Arch Linux or OpenSUSE?
 

I'm doing a triple boot for my new computer build (Mac OSX, Windows, Linux). Windows will be the main OS I will use however I plan to use Mac OSX pretty often too--Linux will just be there because, well... why not?

To me what matters in a distribution honestly varies. Currently I'm going for what looks cool--and in that sense, ElementaryOS wins, hands-down. However I want something slightly more than that. I've been a fan of OpenSUSE for a long time now but I heard Arch is like building your own Linux from the ground-up. One of the reasons I am a fan of OpenSUSE is because I liked that about SUSEStudio.

So my question: what are the pros/cons of ArchLinux vs OpenSUSE? Which do you think I should go with? And which looks aesthetically better? For ArchLinux I'm aware there's several different desktop environments supported-- and I plan to install it using Architect so please don't factor in here "OpenSUSE is easier to install." Architech makes ArchLinux fairly simple to install and I am not brand new to Linux (however it has been a while).

Things I plan to do on my computer:
*Game (though this will be done mostly on Windows!)
*School *Netflix *Play around! Youtube, etc.

My PC Build: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Feliks/saved/#view=fvKV3C

Pros/Cons would be greatly appreciated, along with your personal recommendation. I'm up for your opinions, especially from those who have used either/both!


(Also, which desktop environment do you all prefer, particularly in terms of aesthetics? This is one thing I really like from ElementaryOS--the Pantheon environment but unfortunately it isn't really a choice on other distros)

Do yourself a favour and follow the guide linked in my signature.

It really is very simple (I can install Arch to a USB stick with fewer than 10 commands) and will familiarise you with the basic configuration of your system and also teach you how to chroot into an unbootable system and configure a boot{loader,manager} -- this will be very useful when the bleeding-edge nature of Arch causes problems.

Thank you. Will definitely take a look at that!

(So where does that leave Pros/Cons and what you prefer? :P)

I have used Arch for years since I abandoned gentoo during the devs wars - we're talking 10 years ago or so.
Love it, and use it for my really important stuff, my photo collection.

I used Opensuse for a while after needing it for a SLES course I did years ago - I just object to having to register with SUSE (Novell at the time) to use the forums.
fsck that.

Day to day I use Fedora for the toolset they maintain. The devs piss me off frequently, but seem to be coming around. For your question of Arch vs OpenSuse, I vote Arch.

They're completely different distros. If you want something that "just works" then suse will be the better option between the two. If you don't mind tinkering to get things working (even things that you might take for granted in other distros) then arch will be better. With tumbleweed, it makes suse more comparable than arch in terms of being up to date, but it's still more "user friendly" you won't need to rely on the command line as much, if at all to do what you want in terms of system maintenance. I would also not advise avoiding the install process, if you can't hack that then you can't hack using it. In terms of desktop environments, everyone has their own preference but I'm a fan of the new plasma 5 desktop, and the port of gnome 2 called mate.

Good luck.

I stand by everything I suggested in your first thread.

I really doubt I can't hack the other installer, I just didn't see much reason NOT to go with architect. I will probably go with the standard Arch installer because you all are so adamantly for it and in all honesty, I've been excited to try it from the beginning anyways. The reason I didn't want to start with that is because I'm worried about screwing up my partitions, and I don't want to frick up my entire system just from Arch. Any advice on that would be appreciated.

(however I'm confused why a tool like Architect exists if you shouldn't use it. FYI, architect isn't a GUI installer.. it just automates the CLI commands for you and explains their reasons, which to me seems helpful. You can literally watch it before your eyes and you're still in control of everything.).

1) There is not much point in installing a system if you do not want to learn how to use it. Using a simpler installer will not make managing the system easier.
2) If you cannot tolerate the time needed to install the system, then you will not like the vastly more time required to babysit the system. If you want a system that will sit on a partition and only be booted occasionally, almost any distribution would be better than Arch. That is not an insult toward Arch. Being a rolling release system means it needs regular maintenance. Only booting occasionally, you also would not learn much about the system, which takes us back to point #1.

