The Arch website says, That sounds very appealing!

But can you really roll along for years by just updating, not doing major version upgrades?
How well does that work out?

The short answer is "yes! you can."
The long answer is:

http://www.archlinux.org/news/
https://bbs.archlinux.org/

In other words, you should check the news and forums for warnings and info before you blindly "pacman -Syu".

Exactly that is the point. Since it is rolling release there are no things like major version upgrades.

packages are updated individually no waiting on versions...

Heck you'll have the latest kernel update in a matter of mins...

Really you should state the nature of use...

1. If you intend to be a user.. Then I would suggest allowing at least 3 months between release so all the bugs get worked out.. I usually go for 6 months before updates...

2. If your beta testing packages and working with programers to fix bugs then update immediately.....


remember to backup your system...!!!!!

This brings up a question. Sometimes packages come out with major updates (e.g. KDE, Gnome) that affect all their shared libraries. Maybe even ABIs. And sometimes a lot packages link against those. So when that happens, do you end up with half the files on your system being replaced?

That's what happens with new versions of other distros, but with rolling updates I'm wondering if it wouldn't happen more frequently and at unexpected times. It seems like it might be easier to get into dependency hell if the packagers aren't paying strict attention or you're using some packages not in the main repository.

This particular use is for a low-powered machine I'll be using at home primarily for web surfing and logging into other servers. If I do any development on it, I'll actually be logged into my more powerful machine (Fedora, i7).

But I've encountered fanatical Arch users before, that generated curiosity--plus rolling update is potentially a good thing. So I wanted to try it.

Correct, if you are a Gnome user and a new Gnome version is released, you'll get a lot of updates (same is true for KDE etc).

It will only be "unexpected" if you don't check the news/forums first...

Yes, with a rolling release like Arch it is important to read the posted updates to avoid any potential pitfalls.

No, No, No ....

Lets keep this simple you don't end up in dependency hell this is not the days of separate servers storing packages other then the vendor....

Also Pacman is usually good at resolving package updates needed....



Either you don't understand or I don't understand ur question.....

1. there is no Linux flavor I know of running Gnome or Kde that has a limited version of the desktop environment... All linux flavors have to run the same packages to run the Gnome desktop...

2. The main Advantage of Arch Linux is you can end up with a different result then ubuntu or other flavors you can load the latest packages if desired and it doesn't come with a pre facto desktop loaded meaning ur going to have to know exactly what effects you want to add to gnome to make it a more complete desktop environment ... At this point if some feature doesn't meet your goals you can uninstall the program...


3. Arch linux speed is highly above most of the bloat ware you get with other linux flavors that run a control center and have preloaded other software...

I see this often. Any links to benchmarks in comparison to other distros?

Edit: I found only one, and that is stating that Arch is not significantly faster than Ubuntu.

Let me illustrate what I was referring to.

Fedora Linux did not release Gnome 3 for Fedora 14. If you want Gnome 3, you must upgrade the whole distro to Fedora 15. When I did that, it seemed like it upgraded practically every package on my machine. Apparently they hold back a number of major upgrades and only make them available in the next major version. Other distros do this too.

So what I was suggesting is that if you release Gnome 3 in a rolling upgrade, all the other packages that are dependent on which version of Gnome you are using must be upgraded at the same time. This would result in a large number of packages to upgrade at once. (Although I guess you can keep Gnome2's library files present simultaneously, since they have version numbers. Maybe that's what you were alluding to.)

And since major upgrades are not held back and synchronized with main distro upgrades, it seemed like "pacman -Syu" might produce a large list of packages to be upgraded more frequent than Fedora's "yum upgrade" does.

However, I've been using Arch for a couple weeks on my downstairs PC and I have not noticed any particularly large list of upgrades, so maybe it won't be an issue.

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=638935



Now most of the comments don't seem sound....

Poster : bharani

Was the only poster that made sense because he stated how to speed up the bsd/linux version of Arch linux with the BSD file system known as Deamons this function always you to suspend the boot function to boot after OS is loaded...

@ symbol states it will load the hal , alsa (sound drivers) and sensors only when requested by the user in the graphical user interface... I usually put my dhcp to load upon request....


My daemons array.
DAEMONS=(syslog-ng network @hal @alsa @sensors).

Now I could get my computer to post at 15 seconds with the dhcp in request mode..... The best I could get from a Debian or Ubuntu was 21 seconds using Bootchart and recommended apt-get commands.....

I never ran bootchart in Arch Linux to see the boot time posted by bootchart.... The speed was easy to see in boot time and didn't take a stop watch to notice the advantage of boot times....



