Arch Linux or OpenSUSE?

m.a.l.'s pa · 10-01-2015, 08:01 AM

I run both. I use the terminal much more often in Arch than in openSUSE, mainly because I use the GUI for package management in openSUSE and pacman from the command line in Arch. However, I actually prefer package management in Arch over package management in openSUSE, and pacman is a great tool. I like Arch's documentation better, too. In Arch, I bring in updates at least once a week. I don't think you want to go too long before updating an Arch system. Also, while I haven't encountered any major problems (about 2 years running Arch), you do want to check Arch's home page for announcements before updating the system.

Certainly openSUSE is the better choice if you want to don't want to use the terminal as much -- it ships with great GUI tools.

I run Xfce in Arch -- seems to make for less stuff to download when I update the system, compared to if I was running KDE or GNOME. I use KDE and Fluxbox in openSUSE. I'd say that openSUSE looks better out of the box, that part isn't so important to me.

Both are great distros.

Feliks · 10-01-2015, 11:30 AM

Okay. Looking through it Architect actually uses those tolls anyways (it gives you the choice of which tool to use.)

Feliks · 10-01-2015, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus

The honest answer is your question is contradictory. You are fine with CLI, but worried you might need to use it. You are not uncomfortable using Arch, but your previous comments suggest you have never used it. It is difficult to give an answer to a question that does not make sense. Although the problem could just be bad wording. In which case choosing your words better would be helpful to those willing to help. I can only respond to what I see on the screen, so if the words do not accurately convey your thoughts, just explain what you actually mean and we can move forward from there.

It is your computer to do whatever you want to do to it. I do not care if you install one system or eight. I merely pointed out that your plan, as stated, has little reason to justify it. Especially since you are adverse to spending more than a small amount of time on the other systems. (Partitioning, installing, configuring all take time.) You asked for advice and you got it. You are free to accept the advice you like and ignore the advice you do not like.

If the question mark is a typo and it is actually a statement, your level of expertise would have made this thread unnecessary. If it is a question, my answer is there are significant differences between Windows and Linux.

Those "obvious" differences are wrong. Many Linux systems require using CLI, either rarely or regularly, and it can be used on all systems if one wants to. Build-it-yourself can be done on many systems. A Debian minimal installation for example.

I meant for set-up. Virtually every Linux distribution relies on CLI at some point but most have a graphical installer. That's the difference I meant there. Also, you are using the CLI more than you would use in some distros built specifically to not use the CLI as much.

Feliks · 10-01-2015, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Pinkeye

Not really. You simply follow the install guide on the Arch wiki. Few 'pacman -S xorg' and 'pacman -S whatever-desktop', few config edits and you are there. Plus, considering

you won't be bulding it anyway.

Really, after the install the Arch is just about regularly updating the system and occasionally fixing a broken package in the least convenient moment. Some people feel oh so 1337 doing this, so they use Arch...

I think you should go with openSUSE because you are a fan of openSUSE. It looks pretty cool too imho, but ymmv, so better check it yourself. Arch looks pretty vanilla, because it is pretty vanilla. You may like it, you may not.

Because it's not leet enough. It's just a continuation of the old Arch ncurses-based installer, therefore talking about any inability to administer the system aferwards is ridiculous. If someone picked it at the time it was discontinued it wouldn't be a problem, but now they have 'more leet way if installing things' so you are considered noob if you use it. Someone apparently called that BS, the result is Architect...

And yes, i have used both. I wouldn't use either of them now.

What would you suggest instead/what do you use?

Captain Pinkeye · 10-01-2015, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feliks

What would you suggest instead/what do you use?

Well, i suggested that you go with openSUSE.
I like Slackware and Xubuntu, but i don't suggest them to you, and i definitely don't propose they are better for your needs. Both Arch and openSUSE are fine distros, but i personally think that your inclusion of Arch stems from the "it's oh so hardcore distro" feeling, which is not really true. If you wanna go hardcore choose Gentoo, but you know, if you wanna have a life, openSUSE is great too

Randicus Draco Albus · 10-01-2015, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feliks

I meant for set-up. Virtually every Linux distribution relies on CLI at some point but most have a graphical installer.

I do not see why graphical installers are so popular. Ncurses installers, such as Debian's, are extremely easy to use. Just push the Enter button a few times. CLI installers, like OpenBSD's, are also very easy. They just require reading the display before pushing Enter.

