I installed arch with your tutorial on installing arch with uefi. It was a fantastic experience. It opened a whole new world to me. Thanks for that. And I think you should make a new tutorial installing with systemd-boot. There are few changes too in base package now. All packages are not included in base. Please make a latest comprehensive video again.
Arch is a meme distro for all the wrong reasons. Kids think installing it turns them into hackers so the community has been infested with spoiled brats that think bragging about it makes them look cool in the Linux world. The logo looking "cool" doesn't help either. Also it's way easier to break than other distros, it's not a big deal because everything can get fixed easily, but the thing breaks and that's because it is bleeding edge, you just can't avoid that, it's the nature of the distro. Broken AUR packages also can be a pain in the ass (while not as broken as Gentoo's overlays). btw I use Arch
Same here (main os) but installed the lazy way (Antergos), once I even installed pure arch on vps... I had some minor bugs like gpg keys update problem but nothing serious.
At this point i can't imagine using a Linux distro without AUR. People call Arch autistic, but it's so much better than having to look for sources yourself and searching for all the dependencies manually. As soon as you try to install something that is not in repos on Fedora or Ubuntu, that's when the real autism starts.
My mentor is always making fun of me using Arch as its unstable and takes all your free time to manage. While whining about how awful Unity is on Ubuntu and how he does not have time to upgrade from 16.04 LTS because he does not have time to fix everything after reinstall.
In terms of minimalism,. *arch can actually be heavier*. This is because the arch developers take all packages from upstream, and package them just like that. Whereas, other distros will often split packages up into 2 or 3. For example, IIRC, the kernel package on debian is split into 2 things - the actual kernel and the headers. On arch, it's just a single package. (With that one you HAVE to install both kernel and headers, but that may not be the case with other packages)
My arch install broke 2 or 3 times in a year and a half of use on my laptop (used daily). Every time I found help to fix the issue and get it running under 20 minutes. My Ubuntu install once broke in 2 days. And I couldn't save it, I did everything and it was simply dead. This is why I use arch on all the machines I can now (including my home server because I tried everything on it, and once again it was the only thing that worked properly). (I use arch btw)
The AUR and the wiki are what makes arch, arch + Manjaro gives good hardware support for n00bs and patches as well as the fact that packages are tested before being made available to users
I use minimal Void and I have only had it break once. I had minimal Debian prior and it broke the same amount. The difference is that on Void I knew exactly which bit broke and how to fix it. When Debian broke, I had no idea what happened, and messed around for ages looking at package conflicts messages and logs in despair. Small sample size though. I really *really* appreciate the Arch community for the wiki. Second place is the RasPi wiki, which is unusually OK at giving general-case answers.
As a longtime Arch Linux user, I would like to Second the fact that the issues related with Arch Linux only happen possibly once or twice a year, sometimes there is more space in between, and as long as you do not read the Arch Linux website while you're drunk and attempt to fix it while you're drunk, it's honestly easy enough that a child can do it. 99% of the time you literally just copy and paste the commands that they have there, and its a one size fits all. The last *big* issue Arch had was.... what like 4 years ago? it was the /usr/ib error due to them moving the default location, yet the installs weren't aware of it. Was fixed by symlinking /lib to /usr/lib I believe. Many people instead would erase /usr/lib as was normal if pacman gave you this kind of error..... I messed up 2 of my systems by being drunk, but it was an easy fix lol. Keep in mind my memory isn't perfect, and I haven't been using my Arch keep in mind my memory isn't perfect, and I haven't been able to use Linux actively for about 2 years now, so sorry about errors on my story lol. But my point is, the issues are almost non-existent, and since we are essentially the beta testers of the Linux community, the pros outweigh the cons in my opinion. Normally before a big vulnerability is publicized, or before I read the articles, the update has already been released for Arch and since I update multiple times today, I'm already secured ;)
Arch _does_ break a lot. I've used it several times over the years and I can clearly think of at least 3 cases where an upgrade completely destroyed the computer. To me, that is a lot for a failure of that kind. Never have problems like that with any other OS or distro.
i mean, i found it quite weird that the install was manual, but the control was awesome, and i got to tinker and learn from it, and the minimalistic setup allowed me to just go with what i want
Whenever i go to a different distro, im super freaked out about having to actually search for the packages i wanna install. The AUR makes this insanely convienient, and really is the main reason i keep returning. That, and for "home use" i much, much prefer pacmans speed over fancy functions in apt, that the "ordinary" user will simply never need, but pays for with reeeeeeeeally long update times. I mean, its great that apt has stuff like verifying installations have not been tinkered with, but outside of datacenters i really dont see how anyone would actually need any of that. This might not be a big deal if your on current hardware, but to put this into perspective: It took this core2duo laptop next to me EIGHT HOURS to perform an upgrade. I was like "ok screw this", slapped Manjaro on it, and boom: Less than 30 minutes for a simmilar ammount of packages. (Dont hate on me, im simply too lazy to install everything manually, and am one of those "everything and the kitchen sink" kinda guys anyways, that ends up with a pretty bloated install even if you go like "this time im goina keep it slim".)
Nah it's not. Especially compared to Gentoo which I currently run. It's probably the most comfy power user desktop/laptop Linux distro. Not the lightest, not the most customizable, not the most "hardcore", but simply, it's fairly stable, it's packages are really up to date, and it has probably the biggest repository of all kinds of software available with no required additional tweaking except for using an AUR helper and checking wiki pages for configuration tips. Arch is almost BORING at this point, it's so straightforward and reliable.
