Loss of an Old Friend: Bye Bye Ubuntu
When Ubuntu 11.04 was released on the 28th of April 2011, I was eager to get my hands on it, as it was the first version to sport the brand new Unity interface as standard.
I downloaded and installed it in a matter of hours after going live. 4 hours of download and another hour of installation, and I was left with a very sour taste in my mouth.
The Unity menu's were misplaced or just plain missing; control panel applets are scrambled and missing all the features I configure for my own personal use; the interface feels like a tablet GUI, and to top it all off, it was as slow as a wet week.
The Search for a new Operating System
Personal rant aside, I found myself in the market for a replacement OS. Which ever I chose, had to fill some simple requirements:
- Installs in less than an hour
- Must boot to a “usable” desktop environment in under 60 seconds
- Must be highly configurable
- Must use pre-compiled binaries (at least for the core OS)
- Must be well supported (wiki; forums etc)
- Must be able to run Sun Java (not OpenJDK/JRE)
- Must be able to use the closed source nVidia/ATi drivers
- Must have regular and frequent updates/patches
- Must contain all the tools I use for work
I ploughed through distribution after distribution, with little luck. Most offered some of one, and none of the other, which made it almost impossible to find something that would fill the void of a much loved Ubuntu.
After about a month of trial and error, I had come to the conclusion that what I wanted just wasn't available. Now keeping in mind that the two main distro's I had used up to this point were based on either Debian (Ubuntu and others) or Gentoo (both standard install and Sabayon), I had never even thought to take the Arch Linux route suggested by a colleague on Google+. You can see that conversation here.
The Testing of Arch Linux
I downloaded the 370Mb ISO (which was disturbingly small considering I'm used to 700Mb+ per disk and sometimes even multiple disks). After a quick Brasero burn, and a reboot, I was looking at the Arch Linux installation screen.
In the back of my mind, I had a sneaking suspicion that this couldn't possibly be a full blown distribution, purely because I was faced with a text mode installer. My experience so far had lead me to believe that a good Linux distribution, was a polished distribution. This meant I was expecting a graphical installer and little to no interaction. It did not give me much hope. I had to manually edit conf files and even tell it what kernel modules I wanted. Not very inspiring.
About here is where my attitude started to change.
After installation and a reboot, I was presented with a command prompt. Nothing abnormal about that, though it did feel rather empty. All the command line tools I use were there, like Links and Nano, but I didn't know how to use the package management system (the aptly named “PacMan”).
I took a break, and decided it was time to browse the Arch Wiki. After reading the Beginners Guide, I had a fairly good understanding of the basics of Arch.
Basic Package Management and Comparison
Debian's “apt-get” had more or less been replaced by Arch's “PacMan”, and all the conf files all seem to have concatenated into /etc/rc.conf. Even the network settings! I don't know about you, but that alone, was cause for much exuberance. Edit all my basic conf files in one place? I swear, I did a little dance.
A complete package refresh is : pacman -Syy
Searching pacman is fairly simple with : pacman -Ss
Installing an application is just as simple : pacman -S
Global upgrades are easy : pacman -Syu
Configuration is done here : /etc/pacman.conf
After a little playing on the cli, I found that this wasn't a polished distro like I thought I wanted. It was the distro I needed. It had all the options I wanted. It fit in with all my requirements.
Boot is quick, lightening quick in fact; I can install the entire OS, and desktop in less than 40 minutes; I can build it up to be anything I want based on the incredible framework provided with Arch Linux; pre-compiled binaries mean no waiting around for compiling; The instructions in the wiki are simple, easy to navigate (and the search function actually works!); The forums are helpful and interesting.
I think what brought me round to Arch, was the Wiki. Here is a quick comparison.
Search for the word “xorg” results : Ubuntu vs Arch
Search for the word “xfce” results : Ubuntu vs Arch
The Arch Linux Wiki article's are very clearly written, with simple but elegant solutions to most problems. It may not be quite as comprehensive as say Gentoo or Debian, but it is more realistic in its approach as well. When I want to install an application that I'm unfamiliar with, I found that the article was there not as a search result, but as a direct link. The instructions were concise and straight to the point, no mucking around with agreements; licences and superfluous nonsense.
I like Arch Linux, It is too Under Appreciated
What finally won me over about the Wiki articles was the fact that they were written by people. They don't have a plastic, mass manufactured and cold feel of some of the other distro's. They retain a little of their self deprecating humour that I wish some of the larger distro's had kept. The Authors aren't afraid to add a little humour here and there. It helps get the point across and engages you in the article.
At the end of the day, I now have Arch installed on two PC's and two laptops. I am exceedingly happy with it as a day to day operating system, and a workhorse. It is efficient and fast. I cannot stress how good it is at running on a low end system. If you try it, and are patient enough to get past its little character flaws, you will be surprised at how good it truly is. Arch Linux and Xfce4 FTW!
Nicholas Trevena - A geek of the nerdiest type who reviews technology with a focus on Open Source and GPL.
Join the Conversation