I have been using antergos for over 4 years, having dual booted it on with windows on 3 different computers. I always liked the fact that it took just 15-20 minutes for me to start working.
Arch purists may scoff on these spin offs, but they miss the point. The appeal was that even though I know how to set up arch on my own, it takes about 2 hours or so. Setting up nvidia was also a pain. With antergos, you can just sit back, and get a nice working system quickly.
> The appeal was that even though I know how to set up arch on my own, it takes about 2 hours or so.
I've used Arch on and off for about eight years. The first time I set it up, it took about 2 hours. I just tried again last week, and it took all day.
They used to have a super-basic installer, but it sped things. They removed that in favor of detailed instructions on archwiki. Now, they've basically obliterated the install instructions. Whereas it was once a step-by-step guide with call outs to more detailed pages, now it is just a set of stubs that send you to other detail pages. And it is not opinionated at all.
Want a full-disk encryption setup, but haven't installed arch in couple years? Be prepared to spend a lot of time researching everything that goes into that stack, with very little guidance as to what is typical practice.
The "hard" parts of installing Arch are partitions and boot loaders. The old walkthrough gave you a basic method that many people just copied to get a working system, but they had no idea how those areas functioned leaving them screwed should they encounter any problems.
If you want community chosen presets, why are you opting for Arch? And if you don't want presets, knowing how partitions and boot loaders function is necessary. This is also why encryption is a bitch, it adds tons of complexity to partitions and boot loaders.
Because it has fast, rolling-release updates, little changes from upstream, and any package you will ever need (either in the repos or the AUR).
There are many things nice to arch apart from the basic install. You can install very minimal debian systems, very minimal centos systems, very minimal gentoo systems. All with this and that bootloader and partition layout. It's not what people usually pick a distro for.
>Because it has fast, rolling-release updates, little changes from upstream, and any package you will ever need (either in the repos or the AUR).
Which of these is missing from say Solus, Debian Rawhide, or OpenSuse Tumbleweed, not to mention the various Antergos like distros. The differences between distros past the base install really is smaller than people realize, and often people pick distros based on misguided assumptions.
I think you meant Debian sid and Fedora Rawhide there.
I know Debian fails on "little changes from upstream". Antergos obviously fails nothing because it is arch beneath. But it is dead now. Manjaro, the only other popular arch-based distro, has its own problems: https://web.archive.org/web/20150409040851/https://manjaro.g...
With the rest, lets make a little test. Lately I've been using a program called syncplay: https://syncplay.pl/
On Arch, you can find 3 different versions of it in the AUR: syncplay (latest stable, 1.6.3 at the time of writing), syncplay-git and syncplay-server-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=syncplay
I haven't found an online form to search packages on Solus, but after booting an ISO I can see it is there! https://u.teknik.io/EQOck.png (although a bit outdated, 1.5.2 from a year ago)
Of course, this is a stupid small test. But it is so easy to create and share arch packages, and the user base is so large, that it is almost never the case that what I need doesn't have a build script already, or that the packaged version is too old.
And when it does happen, and there is no build script, it is very easy to make one and share it with the world. Or when I really need the bleeding edge for a certain application, I can look for -git packages.
I know that on debian checkinstall can help you avoid an /usr/local unpackaged mess, but I have no idea how I'd share that with others.
In short, yes, the ideas between all of these distros are pretty similar, but as far as package availability goes Arch tends to win due to low barrier of entry for packages, and user base size. Its install process is shit, but thankfully I've only needed to do it a couple times.
Oh, and it probably wins on documentation as well. The Arch wiki is just huge.
Arch is basically made for Linux experts, and the installation process is the barrier to entry, to prove your worth (or at least drive).
Fundamentally, installing Arch really isn't any different for us that install Debian or Fedora from scratch, from within another environment, without using the hand-holding installers. The only difference is using `pacman` instead of `apt` or `dnf`.
This is true. Though to be fair a brief Google does reveal some turnkey full disk encryption instructions noted by others. Just would be nice to have them on the wiki. Of course there's nothing stopping us adding those ourselves.