True. A major reason why I use Arch (obviously apart from the fact that it's very powerful and I've never broken my install except for when I try to be a smartass and delete some important files) is the large AUR.
I'm amazed at how fun this comment section is. Definitely a rarity on youtube. I'll be reading and commenting more often! Btw, I don't use arch, but I think I'll give it a try. Just wish I could have an offline repo/install for it, and run it on architectures like ARM. I might go with Gentoo instead for the latter reason...
I used Arch (Antergos) for two years while keeping it up-to-date and nothing broke. I then distro hoped and came back to Arch (real arch) recently and the only drawback is that I used your (awesome btw, thanks a lot) LARBS script and with my slow connection the various latex language updates are a bit taxing.
Of course you will switch to Arch from Antergos. This distro not make any sense, it's just really a gtk theme for me. While Manjaro at least have some idea and purpose, but still not so needed if you know your hardware and what you want.
I started out with Arch Linux about a week ago. I had never used Linux extensively before, I only knew a few minor basics. One might think it's a bad idea to start at such an advanced level. But I think that's the perfect way to learn the basics of the system. Its installation requires that you are familiar with the basics of the file system. After twenty installations, I already have a basic understanding of the rules and don't feel like stopping at all.
@@blauwbeer556What report are you expecting exactly? I had a blast with Arch. I still like to have fun with it from time to time but I don't really have a PC at home right now, and at work I have to use Windows. It's still my favorite when it comes to a fun Linux experience. The AUR is something that I wish other distros would have. Pacman is still my favorite package manager.
I've only been on Arch for a couple of weeks( I used Mint 17.1 years ago, then back to Win10 cause I thought I had to in order to play overwatch) and so far it's flawless. I'm a newb but I read the arch homepage before any updates, and check bug reports and if everything looks ok then I update. And so far it's amazing tbh
I used Arch for a few months, then the whole sound stack went nuts, and it had been flakey all along. Switching a microphone was a nightmare. Now I use Ubuntu Mate, and it just works.
if you don't want to actually BUY an OS, but you want something free that works out of the box immediately then Ubuntu and Linux Mint are the best ways to go. if you want as much customization and control as possible, and really want a personalized environment, then arch is the best choice imo
I don't understand the memes. Arch isn't *that* hard to install.. As far as it breaking? Set up btrfs and snapper. Rollback if you have an issue with an update. Problem solved.
In case anyone wants to "get their hands dirty" with btrfs. I use this subvolume setup because I learned it from OpenSUSE and it works well for me. (as root) mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda3 mount /dev/sda3 /mnt btrfs subvolume create /mnt/@ btfs subvolume create /mnt/.snapshots btrfs subvolume list /mnt btrfs subvolume set-default # /mnt (# for @ subvol) umount /mnt mount /dev/sda3 /mnt cd /mnt btrfs subvolume create opt btrfs subvolume create srv btrfs subvolume create tmp mkdir var cd var btrfs subvolume create crash btrfs subvolume create log btrfs subvolume create spool btrfs subvolume create tmp btrfs subvolume create local btrfs subvolume create cache btrfs subvolume create opt mkdir lib cd lib btrfs subvolume create machines btrfs subvolume create mailman btrfs subvolume create mariadb btrfs subvolume create mysql btrfs subvolume create named btrfs subvolume create pgsql mkdir libvirt cd libvirt btrfs subvolume create images cd /mnt mkdir usr cd usr btrfs subvolume create local vim /etc/fstab ... Example root: UUID=f5810e77-9822-708a-a9b4-f3a1b826cd56 / btrfs rw,relatime,ssd,space_cache,subvolid=257,subvol=/@ 0 0 For snapshots dir: UUID=f5810e77-9822-708a-a9b4-f3a1b826cd56 /.snapshots btrfs rw,relatime,ssd,space_cache,subvolid=258,subvol=/.snapshots 0 0 Example subvolume mount: UUID=f5810e77-9822-708a-a9b4-f3a1b826cd56 /var/cache btrfs rw,relatime,ssd,space_cache,subvolid=267,subvol=/@/var/cache 0 0 Do you have to know what you're doing? Kinda. Is it hard to learn? No. The information is out there. I think rtfm and people's laziness to learn should be the meme. Resources that helped me with my setup: www.funtoo.org/BTRFS_Fun wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Btrfs www.suse.com/documentation/sles11/book_sle_admin/data/sec_snapper_faqs.html bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=194491 github.com/wesbarnett/snap-pac (Very cool. Essential in an arch/btrfs/snapper setup, imo)
So here is my Arch story: At first when I learned about Linux, my dream was to have LFS as my main system. But there were a couple of problems. When you have to install something, typically you have to compile and install 10 packages. On the other hand, while working with LFS I noticed that I was using the Arch wiki all the time. So in the end Arch was a nice compromise. It allows having software that you configure the way you want: the distro does not get in the way. Also it has a package manager, so you don't spend several hours just to install one application. And of course, after following the LFS book, Arch was rather easy to install and to setup: there is a lot of overlap.
i'm more of a gentoo guy now, but arch was my start as a linux power user. it's a lot of fun to use, also it's not as hard as it looks to install, yet it's extremely easy to mantain. there is systemd tho, and it is prone to breaking if you don't setup your drivers properly (back in the fglrx updating xorg was impossible). all that said, if you're a begginer start with something like opensuse or fedora, really stable stuff.
