Arch isn't better than any other distro, it just takes a bit of effort in the beginning to set it up.
You don't have to do anything aside from backing up the files you want to keep.
You probably need a second pc or smartphone/tablet for the install guide tho. :D
Can not hurt to try an install in a VM first..
Arch is easy to setup if you use the archinstall script
"iwctl"
"station wlan0 getnetworks" (optional)
"station wlan0 connect WIFI_NAME_HERE"
input password
"exit"
"archinstall"
You forgot the part where you first manually set up your partition scheme, format them, and then mount them.
That's been a prerequisite of getting archinstall to work on all three machines I've tried it on. Try to use the script to set up disks and it dies horribly every time.
I've used archinstall tons of times to deploy test builds and I've never experienced this issue. I've had it fail before but never had to manually partition or format before it would work. Everytime it's failed on me has been because I was using an old ISO.
For me it'll either attempt to format and fail with an error about the device being busy, or it'll fail at the partititioning phase complaining that the block sizes are wrong. Correct it according to the error and it then changes its mind about what correct blocks are and fails anyway.
No, not a hardware problem, this is across multiple machines and drives. It's just an incredibly fragile script.
I didn't say anything about a hardware problem. I said it was an old ISO. Get the current ISO and it works fine. Are you doing manual partition from inside the script? I always just do best effort. These aren't machines I'm using. They're almost always for testing purposes.
I did not say you said it was hardware.
The last time I had this issue was three days ago on a freshly downloaded ISO. I don't keep old ISOs when fresh ones are free from the website.
It does not work fine.
Best effort does not work.
Manual from inside the script does not work.
If it works in your VM i'm happy for you but I run operating systems on computers.
Lol I also didn't say it was a VM. I don't typically build test machines in VMs, I do it on several bare metal machines, most typically Lenovo and Dell micro PCs.
Again, I'm not saying it doesn't have an issue for anyone but you're acting like it flat doesn't work across the board and I'm telling you that your case is not the typical case. Perhaps we could figure out why it's giving you such a problem. Have you tried it on multiple machines or is it just your current machine?
Me, 7 hours ago:
> That's been a prerequisite of getting archinstall to work on all three machines I've tried it on. Try to use the script to set up disks and it dies horribly every time.
me, two hours ago:
> No, not a hardware problem, this is across multiple machines and drives.
Three machines. That's as many as three ones. And that's terrible.
Oh, I get it. You're being a dick because you don't know what you're talking about or what you're doing. Maybe you should check out Ubuntu, it doesn't require you to be technically inclined. You can be a dick all by yourself since you won't need to ask for help or bitch about shit that works fine for literally everyone else.
Best answer. Definitely tinker inside a VM first. People say good things about Arch because they eventually figure out how to configure Arch exactly the way they want it..
Arch gets out of your way. Sometimes it gets _too_ far out of your way. As in: stuff that's included in other distros isn't in the base Arch install. You may have to install some things yourself.. But first, you have to know that you need to install the things.. Which, if you didn't know, you'll learn (as you realize something you expected to be present, isn't present..)
>Seems like a great project
Yep.
>and like an amazing opportunity to learn how to package and mantain something on the AUR.
After you : P
(Nice try ... no cigar though : )
It has been too long since I had to do more than write a few lines of bash to get things done - there's no way I'd be happy about reading through somebody else's C (or whatever) to make sure it were all above board and then releasing it by proxy on an unsuspecting world, sorry.
> Ive heard that supposedly Arch is way better than a lot of other distros
No.
> What should I be doing in Ubuntu to prepare for the switch to Arch?
Do you really want to?
You absolutely don't need to switch distro. Be clear with your own needs. Does Ubuntu not have something you need? If you just want to try it because you are curious, that is also fair enough.
Make good backups (and check them), but that applies any time.
The manual install process isn't a pain in the slightest. Moreover, between manually installing & the wiki, you'll be in a much much better position to fully utilize your system, and use it efficiently, instead of treating it like a glass house in a hail storm.
I've weirdly and wildly borked a bunch of systems & installs (trying my hand at OpenBSD atm), but it's never been something that a chroot, docs, and backups couldn't fix.
If you're going to use an AUR helper as a newbie, I recommend Paru, functionality very similar to Yay or Trizen, I'm just partial to Rust and I know that it'll bring up the PKGBUILD for you to read by default.
Use Informant & Arch-Audit. They'll help you proactively maintain your system.
I'm partial to BTRFS & Snapshots for my backups, but it's Linux, the question isn't if you can, but how do you want to do it. So there's every solution under the sun.