A note on my personal experience. I have noticed an inverse relationship between the installer and the system. Generally, the prettier the graphical installer is, the lower the system's quality.

basica · 10-01-2015, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Pinkeye

i personally think that your inclusion of Arch stems from the "it's oh so hardcore distro" feeling, which is not really true. If you wanna go hardcore choose Gentoo, but you know, if you wanna have a life, openSUSE is great too

hehe, gentoo only has the hardcore feeling because you compile from source. it has dependency resolution and profiles which make choosing the right use flags mighty easy in most cases. if you want really hardcore, it has to be LFS - no package manager, no dependency resolution and everything is compiled from source

Feliks · 10-02-2015, 01:13 PM

Okay so to everyone in the forum who said my question before wasn't clear I wanted to apologize. I was forgetting how un-linked the desktop environment and distro are--most major distributions can be configured to look like each other and I wasn't taking that in to account

As for installers I don't mind any of the aforementioned types of installers. Funny comment about Linux for scratch BTW, hehe.

So, questions:
1) for Arch, how does the updating work?

Quote:

oo. In Arch, I bring in updates at least once a week. I don't think you want to go too long before updating an Arch system. Also, while I haven't encountered any major problems (about 2 years running Arch), you do want to check Arch's home page for announcements before updating the system.

2) When I'm using Arch how much work does it take to use? People are making it sound hard to use arch.. Why though?

szboardstretcher · 10-02-2015, 01:14 PM

Quote:

1) for Arch, how does the updating work?

What do you want to know? Thats a very very broad question.

Feliks · 10-02-2015, 01:16 PM

How often do you have to update, and how does rolling release update work? I thought I remembered reading "Arch is rolling release so you won't have to worry about updating it; its constantly updated"

szboardstretcher · 10-02-2015, 01:21 PM

You should update every day. (pacman -Syu)

There are other opinions to this however. I say update every day since packages are released to fix bugs and security issues. The unfortunate thing is that this sometimes breaks your machine. Its a trade off. But Arch is a bleeding edge distro and this is to be expected.

A rolling release is explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_release

If you want something stable,. then find a non-rolling release distro like Debian.

Head_on_a_Stick · 10-03-2015, 09:50 AM

I update the system every time I install a new package or twice a day, whichever comes first.

See here for a larger sample size:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=89460

Any user interventions required during updates will be mentioned on the news page so always check there first.

If you update your system regularly, it will be *much* easier to track down the guilty party when something breaks.

wigry · 10-05-2015, 06:09 AM

Hmm, Slackware is much more calmer in that respect - you can ride the "current" but you can also remain on the RELEASE which only gets the security updates. The daily update is a source for headaches abnyway if your goal is to actually use the machine for some work. Patrick Volkerding who is responsible for Slackware has been able to keep the boat very stable for a long-long period and only updates stuff that needs to be updated.

However Arch rolling release might seem attractive at first and for everyone their own. But I would tire very quickly about the updates.

Head_on_a_Stick · 10-05-2015, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wigry

But I would tire very quickly about the updates.

I find them addictive.

I check for new updates several times a day; I even did this when I tried Slackware, just out of habit.

Feliks · 10-10-2015, 03:11 AM

Twice a day? :O I sort of get daily but twice a day seems overkill.

Also I regret asking this question just for how uneducated I sounded when I asked it. I got in with Arch Linux and started working around with it and also just reintroduced myself to Linux and a lot came back and I admit my original question was horridly written.

So that all being said, I've found I love arch. It was super fun to build and using Pacman feels great. It feels awesome to be in control of your system hands-on (I guess apt-get would be the same but Pacman is so nice and simple...I love Pacman!!!) I am a bit concerned though... Arch seems very simple past set-up, even though everyone makes it sound super difficult. Am I doing something wrong?! And also, are there config files I need to edit or anything or no. (I ran it through a VM so idk if the actual install would be different?)

1) How often do I REALLY need to update it though? I'm feeling more like every week, but if you think that sounds too long please let me know. Honestly I'm okay having less recent versions of software and that's basically what's being updated most of the time isn't it?

2) I'm trying to have my desktop more or less imitate the look of Pantheon desktop (Example here). So actually 3 subquestions here
-What would be the best environment to go about this (KDE/Gnome)? Do I need to install a dock program or does a dock come with either DE.
-How would you recommend going about this.
-Arch has it's own Pantheon package however I'm not sure if it's stable enough to actually use--which is my question here.

Please answer all of those parts, not just the third; in fact if you're going to NOT answer a part I would rather it be that one.