I use manjaro. Because everything just works. When I ran Arch, the laptop wouldn't mount my flash drive. Same flash drive mounts correctly on Xubuntu, Manjaro, Debian.
Dude, automatic mounting is a choice. By default it's disabled on minimal distros like arch. It's pretty simple udev config change to have it automatically mount.
Well said, Luke! I used to install Ubuntu for non-techie friends & family who I could convince to try out Linux. Now I take the extra initial time to install Arch for them (actually I'm not sure it really takes longer). Even a distro as supposedly dumbed-down and 'user-friendly' as Ubuntu would regularly give me, and my converts, more issues to deal with (e.g. random problems like updates breaking things, simply not having what they wanted in the package manager and having to spend hours compiling and dep-hell, and struggles getting hardware devices working). After installing Arch for them I rarely have an issue to solve for anyone, and more things work 'out of the box' - aside from the typical 'well Winblows does it this way' bs that effects any Linux distro with a M$ convert in front of it. Arch is the closest thing to Linux zen I've experienced in my 20+ years using Linux. Every other distro introduces weak points in trying to overthink and 'simplify' things. Arch is kind of like letting go and watching the communities creations 'just work' together, despite some latent feeling that it never possibly could without a complex system to manage everything. I still run Debian on my servers that I maintain, but even there I run in to issues when I inevitably need a package that isn't provided by apt, or a newer version that Debian provides. Once you go outside of a distribution's framework you quickly drop the curtain and find out all of it's limitations. Debian's network of security back-porters and package maintainers is amazing, I know they bust ass and do an amazing job, but it's not unheard of for a back-ported security fix to introduce it's own problems that then have less priority to fix than a mainline problem would (less eyes, as you say Luke). So even my beloved Debian 'way' is showing some cracks, imho. So I'm really at the point where I'm considering Linux blaspheme and may just try running Arch Linux on a production server! I've been using it for over five years now on all my desktops/laptops, and like you, there's only one, maybe two times anything got really borked, and it was my fault both times for not having read already posting notes on proper proceedure to avoid the problem. I now have a script that shows me the latest Arch news in my terminal when I run my update alias (adapted from: wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Grufo/Color_System's_Bash_Prompt ). I've also been meaning to check out Anarchy. Have you tried it, Luke? I personally like the manual install and find it pretty simple after doing it a few times (It's really easier than the Arch guide makes it seem), but it would be nice to have a less intimidating installer-based Arch Linux for me to give to my Linux converts ;) Take care dude! I've only recently stumbled on to your videos, but I enjoy them and tend to agree with most of your ideas/philosophies! Great work bud, you inspire me to get off my ass and start posting stuff!
Fully installed Unbuntu 18.04 is nearly over 3.5 gigs and the minimal installed is 3gigs = .5gigs minimal lol +wheeler8 Mini iso is not the minimal version of 18.04 btw +leonardo cafferata
I'm using Gentoo, which feels very similar to Arch in many ways except for the time updating takes. There is a lot of Gentoo-specific information on its wiki and forums, but if I can't find it there the Arch wiki tends to be the place I find the answers.
I was considering installing Arch, but since I don't have to time to mess with it right now I'm installing Manjaro. I've previously used Ubuntu, Lubuntu, and Mint as a main OS on my old laptop. Heck, at some point I may even torture myself with Gentoo. Funny how he mentioned how the Arch community has lots of solutions, one time I had problems on Ubuntu that only I seemed to have the answer for as no one else even posted about it (audio problem, had to use alsa and find an arbitrary setting that could enable the internal mic and headphone jack, simple problem that I don't understand why no one talked about).
Guys, I think it's fair to say It's safer to go with a distro that is stable if you want stability. One person is never going to be able to know even a drop in the ocean that is the kernel, or a distro. Let alone when it is a moving target. But many, shooting on a stationary target (relatively) can and are likely to find out the bugs and holes. I don't just mean the how do I do this guides.... I mean ground up builds from kernel to userland. If you build your userland, if you build your kernel, did you build it right? Are there holes? How do you know? Therefore, I think therefore it is far better **if** you seek stability to go for a stability distro (take your pick) as many minds prior to yours have gone through the iterative process of refining it, but... hey, there is no reason not to have both. But to have both means you have to invest more resources and time and wetware effort (ie your brain) may be resources that are either limited or most people **underestimate**.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +1
Huge problem with ubuntu/debian is outdated documentation, all over the place...
Installed Arch base without any issues. The problem started when trying to install window manager. Wiki isn't clear, I had to figure out that I need xorg first with i3, then look for the packages myself. For some reason, I was able to run startx with root, but not with the user I created, according to the logs, permission denied for a lot of things. After wasting 2 hours, I finally managed to run startx with exec i3 as a normal user. While in I3 my keyboard layout was wrong again, I still remember that I configured it when installed arch base but looks like Xorg didn't even inherit my keyboard layout for X11. So... I had to write a new config custom file in a concrete folder with concrete meta data inside googling and googling posts from 2009, finally it worked fine. Yea 100Mb ram usage, i still have to tweak my i3 but imagine configuring all this shit without Internet.
The only real problem I have had was that all of a sudden, tty was flickering and i3 was very unresponsive. Since I was using NVIDIA and nouveau worked fine on tty(X didn't detect any screens), I asked on NVIDIA forums for help. Eventually(through my logs) he discovers that the card was using 2x PCI lanes instead of x16. I look on the back, and guess what I see? My HDMI cable was halfway out.