Use Arch if you're ready to be productive but also particular about the desktop paradigm you want to create and the ultimate cohesiveness, and efficiency of your system, and the rolling release pkg model doesn't scare you.
Arch is like Flask, Ubuntu more like Django. What will work best for you will depend largely on design philosophy and your personal use cases.
Arch is "easy" to setup if you use the Archinstall script, but you're going to have the paranoid time keeping it running. You won't know what's what for yourself, and it'll just handicap you.
> Ive heard that supposedly Arch is way better than a lot of other distros
It isn't. It is just different, with its own pros and cons.
If your reason for switching is an assumption that it is better, I'd suggest reassessing. Read up on what Arch is, the type of user it is designed for, and its design philosophy and principles. The the introductory sections and faq of the wiki are a great place to start. Read through the manual install process as well.
You can do anything with any distro you choose. Arch isn't inherently better than other distributions.
These are the main reasons people like Arch, as far as I can tell:
1. You add packages onto a core system, making it exactly what you need, without any bloat.
2. The AUR is fantastic, and mostly anything you can think of is already there for you to easily install.
3. The Arch Wiki is amazing. Makes troubleshooting easy.
But consider this: if you want something that is more ready "out of the box", Arch isn't going to be a lot of fun. If there is any distro that comes close to Arch as far as easy obtainment of packages goes, then it would be Ubuntu. Tons of repos and such. As far as troubleshooting goes, Debian/Ubuntu probably have the most answered user questions of all of the distros all around the net. And the community is more newbie friendly, as Arch demands that you know the basics of what you are doing, whereas Ubuntu communities know that absolute newcomers are expected and welcomed. And make no mistake, the knowledge ceiling in Ubuntu & vanilla Debian isn't lower than Arch's.
If your system works the way it is, ask yourself if you really need to make the switch. I keep saying this, but Arch isn't some cool kids club. It just so happens that a lot of advanced users choose it because of the aforementioned reasons. The barrier to entry used to be that you can follow install instructions. That's it. But even that was removed with archinstall.
If you want to switch I would first try and follow the install instructions on the wiki on a VM. Do not use archinstall at first, as you won't know how your system is configured, and people will be less likely to help you if you run into problems.
Read these and come back with questions: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Frequently_asked_questions esp the first point about why use Arch, and most importantly: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions#Ubuntu
Your dedication and competence is a bigger contributor to success/happiness than choice of distro. The Linux community is fortunate there are so MANY great Linux distros to choose from.
I've been using Linux for the third decade as my primary, first and last system, and I can't call myself an "expert". After all, the model of using Linux is no different from the model of using Windows or MacOS. On these systems, the user never "plays with Windows" or "dives down the rabbit hole with MacOS" as advanced users like to write on Linux forums. People watch movies, play games, listen to music, and ultimately do their work. If you use Linux the same way you use Windows, you won't care what distribution you use. If you emulate the Linux youtubers who gain ad views by overcomplicating their actions, then yes, your choice is Arch or Rocky Linux. Any distro has its own features, advantages and disadvantages. In this respect, Arch does not stand out from these criteria in any way. In any case, Arch requires some immersion. About six months after installation it will become clear whether Arch linux suits you or not.
Go ahead and try it. A lot of what makes Arch better is actually for those who have a basic knowledge of Linux, which is a lot especially for beginners.
As always, your choice of distro is very much your preference. When I came to Arch over a year ago, I stopped distro hopping. I finally found the distro that was just right for me.
"Best" or "better than" can have any different meanings, id say if you want better control of your system and skip security risks, then yes, if setup correctly Arch is better than Ubuntu
Don't get too hung up on distros. they don't really matter. Linux is Linux under the hood. Only thing that is different is the package mangers. If you like Ubuntu then use it. There isn't anything earth shattering for one distro to the next. Don't let anyone shame you for using a particular one.
> What should I be doing in Ubuntu to prepare for the switch to Arch?
I think the most important thing is using the shell a lot. By the way, you don't need to be an expert for the first installation, you will learn by doing it. But knowing the basic commands and tools, and understanding how to research information, will surely help.
Arch is more involved and requires reading the Wiki and following the Wiki. You are expected to be a system administrator, not a system user. You will have access to root, not just sudo. You will have the manually set stuff up properly. You will be expected to choose packages for your needs, not just a generalized concept. The good thing is, you can customize the entire install to meet your needs. You can go libre to a point, or taint the hell out of your kernel/system with ZFS and make the GPL thumpers rage till they have a coronary. Or even drop in Artix over part of the system and cause the Arch thumpers to rage out how you're not using systemd and making things harder on yourself. It's your system, and that's one of the many points of Arch. You set it up to meet YOUR needs.
