On 01/20/2011 12:24 AM, Gour wrote:
I've feeling that you just copied the above from FAQ and never actually tried Archlinux.
No, I haven't tried it. I'm not going to try every OS that comes down the pike. If the FAQ says that you're going to have to be more of an expert with your system, then I believe it. If it's wrong, then maybe you can push them to update it.
The "do-it-yourself" from the above means that in Arch user is not forced to use specific DE, WM etc., can choose whether he prefers WiCD over NM etc.
So instead of giving you a bunch of sane defaults, you have to make a bunch of choices up front. That's a heavy investment of time, especially for somebody unfamiliar with Linux.
That's not true...In Arch there is simply no Arch-8.10 or Arch-10.10 which means that whenever you update your system package manager will simply pull all the packages which are required for desired kernel, gcc version etc.
The upgrade problems are still there. *Every package* you upgrade has a chance to be incompatible with the previous version. The longer you wait, the more incompatibilities there will be.
Otoh, with Ubuntu, upgrade from 8.10 to 10.10 is always a major undertaking (I'm familiar with it since '99 when I used SuSE and had experience with deps hell.)
Highlighting the problem of waiting too long to upgrade. You're skipping an entire release. I'd like to see you take a snapshot of Arch from 2008, use the system for 2 years without updating, and then upgrade to the latest packages. Do you think Arch is going to magically have no problems?