Currently on Void Linux. I really miss the AUR even though Void has most of the AUR packages I used in it's repos. Though I won't switch back unless Arch gives the option to use Runit.
I may be a noob or something, but I couldn't use Arch for more than 1 to 2 years without it breaking. At first, it was "my fault" for not reading the devs mistakes and make manual intervention to my system, which borked it. Ok, fine. But last time I used it, which was about 3 or 4 months ago I think, I used it for 6 months and then it borked with a strange error about the system time not being the same as the bios time (or something similar). Never saw that error before or after on any systems I manage. The bios date and time were ok. Arch wouldn't boot on other machines either, so I just copied my most recent files to my backup location, wiped it and installed void for a short time (hours), then fedora. Wanted to go back to void, but I stuck with fedora. In any case, I wasn't using Arch in any stupid way, I only used firefox and a few KDE applications, nothing fancy. No AUR either. I always checked for updates a few times a day, with most being 3 days of not updating (only a very few times), always rebooting in-between updates and waiting 3 to 5 minutes to restart, because systemd has insane time-outs and whenever I modified a timeout for an app, another timeout would come out of the woodwork to refill the gap, which made me give up. And I was always checking the RSS feed for manual interventions when updating. I looked again on the website after it borked, maybe I have missed it by a minute or so, but no, there were no reasons why it should have borked. Manjaro seems to be doing ok, I've used it for more than a year, had a few hiccups recently, but it came back to normal after a few more updates. What I hate about Manjaro is its resource usage compared to even Fedora, not to mention Arch and Void, but whatever, I hate distro hopping, so as long as Manjaro still keeps on working or until I change PCs again, I will keep using it.
I use manjaro (based on arch), it works excellent out of box, and the AUR has pretty much everything, no ppas needed. Of course, it has done buggy things, but so has ubuntu and fedora. If you want stability, then debian stable would be your best bet instead. I used debian for a few years before switching to manjaro xfce for the better software support
Personally, no-one should use a distro solely on its popularity or ease-of-use. Just use what's best for you and sadly, it will involve doing your own research and having your own experience. You're going to do some distro-hopping (not fun for many) but that's how it's best done. For me, I go with KDE Neon on my work machine and Arch on my personal machine. Just remember, that distros are the same at the core. They just have different package managers and base applications.
I installed Arch Linux and was impressed with some things, but then I had problems with Steam Play. After about 5 failed attempts to get the nVidia drivers installed I got them working and it was working pretty good. Then I went back to KUbuntu and tested and the games that failed on Arch worked there. So I tried a new thing, I downloaded Ubuntu Server, basically just a command line only install. Then I added what I wanted. I got about 20fps better in some games that with KUbuntu. So I am sold on installing my own from the Server edition of Ubuntu. If Arch got better support for Steam and Steam Play then I might try that again.
I must say that for people coming from Windows a rolling release actually feels more normal. It is, after all, what Windows have done since Windows 2000. Checking for updates is actually one thing most windows users are used to.
I wouldn't call default arch minimal. Base bootable lvm install is about 3G. Most of that comes from the linux and linux-firmware packages. Memory usage without GUI and nothing running is 233M. Most of that is systemd and lvmetad. I was expecting under 100M. I'll have to try another init and not use lvm to see that with arch.
You CAN, but you are not always up to date or forced to be, that should always be clarified. Rolling release just give you this possibility to be on the bleeding edge. But if you are serious and have work to be done, then, trust me you won't updating non-stop. I was even with 400+ needed updates or more, didn't updated for months. And of course i's always stable. I'm with ArchLinux for years.
I like arch on laptop, but for me it's unusable on desktop... >kernel update whoops, input devices doesn't work anymore >systemd update whoops, have to fix bootctl This happened 2 times in a row. I have problems with ubuntu too, so, yeah... I'm on manjaro now..
All the reasons you stated for using Arch can equally be applied to Debian. Minimal install, 100% free software if you want it. And if you want bleeding edge and occasional hiccups that need fixing like Arch, you can use sid/unstable. Yes, Arch is a meme. I use Void btw
Hi how could I install the mx 150 nvidia graphics card? in arch linux? which one did you install online? did I read on the site that it has no drivers? I like super distribution. can you help me please install it is very bad view the screen
Any reason why you didn't use ubuntu server install or the ubuntu net install if bloat was your concern? Or even debian server/net install. Other mainstream distros like fedora also has a server/net install option.
I think the biggest reason to use arch Linux over the minimalist server install in other distributions, as Luke pointed out in the video, is that the arch Linux community is larger compared to the community of people that use the server version of other distros. Everyone who installs arch Linux is going through the minimal install process, whereas in other distributions most people are going to be using the graphical version. This difference is going to make it easier to get help with a minimal install in arch than with a minimal install of another distro.
But that doesn't matter... why would it change the help online if someone installs ubuntu server and then a DE vs someone installing an ubuntu spin with a default DE? The help online still applies. That's like saying people on manjaro or antergros can't use the arch wiki for help. Many people, even people who are not running arch at all, use the arch wiki for help and it still applies.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
Q: How do you know that a person is Arch Linux user?
A: He will tell you about it.
I'm a Arch user
Me too!
*i use arch btw*
I use arch btw
Did you know I choose to use *A r c h*
I use arch
(Sorry for bad English)
I love your music, please come to brazil
OK (sorry for bad joke).