Then do not bother. To be honest, there is no point installing something simply so it will be there. Especially considering your primary criterion appears to be
Only you know what looks good to you. So the only way you can discover the coolest is to look at screen-grabs on websites and/or install systems one-by-one until you find the one you want. Unless you know how to install a GUI. In which case the default GUI would be irrelevant, since GUIs look the same on every Linux distribution and BSD system.

Also I want an honest answer to this: how often will I HAVE to use the Terminal in Arch? I am not uncomfortable using Arch, I am fine with Terminal and whatever I don't know, I figure I can learn. I am generally good at following instructions like the Arch Wiki has and if not, I can ask for help here.

That being said, I like the option to use GUIs and so I'm curious as to how much I actually am required to use the terminal after set-up. I have a friend who uses Arch who said he has rarely had to go in to the command line/terminal. Wondering if the same case was true for you guys.

Thanks all :)

Being honest here, these forums aren't near as friendly as I recall them being around 5 years ago.

Anyways, by "why not" no, there is a point of it being there. I want a triple-boot and that's what I want. If that's not something you'd like that's fine, but to me I want a triple boot and therefore I am putting Linux on there. There are other benefits, like using Linux programs and just using Linux in general. I have liked Linux for years I just haven't really had a situation like this where I am considering actually booting it. (Usually I have ran it virtually).

When I say "what looks cool"--well, honestly scratch that line. I see that you took it as a sign of unprofessionalism but what I actually meant by that question was what desktop environment you all personally like most. While opinions vary, there often are general consensuses. Anyways after asking this question in another forum, I've come to the conclusion I can make Arch look however I want it to so like I said, just forget about that line.


By the "learning how to use it" comment, I have to admit I'm not sure what you mean. I know how to use Linux and frankly it's not that much different from other systems I've used before? It's different but easy to pick up. I never said I wasn't willing to learn by the way; if you scroll up you'll see I wanted to use Architect to avoid messing up my partition set-up. (That comment might not have been there when you replied, I edited it before seeing your response.)

Is Arch extremely different from other Linux distributions? I get that the setup is different; obviously with a CLI instead of a GUI and a "build-it-yourself" atmosphere but other than that.. how's it super different? (This is an honest question lol)

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.

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.

You aren't going to be needing to use the command line every day more than likely, if that's what you're asking but you will need to be comfortable with it because there are no GUI tools for all your sys admin tasks (aside from those that your DE might provide). If an update accidentally screws your system (not likely, but happens time to time) you'll need to be able to know how to fix it. This will involve checking logs, editing config files and doing all this in the command line. Arch is designed for those who love the command line, for people who like modifying things and tinkering taking control over everything their system does. This is why tiling window managers are so popular in the community (despite being fringe everywhere else seeing as how "unfriendly" they are. This why based on what you've said not liking terminals, it means it's almost certainly not for you. It's probably best if you try it in a VM first to be sure, but I would say that it probably isn't for you. This isn't a neg or anything, we all have different needs from our systems. Hell, even Linus Torvalds uses Fedora because he wants something that just works and doesn't want to be in a situation where he needs to configure things manually and fix things via the terminal. However if you love the prospect of delving deeper, then Arch is for you - you just need to know which kind of user you are and the best way is to probably play around in some VMs.

https://www.archlinux.org/about/
It is the lack of abstraction (both graphical and otherwise) that sets Arch apart.

Attempting to introduce more abstraction (such as this "Architect" installer) is rather perverse -- you have a much greater chance avoiding "messing up" your partition set-up by using a simple low-level tool (such as `parted` or `fdisk`) to configure the partitions yourself, IMO.