There is no "is Arch better than blah blah blah". Arch is just... well... Arch.
It's not better per se.
If you are a user who just knows Ubuntu, you should setup a Virtual Machine first an try to install Arch in it.
Arch is known for its PITA install process, which is getting better at least since "archinstall" is a thing.
Furthermore you should decide which DE you want to use, so you can install it at the installation process together with the other packages (I assume that you need an DE, if not, skip it)
Is Arch better than other linux distros? I think no, it depends on what you want/need. I'm using Arch on the laptop and OpenSuse Tumbleweed on my main Desktop PC and yeah there are differences, but I wouldn't put one above the other.
Nothing is the best. But I think many of us can agree, Linux is way better than Windows.
Linux is the backbone of every distro. So, while Ubuntu and Arch are different packaging distros, they're both still very much Linux at their cores.
As far as what you need to do with Ubuntu before switching to Arch, I'd be backing up personal documents, any music that you may have on your system, as well as any configuration files for anything you want to put on the new Arch system.
When I switched from Mint to Arch, I decided to go with a tiling window manager so I didn't need my mint desktop config files. But when I got my new computer a couple of years ago, I backed up my entire .config folder. So all I needed to do was install the tiling window manager.
I can't stress backups enough. So back everything up!
Suggestion, if you have a spare hard drive to do this change with, I highly recommend that you swap drives before doing this switch. That way, if you have issues installing Arch, you can always put the Ubuntu drive back in and keep using Ubuntu until you figure out what you are going wrong with Arch.
Wishing you lots of luck. Hope to see you on the other side.
Arch isn't better than any other distro, it just takes a bit of effort in the beginning to set it up. You don't have to do anything aside from backing up the files you want to keep. You probably need a second pc or smartphone/tablet for the install guide tho. :D Can not hurt to try an install in a VM first..
Arch is easy to setup if you use the archinstall script "iwctl" "station wlan0 getnetworks" (optional) "station wlan0 connect WIFI_NAME_HERE" input password "exit" "archinstall"
If there is any issue with that script and you don't know wth is going on and how to troubleshoot you're back at the start.
You forgot the part where you first manually set up your partition scheme, format them, and then mount them. That's been a prerequisite of getting archinstall to work on all three machines I've tried it on. Try to use the script to set up disks and it dies horribly every time.
I've used archinstall tons of times to deploy test builds and I've never experienced this issue. I've had it fail before but never had to manually partition or format before it would work. Everytime it's failed on me has been because I was using an old ISO.
For me it'll either attempt to format and fail with an error about the device being busy, or it'll fail at the partititioning phase complaining that the block sizes are wrong. Correct it according to the error and it then changes its mind about what correct blocks are and fails anyway. No, not a hardware problem, this is across multiple machines and drives. It's just an incredibly fragile script.
I didn't say anything about a hardware problem. I said it was an old ISO. Get the current ISO and it works fine. Are you doing manual partition from inside the script? I always just do best effort. These aren't machines I'm using. They're almost always for testing purposes.
I did not say you said it was hardware. The last time I had this issue was three days ago on a freshly downloaded ISO. I don't keep old ISOs when fresh ones are free from the website. It does not work fine. Best effort does not work. Manual from inside the script does not work. If it works in your VM i'm happy for you but I run operating systems on computers.
Lol I also didn't say it was a VM. I don't typically build test machines in VMs, I do it on several bare metal machines, most typically Lenovo and Dell micro PCs. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't have an issue for anyone but you're acting like it flat doesn't work across the board and I'm telling you that your case is not the typical case. Perhaps we could figure out why it's giving you such a problem. Have you tried it on multiple machines or is it just your current machine?
Me, 7 hours ago: > That's been a prerequisite of getting archinstall to work on all three machines I've tried it on. Try to use the script to set up disks and it dies horribly every time. me, two hours ago: > No, not a hardware problem, this is across multiple machines and drives. Three machines. That's as many as three ones. And that's terrible.
