A Fail-Proof Way To Learn Linux
I have a friend that commented to me recently, something to the affect that “can’t Linux developers make anything simple?” I detected a slight tone of desperation in his voice that was not so unfamiliar, and which brought to my mind memories of my own frustrations trying to install, maintain, and use Linux as a desktop replacement to Microsoft Windows ®. Not to mention installing software.
I have spent a few years experimenting with many different Linux distributions looking for one that is fast, stable, intuitive, up-to-date, and simple enough for my technologically-deficient friends and family members to use. And I admit that I still have not found that perfect, user-friendly Linux distribution yet.
After trying many popular “distro’s” (and others more obscure) such as Red Hat/Fedora, OpenSuse, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Mint, Gentoo, and countless live versions that now serve as coasters, and encountering the many differing and similar, all very frustrating, drawbacks and bugs in all of them, I began to wonder if I would ever come across a version that fit my expectations. Nothing I saw impressed me, and If it didn’t work properly (as all Operating Systems do every now and then), I was often at a loss as to how to solve the problem, even with my fair knowledge of the Linux OS.
It was today that I finally saw light at the end of the tunnel, in the form of a Linux distro called Arch Linux. While Arch has not and will definitely not solve all of my problems (I would say that OpenSuse is still my top pick for new users), it very ingeniously solved one of them: It will surely teach you how your Linux system works, if you can handle it. In fact, it would not be an understatement to say that Arch is the most difficult to install of all that I have experimented with — but that is truly the beauty of it.
It works by forcing you to install and configure your own system step-by-step, teaching you all about how Linux configuration files and package management works in the meanwhile. You end up with a screaming fast, highly optimized, custom-built Linux edition that you know inside and out. (Don’t worry, you don’t actually have to compile source packages and sort through dependencies; the excellent package manager (pacman) makes short work of that process.) All you need for this adventure is a good amount of time to spare, the 41-page beginner’s guide (a step-by-step instruction manual for building your own Linux system–you’re going to want to print this), and a copy of the starter (core) .ISO available from http://www.archlinux.org/download/. Burn it to a CD, restart your computer, and you’re off.
You will need a working, high-speed Internet connection to install Arch Linux, because the installation CD provides only a minimal base environment for you to work from as you install it. It took some doing, but I was eventually able to use my Windows wireless card for this, even out of a primitive text-based shell, because ndiswrapper is one of the few core packages included.
Besides the educational benefits, here are a few other reasons that Arch Linux may be worth looking into:
- Arch is highly optimized and extremely fast
(based on Slackware)
Correction: Arch is actually “inspired by”, but independent of, Crux. Thanks to vEX and Raul specifically for pointing this out, and to Misfit 138 for technical clarification.
- Arch is highly customizable, to say the least! You build it just the way you want it
- Arch comes with an extremely handy package manager, pacman, that makes installing and updating Linux software fast and easy (which is a miracle by itself)
-
Arch is a rolling release distribution, which means that software is easy to update and that you always have the latest without needing to upgrade your system
Unfortunately, this is not something that I would recommend to beginning Linux users; it takes courage to take on a project like this. But I can assure you that it’s worth it. I’ve been using Linux for a few years and I learned a lot from this clever project in just a few hours. While Linux may never be as “user-friendly” as Windows or a Mac, if we appreciate it for what it is it is certain to be useful and is more than capable of replacing its more popular competitors. So if you have been disappointed with the latest major Linux distributions the last few years, I encourage you to roll up your sleeves and give Arch a try.
on January 8, 2008 on 1:42 pm
Glad you like Arch; I use it myself and am quite happy with it.
Was the install that hard? I mean, compared to installing MS Windows, I thought it was pretty easy (thanks to the beginner’s guide). For me, it “just works”, and does nothing unexpected. Now that’s simple!
But yeah, I haven’t gotten to get my mother to use it. I still have hope that maybe if I installed everything she needs in advance, she would never know ‘Arch’ and ‘Linux’ existed, and would only very easily use all the applications she has asked me to install (or that I have recommended to her).
I’m happy when Arch gets a good review –although I’ve yet to see a negative review of it. Just a slight correction: I don’t think Arch is based on Slackware; it’s just that some of its philosophy is similar to Slackware’s.