There's no problem in using it, even I have wrote scripts to make my installs easier on myself but I think the install process is a good litmus test - if it makes you uncomfortable going through those steps setting up arch, then you're more than likely going to be uncomfortable with what it takes to maintain arch day to day. It's also a gatekeeper in a way as if one is unable to boot into arch after attempting to install it, then they're definitely not in the position to be running it day to day. This isn't because arch always breaks or because you need to be in the terminal every day doing things, but because arch doesn't do things for you and many of the things you'd want to do with it require your input and intervention. once you've set things up it won't be as hands on, but whenever you wish to install something new (whether software or a new DE or whatever) then its going to take manual intervention again. For someone who doesn't like having to configure things all the time, this will seem tedious while for others they will enjoy the sense of control - that's the ultimate day to day difference I would say.

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.

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

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.

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 :D

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.

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 :D

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?
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?

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

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

:D

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. :)

1. Once a week is fine, people have gone longer without issues but it has also bitten others. I do it more often but it's no biggie.

2. a. If you weren't using pantheon, gnome/mate is the closest developmentally speaking since they're both gtk based. There's a bunch of dock programs, docky is probably the most popular and probably the one you ought to go for.
2. b. If there aren't themes available, you'll have to make your own. good luck with that as I don't have much of a clue about theming.
2. c. If at all posible, I avoid anything that's not in the main repos. Pantheon is buggy in elementary, so it's going to be at least as buggy in arch (but realistically more so). I like stable environments, while it might be still usable, for me I wouldn't want it on any machine I'm running that I depend on.

Thank you. And for 2B; what is a theme in terms of Linux? (Sorry, again it's been a while and I don't want to get it mixed up with theme for Windows, etc)

Well, you have themes for the desktop, for your icons and so on. Sometimes you can get themes that are completely comprehensive (icons, desktop, fonts and so on).

Not at all, the main reason most people stick with Arch is because it is such a simple and stripped-down system with as little abstraction as possible and this makes it easier to maintain.

Arch is designed from the ground up to work as a rolling release and has no complicated system of multiple repositories (even when tracking [testing] the main repositories are left in place) and pacman is one of the most flexible and powerful package managers around. [1]
Probably, make sure you read the General Recomendations page in the ArchWiki [2]; one of the joys of an Arch system is gradually optimising and honing it so it's just right. This can take a while but it is refreshing & rewarding to see your system *improve* over time :)
Once a week sounds fine to me.

The important thing to remember is that the longer you leave it between updates, the greater the number of packages that can potentially bring new bugs into the system.

It is *much* easier to track down & troubleshoot new bugs with a shorter upgrade interval.

Arch is like a bike -- it's only stable when it's rolling.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_tips
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ecommendations

Excited to get more in to Arch. :) With the config files, do they need to be edited more to "hone" my system as you said or should I expect something to break unless I go through config files?

Re: updating Arch --

(from https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/System_maintenance)

Also check out the "Maintaining Arch" section and other important info here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...stem_stability

And generally get used to referring to the Arch Wiki because most of the time that's the best place to find answers. In my opinion, at least.

:cool:

Nope; Arch isn't really all that difficult.

Hey guys, I'm doing a multi-boot so how big should I make my Arch partition at the least (to where I'll still have a little breathing room though)

^ You could probably get away with 15GiB.

I find 30GiB to be plenty unless I have Steam games on the system.

The way I have it set up, I have a 3 TB HDD for my Steam games and general storage and then a 225GB SSD for my OSs. It's a triple boot though so I have to admit it's a little complex; it's my first time doing it so I'm just confused on how to go about the different file systems.

Currently my plan is to have the following partition layout:
80 GB - Windows 10
30 GB - Arch Linux
30 GB - Mac OSX El Capitan
80 GB - Storage / Empty Space (to not use over 80 of SSD)

The thing is, will all my Linux programs have to go on the SSD, and in to that partition? I don't want to divvy up my 3TB into different partitions; I plan to just keep it NTFS. 1) But does that mean all my Linux programs have to stay on that partition then, or is there a way I can put them on my NTFS 3 TB?

and 2) Do you see anywhere I could shrink space perhaps to allow for more storage space? 60GB should be fine for storage; I mainly plan to have all my Elder Scrolls games there and then whatever else. But I'll take whatever more storage space I can get ;3