Okay. I think I have it now. Thanks.

For the past few years (in the event i distro hopped) i've used slack and arch for the most part.

My reason of choice for using arch/slack is because of the BSD style scripts (at least, it was). Don't want to come across as someone who hates change, but i cannot stand systemd... so i recently came back to slackware for that reason. It's a familiar system and it simply "just works".

I do think arch's package system is brilliant (especially the AUR) although you get alot of un-needed dependencies with arch's default repositories, so there's a compromise.

If slack goes to systemd in the future, it's something i can live with, but while there are non-systemd distros available i'll be running slackware.

I don't think slackware or arch are better than each other, but they are the 2 greatest distributions for me.

I have used Slackware64-current ever since it was released. Any problems I've encountered have been minor and easily fixed. 99% of those were PEBKAC errors. I had been a bit busy lately and had not updated for almost two months. I kept putting it off, and then all of a sudden the update was pretty massive. Thanks to a tip from markush, I set slackpkg.conf to download all before installation and I had zero problems. Even without that, I always update the local mirror first, so I still would have easily survived the network problem.

I used Arch for almost a month about a year ago. Arch has almost daily things to tinker with. I am getting old and too lazy to tinker every day. The Arch Wiki is definitely impeccable. 99.99% of the answers to problems can be found there. That Wiki kept my Arch install running.

I am absolutely not a Linux guru, but I do consider myself a competent Linux user. So one day while researching an update fix on the Arch Wiki, I asked myself - "Why do you want to run a system with so many documented problems?". The answer was that I didn't. That answer is also a testament to my own laziness, and not a fault of Arch.

So I killed the Arch VM, and since I had nothing pressing to do in -current, I took a nap!

3 members found this post helpful.

Jude Vinett might not approve of the current status on archlinux, the way they have fallen for systemd.

Greetz
I think I'm a fairly avid gamer. I logged something like 1700 hours just playing all the episodes of HalfLife 2. Before that, Quake3 Arena didn't have logging so no telling how many years I spent in that world. Currently I am totally addicted to World of Warcraft and not seeking help (I keep hearing rumors there is life outside of Azeroth but I suspect that's just idle dreamers and blasphemers ) Also I recently completed Deus Ex: The Human Revolution several times for 92% achievments (Yes... I don't sleep much)

All of the above run better on Linux (Slackware, tyvm) than they do on Windows, and you may note that Deus Ex is a DX-11 game with (currently) no OpenGL option. True, I don't use a 3D Monitor but as yet, I can't see how that would improve my gaming experience (although a 4 foot by 6 foot projection screen was nice for a time) since I am also addicted to low-latency. The best windows can do is around 10msec response time from say a mouse or keyboard click to action in-game. With a custom kernel in Slackware I can easily hit 2msec. This means that while your first hit is still proc'ing, I've hit you at least 5 times. Keep using Windows OK? and tell all your buddies to do so as well. I love light snacks

Oh Yeah. On Topic - For me, true minimalism doesn't mean "barebones". Minimalism refers to resource usage and the time I must spend to maintain a system. I can make Xfce or Arch just as bloated and slow as a full Kubuntu install. Or, I can make Slackware with KDE as fast and low usage as Arch running Xfce. Overall, I can do the latter with less time/work invested than vice versa. So still I say, Arch is great (even aside from any systemd concerns). Slackware is better.... for me.

1 members found this post helpful.

I ran Arch off and on for a year or so, but, lost interest when they dropped the installer in favour of scripts that you are required to edit. Yes, I could continue to read the volume of excellent documentation and figure it out, but, I could not overcome inertia. At the moment I am running Slackware and OpenBSD on my PCs and a variety of distros in Virtualbox. My choosing to avoid Arch is a value statement on my part and does not diminish Arch as a worthwhile distro. Live and let live. Each to his own.

Opinions, adopting stances, opinions, adopting stances, ... Do you really believe it has any sense to continue with reactions to an obvious flamebait ? Can it solve anything ? Is not that just a waste of energy and time ? If don't try to put this thread to a rest. Thank you.

Right. Yet, you reply to this thread, thereby keeping it alive.
It is an interesting thread and debate. I don't think it violates any rules other than being off topic for this particular forum. Slackers are by nature curious; we like to talk about a variety of topics.

1 members found this post helpful.

I liked Arch when I used it. It was very nice for trying out new tech - if I wanted to try out the new GNOME, Libreoffice, etc. I could pull it down with no fuss. New packages show up within a day or two of their release. Package manager is very good, very quick.

I understood when Arch switched to systemd - Arch seems born for VM deployment - but the manner in which it switched over left a bad taste in my mouth.

In the end, I moved back to Slackware because it is less complex, more mundane, more willing to just be a tool for my purposes. Arch is more exciting, but you get tired of excitement after a while.

Scripts that you have to edit? When did that happen? Last time I did an Arch install was when I wrote the following (below) and there was no need to edit any of the setup scripts, indeed I didn't really find the install process any more cumbersome than back when they had an installer.

As a side noet and to talk a little about Slackware (since this is the Slackware forum) you can also install Slackware without the install script. It is also pretty straightforward. Not that I am suggesting for one moment that the Slackware drop the installer but just for fun:

1 members found this post helpful.

There are a number of files that need to be modified by hand to get your Arch system up and running. I'm glad our installer handles this stuff for us.

1 members found this post helpful.

They are config files, not scripts and they require only minor tweaks (nothing tough for the average Arch, Slackware, Gentoo, *BSD user). Also most people don't install frequently, particularly on a rolling release distro like Arch, so hardly an issue, IMHO.

In anyway case, I thought you were implying you had to edit stuff like pacstrap, genfstab, arch-chroot, etc. before you use them. Anyway, whatever I get what you are saying now.

P.S. I still think the install is just as fast as when they had an install script and no more difficult IMHO.

Yeah, I should have said files, not scripts. But, when you're a lazy SOB who wants to hand edit stuff to get a basic install up and running? I don't see the necessity of making the installation process so cumbersome. That is, I don't see how it provides a technical advantage over the previous installer. Just my

I installed Arch some year or two ago just to say "I am capable of installing Arch". Ran it for a while, but realized Slackware provides all I need and have come to be comfortable with. Not to detract from Arch.
It is indeed a fine distro...just not for me.

How could I have an opinion on ArchLinux that I never used?