Cheers.
on January 8, 2008 on 1:57 pm
I used openSUSE for years and recently found Arch as well. I can mirror your comments. It truly is a learning experience and well worth the effort for any knowledgeable user willing to roll up his sleeves and get down to the nuts and bolts of Linux. In the end, you will have a better understanding of the OS and your PC will be the fastest it has ever been.
on January 8, 2008 on 2:02 pm
Welcome aboard! Choo choo.
on January 8, 2008 on 2:27 pm
Actually, Arch isn’t based on Slackware (nor any other distro). But it was inspired by Crux as one can read about in the wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_vs_Others#Arch_vs_Crux
And you can install X from the installation CD (well, depends on which ISO you used), but it’s not recommended since Arch is using a rolling release system. The ISOs are just snapshots of the core repository (previously named current) at the time of the creation. Hence when installing the packages will probably be a bit outdated and you might as well get the newest one from the start.
Worth mentioning is that the 64-bit version isn’t multilib, so you can’t run 32-bit software without either installing some lib32-packages (not in the official repositories, but in Community/AUR) or setting up a 32-bit chroot.
And Arch has a really nice way of making your own packages incase there is something you want to install that’s not available. That way you don’t have to install from source but can let pacman manage the files (== easier to uninstall).
on January 8, 2008 on 2:51 pm
Arch Linux is definitely not hard to install and most surely, 100% not based on Slackware. It is based on Crux Linux and though it has similarities to Slackware, such as minimal, speed and BSD-like qualities, it is not based on it.
on January 8, 2008 on 3:03 pm
Your review is most appropo and is to be commended for honest reporting…lacking in most reviews.
I submit that an addendum to your review that you include an alternate distro, based on archlinux, which would provide an alternative to the more difficult archlinux install.
This distro is called FaunOS and is a 993MB usb flash drive Live distro. It installs in 45 secs and contains 500packages of archlinux pacman-related thru aufs(unionfs). It can be installed into systems without USB boot with a CD boot disc or a compact disk/IDE device. As a Live CD it provides a low-power distro source.
Any installed package can be changed from r/o to r/w by downloading and installing (to ram via aufs) for a given session.
Save session is possible also.
Give it your best in review!!!!!!!
on January 8, 2008 on 4:07 pm
I actually think “user-friendliness” is a delusional term. If something is easily approachable, it is most likely that you will do only superficial work with it. It all surely depends on what the user wants to do with an OS. If one plans to use it thoroughly, I would definately recommend “difficult” distros like Arch (even to beginners). On the other hand, if the OS will be used for web browsing, IM and such, I think a full-blown OS would be even redundant, one would need an even simpler solution.
For example, I use Arch for every kind of production, apart from multimedia. I currently don’t have time to learn how to configure a system properly for good audio production, so I use Dyne:bolic, a multimedia-oriented distro, which does only that, and it is in fact quite unfriendly for any other task.
on January 8, 2008 on 6:27 pm
I appreciate all the replies; thanks everyone.
Let me explain what I meant when I said that Arch was hard to install:
Arch Linux was not necessarily difficult to install (for myself), but it is hard to determine the exact difficulty. I took me about 2 hours (due to the fact that I had to learn how to configure my Wireless card without a GUI), but I have installed and reinstalled too many times to count, and I have used Linux for a few years. I know for a fact that I would not recommend it to my family, not because they are not capable of learning, but because they do not have the time and do not want to spend it fixing, configuring, and tweaking their Operating System. As my Dad succinctly put it, “I just want the thing to run when I hit the power button!”
You can’t argue with that.
I think, honestly, that who I recommend Arch Linux to depends on the individual. For a newbie that wants to learn, I think it is the best possible solution to getting his or her hands wet in Linux. Also, I would recommend it to experienced Linux users as well who wants a fast distro that is easy to maintain and update.
on January 8, 2008 on 8:05 pm
Well, I use Arch on 3 machines here. I’m an exUbuntu user and maintain my shops email machine, my home PC and my 80yr old fathers’ PC (he’s a couple of doors away and shares my wireless for internet connection).
I moved him from Windows to Ubuntu about 3yrs ago and he’s had no viruses since.
I moved him to Arch about Sep 2007 and he agrees the machine is faster than it was on Ubuntu. As he’s a gnome/firefox/thunderbird/openoffice user he essentially sees no difference between the two distros, just the increase in speed. He also uses Xsane with a HP scanner/printer, wireless with madwifi and mmc memory with his camera – all work flawlessy with Arch.
Russ
on January 9, 2008 on 3:21 am
To clarify:
Arch is NOT based on CRUX, nor any other distribution. It was made from scratch. Although Judd Vinet was inspired by CRUX, Arch is a completely separate distribution, which has grown and evolved into what it is today.
Also, I am glad you found the Beginner’s Guide helpful. Have fun.