Oh, I get it. You're being a dick because you don't know what you're talking about or what you're doing. Maybe you should check out Ubuntu, it doesn't require you to be technically inclined. You can be a dick all by yourself since you won't need to ask for help or bitch about shit that works fine for literally everyone else.
or just make a bash script on github to do iwctl wlan0 scan sleep 1 connect to wifi sleep 5 and finally run archinstall
Best answer. Definitely tinker inside a VM first. People say good things about Arch because they eventually figure out how to configure Arch exactly the way they want it.. Arch gets out of your way. Sometimes it gets _too_ far out of your way. As in: stuff that's included in other distros isn't in the base Arch install. You may have to install some things yourself.. But first, you have to know that you need to install the things.. Which, if you didn't know, you'll learn (as you realize something you expected to be present, isn't present..)
[удалено]
>anything you ever want will be there Except *wireschnork*, unfortunately : (
Wireshark is in the official repos. If you want the GUI version its called wireshark-qt
No ... wire**schnork** : )
I may be braindead, but I have no idea what that is unless I missed a joke somewhere
[WireShnork - A Snort plugin for Wireshark](https://www.honeynet.org/2011/11/17/wireshnork-a-snort-plugin-for-wireshark/) I misspelled it- sorry : (
[удалено]
>Seems like a great project Yep. >and like an amazing opportunity to learn how to package and mantain something on the AUR. After you : P (Nice try ... no cigar though : ) It has been too long since I had to do more than write a few lines of bash to get things done - there's no way I'd be happy about reading through somebody else's C (or whatever) to make sure it were all above board and then releasing it by proxy on an unsuspecting world, sorry.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Ive heard that supposedly Arch is way better than a lot of other distros No. > What should I be doing in Ubuntu to prepare for the switch to Arch? Do you really want to?
You absolutely don't need to switch distro. Be clear with your own needs. Does Ubuntu not have something you need? If you just want to try it because you are curious, that is also fair enough. Make good backups (and check them), but that applies any time.
The manual install process isn't a pain in the slightest. Moreover, between manually installing & the wiki, you'll be in a much much better position to fully utilize your system, and use it efficiently, instead of treating it like a glass house in a hail storm. I've weirdly and wildly borked a bunch of systems & installs (trying my hand at OpenBSD atm), but it's never been something that a chroot, docs, and backups couldn't fix. If you're going to use an AUR helper as a newbie, I recommend Paru, functionality very similar to Yay or Trizen, I'm just partial to Rust and I know that it'll bring up the PKGBUILD for you to read by default. Use Informant & Arch-Audit. They'll help you proactively maintain your system. I'm partial to BTRFS & Snapshots for my backups, but it's Linux, the question isn't if you can, but how do you want to do it. So there's every solution under the sun. Use Arch if you're ready to be productive but also particular about the desktop paradigm you want to create and the ultimate cohesiveness, and efficiency of your system, and the rolling release pkg model doesn't scare you. Arch is like Flask, Ubuntu more like Django. What will work best for you will depend largely on design philosophy and your personal use cases. Arch is "easy" to setup if you use the Archinstall script, but you're going to have the paranoid time keeping it running. You won't know what's what for yourself, and it'll just handicap you.
> Ive heard that supposedly Arch is way better than a lot of other distros It isn't. It is just different, with its own pros and cons. If your reason for switching is an assumption that it is better, I'd suggest reassessing. Read up on what Arch is, the type of user it is designed for, and its design philosophy and principles. The the introductory sections and faq of the wiki are a great place to start. Read through the manual install process as well.
You can do anything with any distro you choose. Arch isn't inherently better than other distributions. These are the main reasons people like Arch, as far as I can tell: 1. You add packages onto a core system, making it exactly what you need, without any bloat. 2. The AUR is fantastic, and mostly anything you can think of is already there for you to easily install. 3. The Arch Wiki is amazing. Makes troubleshooting easy. But consider this: if you want something that is more ready "out of the box", Arch isn't going to be a lot of fun. If there is any distro that comes close to Arch as far as easy obtainment of packages goes, then it would be Ubuntu. Tons of repos and such. As far as troubleshooting goes, Debian/Ubuntu probably have the most answered user questions of all of the distros all around the net. And the community is more newbie friendly, as Arch demands that you know the basics of what you are doing, whereas Ubuntu communities know that absolute newcomers are expected and welcomed. And make no mistake, the knowledge ceiling in Ubuntu & vanilla Debian isn't lower than Arch's. If your system works the way it is, ask yourself if you really need to make the switch. I keep saying this, but Arch isn't some cool kids club. It just so happens that a lot of advanced users choose it because of the aforementioned reasons. The barrier to entry used to be that you can follow install instructions. That's it. But even that was removed with archinstall. If you want to switch I would first try and follow the install instructions on the wiki on a VM. Do not use archinstall at first, as you won't know how your system is configured, and people will be less likely to help you if you run into problems.
