both linux worlds. Arch and Debian.
I have Kali on my laptop and Arch as my main driver on my PC
Although I've never installed or used arch/manjaro etc I've heard great things about AUR. I'm a PopOS user, so I get latest packages with Ubuntu's stability
While true stability can be argued, but Arch doesn't update in the background.
Arch users considers it more stable because we custom build the Distro so it tends to have less bloat and you know what you put in it. This is contrary to many other different distributions where something you didn't even know you had could break and not know how to fix it.
Easier to fix something you made, that's why Arch users thinks it's actually more stable.
Best analogy is this,
Auto mechanic driving a stick= Arch or any self installed OS
Average driver driving automatic = other prepackaged distros
Ubuntu stability... at the end, it's what you use.
Dude, arch is cool and the aur is a blessing but having to check updates every single time and being with the constant feeling of unsettleness because your system can go to shit is really not cool and in no way superior in any way to Ubuntu... if you would have mentioned Manjaro however this wouldn't be as much of a troll post.
Why do you have to check updates every single time? I sure didn't..
What difference would it make had I mentioned Manjaro? I don't even like Manjaro.
Hundred percent subjective :-)
On surface ubuntu seems easy and intuitive. But it sucks when comes to installing github programs or getting latest bleeding edge softwares. And they did nerfed distro by using snaps and other bloat under name of security. Arch on the other hand is really minimalist. You choose what you want. Aur is best❤️. And just works with bleeding edge softwares without breaking.
I concur, plus you can always install using git or install deb packages as well. I did it a few times where a software was only for deb and I just downloaded and installed it myself.