Why I Do not use Arch Linux?
However I have Arch Linux on a USB stick, if somebody ask me a question about Arch, I will boot it and follow my comments.
The IDEA of Linux is to make it User Friendly.
Below is a piece copied from www.distrowatch.com.
Arch Linux is an independent
Linux distribution and one of the more well known examples of the "keep
it simple" (KIS) philosophy. In this case, "keep it simple" refers to
simplicity from an engineering point of view. It refers to a technical
simplicity rather than an uncluttered or an easy to use system from the
user's point of view.
Arch is probably the world's most famous (or infamous) rolling release
distribution. Its heavy focus on do-it-yourself computing, lack of a
graphical system installer, and buyer beware attitude toward package
upgrades has made running this project a rite of passage for many Linux
users. People often talk about running Arch the same way they'd discuss
earning a merit badge.
Personally, I have some complex views when it comes to the Arch Linux
project. On one hand, I appreciate the concept of a technically clean,
minimal distribution on which we can build things. I like having the
option of starting light and adding components as needed, at least in
theory. However, I often get the impression Arch Linux is trying to make
things harder just for the sake of making things harder.
Arch Linux is intended to be installed via manual commands from a shell,
the install media has no graphical interface and no graphical
installer. Technically, there is a command line system installer, but,
as I've pointed out before, it's buggy and limited. This makes it more effort to try to use the installer than to set up Arch by hand.
There doesn't seem to be any technical reason for this hands-on approach to installing Arch. There are over a dozen
distributions in the DistroWatch database which are, essentially, "Arch
Linux, but set up with the Calamares system installer and your option
of desktop environment." Philosophically, Arch seems to want users to do
more work, more reading, and more editing configuration files by hand.
This approach isn't bad, necessarily, but it is more work and rarely
offers an improved experience. It's similar to building your own kit
car: if you have fun doing that sort of thing, that's great, but in the
end it doesn't give you a benefit when you're driving on the road.
One more thought, before I talk more about my latest experience setting
up and running Arch Linux: part of my mixed view with regards to Arch
comes from not being sure if it is a distribution. Arch supplies a lot
of packages, including the Linux kernel. It also supplies support
forums, rich documentation, and a place for users to upload recipes for
installing third-party software, similar to the BSD concept of ports.
All of these things make Arch seem like a Linux distribution. On the
other hand, Arch Linux, as an operating system, doesn't really have a
design or layout of its own. It is like a box of Lego bricks we can
assemble into a shape of our choosing - aided by detailed instructions -
but without any automated help. It feels like a bunch of parts we can
use, or not, as we like. This makes Arch more of a meta distribution
than a regular Linux distribution.
These characteristics make it difficult to review Arch Linux because it
doesn't really have a structure so much as optional pieces. As a
reviewer, I'm basically tasked on building my own operating system from
parts and then asked my opinion of it. I feel like I'm grading my own
art project.