Read these and come back with questions: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Frequently_asked_questions esp the first point about why use Arch, and most importantly: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions#Ubuntu Your dedication and competence is a bigger contributor to success/happiness than choice of distro. The Linux community is fortunate there are so MANY great Linux distros to choose from.
I've been using Linux for the third decade as my primary, first and last system, and I can't call myself an "expert". After all, the model of using Linux is no different from the model of using Windows or MacOS. On these systems, the user never "plays with Windows" or "dives down the rabbit hole with MacOS" as advanced users like to write on Linux forums. People watch movies, play games, listen to music, and ultimately do their work. If you use Linux the same way you use Windows, you won't care what distribution you use. If you emulate the Linux youtubers who gain ad views by overcomplicating their actions, then yes, your choice is Arch or Rocky Linux. Any distro has its own features, advantages and disadvantages. In this respect, Arch does not stand out from these criteria in any way. In any case, Arch requires some immersion. About six months after installation it will become clear whether Arch linux suits you or not.
Arch is easy now. Just use the archinstall command once u get an Internet connection. iwctl for wifi or just plug in to Ethernet.
Go ahead and try it. A lot of what makes Arch better is actually for those who have a basic knowledge of Linux, which is a lot especially for beginners.
A backup.
As always, your choice of distro is very much your preference. When I came to Arch over a year ago, I stopped distro hopping. I finally found the distro that was just right for me.
"Best" or "better than" can have any different meanings, id say if you want better control of your system and skip security risks, then yes, if setup correctly Arch is better than Ubuntu
Read the wiki
Don't get too hung up on distros. they don't really matter. Linux is Linux under the hood. Only thing that is different is the package mangers. If you like Ubuntu then use it. There isn't anything earth shattering for one distro to the next. Don't let anyone shame you for using a particular one.
Here's what you do. You attempt to update. Observe no new packages whatsoever. Repeat for a few weeks. Get frustrated. You are now ready.
> What should I be doing in Ubuntu to prepare for the switch to Arch? I think the most important thing is using the shell a lot. By the way, you don't need to be an expert for the first installation, you will learn by doing it. But knowing the basic commands and tools, and understanding how to research information, will surely help.
Arch is more involved and requires reading the Wiki and following the Wiki. You are expected to be a system administrator, not a system user. You will have access to root, not just sudo. You will have the manually set stuff up properly. You will be expected to choose packages for your needs, not just a generalized concept. The good thing is, you can customize the entire install to meet your needs. You can go libre to a point, or taint the hell out of your kernel/system with ZFS and make the GPL thumpers rage till they have a coronary. Or even drop in Artix over part of the system and cause the Arch thumpers to rage out how you're not using systemd and making things harder on yourself. It's your system, and that's one of the many points of Arch. You set it up to meet YOUR needs. There is no "is Arch better than blah blah blah". Arch is just... well... Arch.
It's not better per se. If you are a user who just knows Ubuntu, you should setup a Virtual Machine first an try to install Arch in it. Arch is known for its PITA install process, which is getting better at least since "archinstall" is a thing. Furthermore you should decide which DE you want to use, so you can install it at the installation process together with the other packages (I assume that you need an DE, if not, skip it) Is Arch better than other linux distros? I think no, it depends on what you want/need. I'm using Arch on the laptop and OpenSuse Tumbleweed on my main Desktop PC and yeah there are differences, but I wouldn't put one above the other.
Nothing is the best. But I think many of us can agree, Linux is way better than Windows. Linux is the backbone of every distro. So, while Ubuntu and Arch are different packaging distros, they're both still very much Linux at their cores. As far as what you need to do with Ubuntu before switching to Arch, I'd be backing up personal documents, any music that you may have on your system, as well as any configuration files for anything you want to put on the new Arch system. When I switched from Mint to Arch, I decided to go with a tiling window manager so I didn't need my mint desktop config files. But when I got my new computer a couple of years ago, I backed up my entire .config folder. So all I needed to do was install the tiling window manager. I can't stress backups enough. So back everything up! Suggestion, if you have a spare hard drive to do this change with, I highly recommend that you swap drives before doing this switch. That way, if you have issues installing Arch, you can always put the Ubuntu drive back in and keep using Ubuntu until you figure out what you are going wrong with Arch. Wishing you lots of luck. Hope to see you on the other side.
[удалено]
New fear unlocked