@@RayBitton I use it too (Sorry for bad)
pretty darn good
Cool (Sorry for bad Mandarin)
I use Arch for two reasons: it's fast because I install only what I need and it's the best for the latest software.
Love your channel!!!
I use Arch for the same reasons tbh
Thanks for your channel!
I installed arch with your tutorial on installing arch with uefi. It was a fantastic experience. It opened a whole new world to me. Thanks for that. And I think you should make a new tutorial installing with systemd-boot. There are few changes too in base package now. All packages are not included in base. Please make a latest comprehensive video again.
I use arch because it had the latest versions of software and i want to say
"I use arch btw"
Arch is a meme distro for all the wrong reasons. Kids think installing it turns them into hackers so the community has been infested with spoiled brats that think bragging about it makes them look cool in the Linux world. The logo looking "cool" doesn't help either.
Also it's way easier to break than other distros, it's not a big deal because everything can get fixed easily, but the thing breaks and that's because it is bleeding edge, you just can't avoid that, it's the nature of the distro. Broken AUR packages also can be a pain in the ass (while not as broken as Gentoo's overlays).
btw I use Arch
The best thing about Kali is that it keeps some of the edgy 13 year olds away from Arch.
The logo is literally the reason I use Arch lol
@@douglasfree1389 damn optimistic and true xD
GOKOP Sounds like me with Manjaro
@@douglasfree1389 i agree.
i use arch btw
90% of the issues are between the monitor and the chair - i am totally guilty of this
haha
The keyboard?
@@greasy3831 the user
as arch user i can say this is true. BTW I USE ARCH.
you're totally right. Arch is great. btw, I use Arch (as well).
Part of the non-spoken agreement that comes with using Arch is to mention it at every given opportunity.
Arch is my main os. Also, I use arch too
Same here (main os) but installed the lazy way (Antergos), once I even installed pure arch on vps...
I had some minor bugs like gpg keys update problem but nothing serious.
oh nice,I use Gentoo btw
*takes sunglasses off of forehead
*put them back on
double the drama
You should wear put a pair of sunglasses on *and* wear some on your forehead XD
Arch is my favorite distro. I''ve used it for years and its never broken because of an update, just my own stupidity.
I use Arch unstable repos BTW
ultimate flex
Are there any stable repos in arch?
Wtf
@@ProgressiveTory there are more stable repos. see your pacman config, on artix they're called gremlims or something, not sure about arch.
At this point i can't imagine using a Linux distro without AUR. People call Arch autistic, but it's so much better than having to look for sources yourself and searching for all the dependencies manually. As soon as you try to install something that is not in repos on Fedora or Ubuntu, that's when the real autism starts.
btw i use arch linux
stop by to say I use arch
i... i don't.. i use mint
Liar liar pants on fire
My mentor is always making fun of me using Arch as its unstable and takes all your free time to manage. While whining about how awful Unity is on Ubuntu and how he does not have time to upgrade from 16.04 LTS because he does not have time to fix everything after reinstall.
My CIS class (2019) has given us access to linux machines in a lab, they all run arch and are praised to be a bleeding edge os
Arch is as stable as you make it.
Honestly when you get right down to it, it is the Arch wiki that makes Arch great.
In terms of minimalism,. *arch can actually be heavier*. This is because the arch developers take all packages from upstream, and package them just like that. Whereas, other distros will often split packages up into 2 or 3.
For example, IIRC, the kernel package on debian is split into 2 things - the actual kernel and the headers. On arch, it's just a single package. (With that one you HAVE to install both kernel and headers, but that may not be the case with other packages)
Haven't watched it yet but yes.
br
maconheiros
U M A
Por que caralhos brasileiro sempre tem que reafirmar que é brasileiro eim? Aiabaishauaiab
pomba
I have been running the same Arch install for about 3 years now with nearly everyday running pacman -Syu once. Literally nothing ever broke.
using arch is like watching rick and morty, people have to know
"arch doesnt break on update.."
couldnt watch this video this morning because librsvt broke on reboot and destroyed X
NaganoharaMio Eh well you need to use distro more than a week before hop or reinstall to break. That's the problem with people saying it doesnt broke.
My arch install broke 2 or 3 times in a year and a half of use on my laptop (used daily). Every time I found help to fix the issue and get it running under 20 minutes.
My Ubuntu install once broke in 2 days. And I couldn't save it, I did everything and it was simply dead.
This is why I use arch on all the machines I can now (including my home server because I tried everything on it, and once again it was the only thing that worked properly).
(I use arch btw)
You pic is so cute, I catched me instantly
What is the name of the character?
@@nitro361
hehe im glad you like it
It's Naganohara Mio from Nichijou
The AUR and the wiki are what makes arch, arch
+ Manjaro gives good hardware support for n00bs and patches as well as the fact that packages are tested before being made available to users
I use minimal Void and I have only had it break once.
I had minimal Debian prior and it broke the same amount.
The difference is that on Void I knew exactly which bit broke and how to fix it.
When Debian broke, I had no idea what happened, and messed around for ages looking at package conflicts messages and logs in despair. Small sample size though.
I really *really* appreciate the Arch community for the wiki. Second place is the RasPi wiki, which is unusually OK at giving general-case answers.