I never used Antergos but last I used Manjaro it seemed pretty good.
Personally, I’m looking to see concepts like GuixSD and NixOS be extended and remixed. I’m imagining a world where you have a control panel that changes declarative settings then commits them by rebuilding the system...
Manjaro is the one linux distro that recommended users set their clocks back in the past because they f....d up big time with their HSTS+HTTPS cert. [0]
Ok, that was 4 years ago, but still, I wouldn't dare use it.
And for those who will use Manjaro, please don't ask for support on the Arch forums/subreddit/IRC chan.
>the Arch Linux fork Manjaro ships a static private key on their installer image which also gets copied to the target system. The result is that all Manjaro users have the same "private" key and anybody can easily use this to sign any package that the package manager will accep
Manjaro is fine, but I preferred Antergos because it used the Arch Linux packages, meaning I always had the latest ones. AFAIK, Manjaro is behind by like a month? In which case, why even bother with rolling release?
> used the Arch Linux packages, meaning I always had the latest ones.
This is provably false, as I can witness from my recent experience where Arch has 14 month old, long superseded, version of a package, while other Linux distros (including Manjaro, but also Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, openSuse, etc.) use the most/more recent version.
----
> AFAIK, Manjaro is behind by like a month? In which case, why even bother with rolling release?
Even if this were true (and it isn't, see the sibling comment), I've seen responses like yours and I don't understand them.
Where would you draw the line when it comes to rolling? You say that one month behind is too long. Is 2 weeks ok? One week? 3 days? 1 day? 12 hours? Why does it even matter?
To answer you from my perspective:
I "bother" with Manjaro because I like the rolling distro philosophy, but I also value stability. If those two weeks of delay will bring me packages which are better tested and more stability overall - I'm all for it.
Oh and I don't even update as soon as an update hits the stable channel, I regularly decide to wait at least a day or two to see if others have any problems with the update.
For other people, who are more impatient (and more adventurous), Manjaro offers two other channels: testing and unstable.
> This is provably false, as I can witness from my recent experience where Arch has 14 month old, long superseded, version of a package, while other Linux distros (including Manjaro, but also Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, openSuse, etc.) use the most/more recent version.
My line is that I want the latest upstream packages with as little delay as possible while not breaking things. It’s a vague line, but that’s how it is. Arch Linux has generally managed to hit that line consistently and I haven’t experienced any breakages in years. Most of the issues I’ve had were due to Antergos screw-ups.
Unfortunately, I have seen out of date (1+ month) packages without any response from the maintainer, so I guess it’s just something that happens. My reasonable expectation is that I do have the latest ones, and I’m annoyed if I don’t.
Manjaro stable is behind Arch ca. 2 weeks. Unstable a day or two. Some packages get fast tracked. For example the Firefox update came yesterday, hours after release.
Manjaro was a gateway drug for me. Used Ubuntu from when it came out to ~2014. Switched to Manjaro, but after the SSL cert fiasco I switched to Arch proper. When I started my job, Gentoo is our office distro for workstations and servers, so I switched all my home machines over to make sure I understood it. Then I ended up liking it more than Arch...
I went a bit the other way around. Switched from RedHat to Gentoo ca. 2002, and used it for about 8 years, when I started using mostly Macs, and some Ubuntu installs (less time to dick around with build flags and long compile times). Just last week installed Manjaro on a new system, and it seems really nice. I'll probably switch my home laptop from Ubuntu to it (or plain Arch, maybe)
Opposite to Antergos Manjaro is a) using solely their own repos, not also Arch's and b) come bloated (far too many applications installed by default) and themed out of the box.
Similar situation here I have Antergos on 3 diff systems and being using it for past 3 years longest I have used any distro before switching to new one. It was such a good arch spinoff.
Arch purists may scoff on these spin offs, but they miss the point. The appeal was that even though I know how to set up arch on my own, it takes about 2 hours or so. Setting up nvidia was also a pain. With antergos, you can just sit back, and get a nice working system quickly.
Will definitely miss it