Now lets get some understanding of my skills with Arch Linux.... I can install Arch Linux in under 5 mins... and limit the boot time to 15 seconds... The first time I installed Arch Linux it took me 2 days... Since the first time I installed Arch Linux on 3 different computers at a total of 18 times.... I have played with the Deamons for a period of 3 hours exploiting all the options you can do to decrease the boot time.....

I would suggest not doing this I had configured it one time to load my nviada driver after loading Gnome crashed the xdrivers and I had to reinstall the OS... LoL



TobiSGD,

Now I am going to post to KenJackson I would like you to read along to understanding of the community and the users it is made up of.... This is important so you get a full picture of Arch Linux because the community is what supports Arch linux.....

They are talking about boot time, not the general speed of the distro. If that is important to anyone (not to me, I rarely boot, and even if I don't be in such a hurry that a few seconds may count), back in the days I used Debian and could get it to boot to my self-built Openbox desktop in less than 10 seconds from an SSD and less than 15 seconds from a RAID 0 setup.

Lets get some understanding out the way first.....

Look when I joined Arch Linux about 1 year ago the community was smaller and didn't have the inexperienced crowd of users flocking to this distro as it finds its self in today...

What I mean by inexperienced is I have been using linux since 1994 / 1995... My first distro was Red Hat 4.0


Since then I have tried about 18+ distro's....

Now most of the users seem to be flooding in from Fedora which is perfectly fine....

My understanding is there are 3 types of users in Arch Linux:

1. Programmers --- want to work with communities on the latest versions of software at there own risk....

2. Computer Geeks --- wanting a simple system to run there OS without all the bloatware and hours of uninstalling crap they didn't want....

3. Computer Savy Geeks / Gamers --- want a fast system no matter what the Distro is or what the community express as whole....


Now I generally fall into Category 3.... What differs about me is I have actually been using computers for most of my life.... I have a College Education in Computer Science so yes I can fit into any of the 3 Categories with easy...


Now I guess we are going to have to add a 4th Category for newer less experienced users....

TobiSGD

What I am getting at in your experience with Slackware and the limited experience of Arch Linux users is there not aware of the design of Arch Linux from file system or understanding how to complete functions....


TobiSGD,


I would personally look at a weave through the posts and understand the limited user responses..


KenJackson,

Through your own experience you see that to update to a new version of Gnome or packages that it doesn't not reference to the 565 mb that fedora is claiming to a newer version of Gnome 3....

What you are going to realize in a fast hurry is that the distro's want you to download a fresh version of the same packages to avoid crashing because there system was never set up for a rolling release distro....

Understand, TobiSGD your not using a standard configuration that most users find themselves in... I run a 5400 rpm drive not a SSD.... Can you name more then 5 people running a SSD drive that are your personnel friends????


Know I don't think you understand that a desktop computer is going to be replaced by a Tablet style computer here in the near future.... My tablet boots in 5 seconds to Android and allows me most of the function of a desktop except playing video games and saving huge files....


You need to look into Playbook by Blackberry one awesome and jaw dropping tablet... Also look at Ideapad by Levono has a tablet / laptop the tablet runs Android and the Laptop protion runs Windows 7.... When the tablet is docked into the laptop the notes taken are to automatically sink with windows 7 for transfer....




TobiSGD,

Look the Linux Distro is compiled by Arch Linux for packages there fast , but may not compare to Slackware or Gentoo.... Gentoo compiles just for that OS and Slackware has a similar approach to its idea of handling updates and packages.... Even with Arch Linux users saying other wise....

The speed of the OS is not going to diff that much with any OS you run in a SSD and Openbox configuration.....

The only suggestion i could make for your hardware is a going from a Solid state drive to a 10,000 rpms because solid state drives once over written tend to slow down....


good luck on your decision....

Mine too! Well actually, that was the first one I installed. I toyed with it a little but never got comfortable enough to use it.

Excellent! I've only used 5 distros productively (including Arch which I'm using right now) plus NetBSD.


I develop embedded software for a living. At my last job I used Mandriva Linux as my everyday workhorse. My current company is less enlightened so I have to suffer with Windows, though I make heavy use of Cygwin.

I switched from Mandriva to Fedora as my distro of choice (when Mandriva went through some difficulties) for two reasons: reliability and the size of the repository.

I've been interested in Arch for some time because I've seen posts in which knowledgeable users really liked it plus the rolling release sounds convenient. Though I'm only using Arch on a low-powered PC (at least for now) where I surf and SSH.

I wish I could say I've been using computers for most of my life, but the PC wasn't even invented until several years after I graduated from high school. Though I too have a college education in Computer Science (well, a minor anyway). (There was a gap between high school and college.)

I'm sure there are advantages to each. I have nothing negative to say about either Fedora or Arch.