I used arch wiki to install void linux lol
As a longtime Arch Linux user, I would like to Second the fact that the issues related with Arch Linux only happen possibly once or twice a year, sometimes there is more space in between, and as long as you do not read the Arch Linux website while you're drunk and attempt to fix it while you're drunk, it's honestly easy enough that a child can do it. 99% of the time you literally just copy and paste the commands that they have there, and its a one size fits all. The last *big* issue Arch had was.... what like 4 years ago? it was the /usr/ib error due to them moving the default location, yet the installs weren't aware of it. Was fixed by symlinking /lib to /usr/lib I believe. Many people instead would erase /usr/lib as was normal if pacman gave you this kind of error..... I messed up 2 of my systems by being drunk, but it was an easy fix lol. Keep in mind my memory isn't perfect, and I haven't been using my Arch keep in mind my memory isn't perfect, and I haven't been able to use Linux actively for about 2 years now, so sorry about errors on my story lol.
But my point is, the issues are almost non-existent, and since we are essentially the beta testers of the Linux community, the pros outweigh the cons in my opinion. Normally before a big vulnerability is publicized, or before I read the articles, the update has already been released for Arch and since I update multiple times today, I'm already secured ;)
Arch is the worst
Btw I use arch
Such fucking shit comments are not helping dude.
@@xWe2s r/woooosh
@@turb03d-450 Exactly. I don't care. It's still a shit and not doing good for the vision of Arch.
I'm an offended user and I'm Arch by this
I use arch cause i cant install gentoooooòoooooooòoo
install gentoo
Gentoo>Gen2>Zentoo>Jen2
Install gentoo and make LFS on it
Ali Saylıca I cant even image how much pain a person would have to go through: That would be hell on earth..
Ali Saylıca LFS is pure nightmare fuel.
Its not that hard and easier then you think.
Luke Smith: is he a Meme?
Chomsky did nothing wrong!
DELET THIS
+Luke Smith hey bby
Chomsky who ?
@Cakedy just Google Chomsky Luke Smith and he does a whole video about him. 10/10 learned about Chomsky would do again
Arch _does_ break a lot. I've used it several times over the years and I can clearly think of at least 3 cases where an upgrade completely destroyed the computer. To me, that is a lot for a failure of that kind. Never have problems like that with any other OS or distro.
The true meme is gentoo.
I use gentoo btw
@Cad Bane lmao you ain't wrong
This is an old video however, I am curious of how Arch users will adjust to having SteamOS 3 being based on it.
You just use Arch because you couldn't install Gentoo.
I use Arch because my Gentoo still compiling.
"-IT ISN'T TRUE!"
*runs away crying
*comes back
"-i use arch btw"
@BotNC someone's offended 😆
@@vladyslavliebiediev8057 same
i mean, i found it quite weird that the install was manual, but the control was awesome, and i got to tinker and learn from it, and the minimalistic setup allowed me to just go with what i want
btw i use Void
hipster :(
I hate you.
hello, fellow voider!
Reza Maulana wus poppin
Orca Flotta >hipster
sorry i dont want the systemd malware on my system
But what a good meme, though...
Whenever i go to a different distro, im super freaked out about having to actually search for the packages i wanna install.
The AUR makes this insanely convienient, and really is the main reason i keep returning.
That, and for "home use" i much, much prefer pacmans speed over fancy functions in apt, that the "ordinary" user
will simply never need, but pays for with reeeeeeeeally long update times.
I mean, its great that apt has stuff like verifying installations have not been tinkered with, but outside of datacenters
i really dont see how anyone would actually need any of that.
This might not be a big deal if your on current hardware, but to put this into perspective:
It took this core2duo laptop next to me EIGHT HOURS to perform an upgrade.
I was like "ok screw this", slapped Manjaro on it, and boom: Less than 30 minutes for a simmilar ammount of packages.
(Dont hate on me, im simply too lazy to install everything manually, and am one of those "everything and the kitchen sink"
kinda guys anyways, that ends up with a pretty bloated install even if you go like "this time im goina keep it slim".)
Nah it's not. Especially compared to Gentoo which I currently run. It's probably the most comfy power user desktop/laptop Linux distro. Not the lightest, not the most customizable, not the most "hardcore", but simply, it's fairly stable, it's packages are really up to date, and it has probably the biggest repository of all kinds of software available with no required additional tweaking except for using an AUR helper and checking wiki pages for configuration tips. Arch is almost BORING at this point, it's so straightforward and reliable.
True. A major reason why I use Arch (obviously apart from the fact that it's very powerful and I've never broken my install except for when I try to be a smartass and delete some important files) is the large AUR.
I agree, arch is comfy af and pacman is a godsend. I tried running Gentoo and it made me depressed and I rushed back to Arch.
I'm amazed at how fun this comment section is. Definitely a rarity on youtube. I'll be reading and commenting more often!
Btw, I don't use arch, but I think I'll give it a try. Just wish I could have an offline repo/install for it, and run it on architectures like ARM. I might go with Gentoo instead for the latter reason...
I used Arch (Antergos) for two years while keeping it up-to-date and nothing broke. I then distro hoped and came back to Arch (real arch) recently and the only drawback is that I used your (awesome btw, thanks a lot) LARBS script and with my slow connection the various latex language updates are a bit taxing.
Of course you will switch to Arch from Antergos. This distro not make any sense, it's just really a gtk theme for me. While Manjaro at least have some idea and purpose, but still not so needed if you know your hardware and what you want.
I actually installed Arch for a family friend and he was able to use it for his everyday tasks.
arch is op
The AUR is litteraly the only reason I use it.
I started out with Arch Linux about a week ago. I had never used Linux extensively before, I only knew a few minor basics. One might think it's a bad idea to start at such an advanced level. But I think that's the perfect way to learn the basics of the system. Its installation requires that you are familiar with the basics of the file system. After twenty installations, I already have a basic understanding of the rules and don't feel like stopping at all.
well it has been 2 years, can you give me a report or did you leave youtube alltogether?
@@blauwbeer556What report are you expecting exactly?
I had a blast with Arch.
I still like to have fun with it from time to time but
I don't really have a PC at home right now, and at work I have to use Windows.
It's still my favorite when it comes to a fun Linux experience.
The AUR is something that I wish other distros would have.
Pacman is still my favorite package manager.
@@kamilv1992 Thanks, i was curious how it was going after 2 years.
It's probably up there with "I drive a Jag"
Heard this in Clarkson's voice
I've only been on Arch for a couple of weeks( I used Mint 17.1 years ago, then back to Win10 cause I thought I had to in order to play overwatch) and so far it's flawless. I'm a newb but I read the arch homepage before any updates, and check bug reports and if everything looks ok then I update. And so far it's amazing tbh
I used Arch for a few months, then the whole sound stack went nuts, and it had been flakey all along. Switching a microphone was a nightmare. Now I use Ubuntu Mate, and it just works.
if you don't want to actually BUY an OS, but you want something free that works out of the box immediately then Ubuntu and Linux Mint are the best ways to go. if you want as much customization and control as possible, and really want a personalized environment, then arch is the best choice imo
I don't understand the memes. Arch isn't *that* hard to install.. As far as it breaking? Set up btrfs and snapper. Rollback if you have an issue with an update. Problem solved.
set up btrfs, nice meme
Egor Zvorykin - Yeah.. I suppose setting up btrfs is tough too.. :/
Nycex - I still have yet to try that one. Maybe ZFS FTW?
In case anyone wants to "get their hands dirty" with btrfs. I use this subvolume setup because I learned it from OpenSUSE and it works well for me.
(as root)
mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda3
mount /dev/sda3 /mnt
btrfs subvolume create /mnt/@
btfs subvolume create /mnt/.snapshots
btrfs subvolume list /mnt
btrfs subvolume set-default # /mnt (# for @ subvol)
umount /mnt
mount /dev/sda3 /mnt
cd /mnt
btrfs subvolume create opt
btrfs subvolume create srv
btrfs subvolume create tmp
mkdir var
cd var
btrfs subvolume create crash
btrfs subvolume create log
btrfs subvolume create spool
btrfs subvolume create tmp
btrfs subvolume create local
btrfs subvolume create cache
btrfs subvolume create opt
mkdir lib
cd lib
btrfs subvolume create machines
btrfs subvolume create mailman
btrfs subvolume create mariadb
btrfs subvolume create mysql
btrfs subvolume create named
btrfs subvolume create pgsql
mkdir libvirt
cd libvirt
btrfs subvolume create images
cd /mnt
mkdir usr
cd usr
btrfs subvolume create local
vim /etc/fstab
...
Example root:
UUID=f5810e77-9822-708a-a9b4-f3a1b826cd56 / btrfs rw,relatime,ssd,space_cache,subvolid=257,subvol=/@ 0 0
For snapshots dir:
UUID=f5810e77-9822-708a-a9b4-f3a1b826cd56 /.snapshots btrfs rw,relatime,ssd,space_cache,subvolid=258,subvol=/.snapshots 0 0
Example subvolume mount:
UUID=f5810e77-9822-708a-a9b4-f3a1b826cd56 /var/cache btrfs rw,relatime,ssd,space_cache,subvolid=267,subvol=/@/var/cache 0 0
Do you have to know what you're doing? Kinda. Is it hard to learn? No. The information is out there. I think rtfm and people's laziness to learn should be the meme.
Resources that helped me with my setup:
www.funtoo.org/BTRFS_Fun
wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Btrfs
www.suse.com/documentation/sles11/book_sle_admin/data/sec_snapper_faqs.html
bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=194491
github.com/wesbarnett/snap-pac (Very cool. Essential in an arch/btrfs/snapper setup, imo)
Arch is easy to install - if you know what you're doing. A lot of new users will give up as soon as they see a command line and no "next" button
So here is my Arch story:
At first when I learned about Linux, my dream was to have LFS as my main system.
But there were a couple of problems. When you have to install something, typically you have to compile and install 10 packages.
On the other hand, while working with LFS I noticed that I was using the Arch wiki all the time.
So in the end Arch was a nice compromise. It allows having software that you configure the way you want: the distro does not get in the way.
Also it has a package manager, so you don't spend several hours just to install one application.
And of course, after following the LFS book, Arch was rather easy to install and to setup: there is a lot of overlap.
I use arch because pacman is awesome and everything just works on arch
I installed Gentoo.
And am still using it.
tfw when everyone brags about using arch, and here i am running gentoo.
i wonder who's got the bigger meme.
i'm more of a gentoo guy now, but arch was my start as a linux power user. it's a lot of fun to use, also it's not as hard as it looks to install, yet it's extremely easy to mantain. there is systemd tho, and it is prone to breaking if you don't setup your drivers properly (back in the fglrx updating xorg was impossible). all that said, if you're a begginer start with something like opensuse or fedora, really stable stuff.
I use manjaro. Because everything just works. When I ran Arch, the laptop wouldn't mount my flash drive. Same flash drive mounts correctly on Xubuntu, Manjaro, Debian.
Dude, automatic mounting is a choice. By default it's disabled on minimal distros like arch. It's pretty simple udev config change to have it automatically mount.
Well said, Luke! I used to install Ubuntu for non-techie friends & family who I could convince to try out Linux. Now I take the extra initial time to install Arch for them (actually I'm not sure it really takes longer). Even a distro as supposedly dumbed-down and 'user-friendly' as Ubuntu would regularly give me, and my converts, more issues to deal with (e.g. random problems like updates breaking things, simply not having what they wanted in the package manager and having to spend hours compiling and dep-hell, and struggles getting hardware devices working). After installing Arch for them I rarely have an issue to solve for anyone, and more things work 'out of the box' - aside from the typical 'well Winblows does it this way' bs that effects any Linux distro with a M$ convert in front of it.
Arch is the closest thing to Linux zen I've experienced in my 20+ years using Linux. Every other distro introduces weak points in trying to overthink and 'simplify' things. Arch is kind of like letting go and watching the communities creations 'just work' together, despite some latent feeling that it never possibly could without a complex system to manage everything.
I still run Debian on my servers that I maintain, but even there I run in to issues when I inevitably need a package that isn't provided by apt, or a newer version that Debian provides. Once you go outside of a distribution's framework you quickly drop the curtain and find out all of it's limitations. Debian's network of security back-porters and package maintainers is amazing, I know they bust ass and do an amazing job, but it's not unheard of for a back-ported security fix to introduce it's own problems that then have less priority to fix than a mainline problem would (less eyes, as you say Luke). So even my beloved Debian 'way' is showing some cracks, imho. So I'm really at the point where I'm considering Linux blaspheme and may just try running Arch Linux on a production server! I've been using it for over five years now on all my desktops/laptops, and like you, there's only one, maybe two times anything got really borked, and it was my fault both times for not having read already posting notes on proper proceedure to avoid the problem. I now have a script that shows me the latest Arch news in my terminal when I run my update alias (adapted from: wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Grufo/Color_System's_Bash_Prompt ).
I've also been meaning to check out Anarchy. Have you tried it, Luke? I personally like the manual install and find it pretty simple after doing it a few times (It's really easier than the Arch guide makes it seem), but it would be nice to have a less intimidating installer-based Arch Linux for me to give to my Linux converts ;)
Take care dude! I've only recently stumbled on to your videos, but I enjoy them and tend to agree with most of your ideas/philosophies! Great work bud, you inspire me to get off my ass and start posting stuff!
Void is great. I use it with my HP Mini, and after building a couple of packages I needed for work, I havent had any issues with it.
Ubuntu 18 will have minimal install version too, I only use manjaro becouse of AUR.
Ubuntu has always had a minimal install version btw.
Fully installed Unbuntu 18.04 is nearly over 3.5 gigs and the minimal installed is 3gigs = .5gigs minimal lol +wheeler8
Mini iso is not the minimal version of 18.04 btw +leonardo cafferata
Why do good things become memes...
TIL you use Arch (I've seen your slav shopping video)
Because memes are the DNA of the soul.
I'm using Gentoo, which feels very similar to Arch in many ways except for the time updating takes. There is a lot of Gentoo-specific information on its wiki and forums, but if I can't find it there the Arch wiki tends to be the place I find the answers.
I was considering installing Arch, but since I don't have to time to mess with it right now I'm installing Manjaro. I've previously used Ubuntu, Lubuntu, and Mint as a main OS on my old laptop. Heck, at some point I may even torture myself with Gentoo. Funny how he mentioned how the Arch community has lots of solutions, one time I had problems on Ubuntu that only I seemed to have the answer for as no one else even posted about it (audio problem, had to use alsa and find an arbitrary setting that could enable the internal mic and headphone jack, simple problem that I don't understand why no one talked about).
Guys, I think it's fair to say It's safer to go with a distro that is stable if you want stability. One person is never going to be able to know even a drop in the ocean that is the kernel, or a distro. Let alone when it is a moving target. But many, shooting on a stationary target (relatively) can and are likely to find out the bugs and holes. I don't just mean the how do I do this guides.... I mean ground up builds from kernel to userland. If you build your userland, if you build your kernel, did you build it right? Are there holes? How do you know? Therefore, I think therefore it is far better **if** you seek stability to go for a stability distro (take your pick) as many minds prior to yours have gone through the iterative process of refining it, but... hey, there is no reason not to have both. But to have both means you have to invest more resources and time and wetware effort (ie your brain) may be resources that are either limited or most people **underestimate**.
Huge problem with ubuntu/debian is outdated documentation, all over the place...
Arch breaking has certainly happened to me, and if this ever happens at all that is generally considered a huge issue.
Thanks Luke great videos seriously all your content is great I've subscribed I want to see more about Linux.
Installed Arch base without any issues. The problem started when trying to install window manager. Wiki isn't clear, I had to figure out that I need xorg first with i3, then look for the packages myself. For some reason, I was able to run startx with root, but not with the user I created, according to the logs, permission denied for a lot of things. After wasting 2 hours, I finally managed to run startx with exec i3 as a normal user. While in I3 my keyboard layout was wrong again, I still remember that I configured it when installed arch base but looks like Xorg didn't even inherit my keyboard layout for X11. So... I had to write a new config custom file in a concrete folder with concrete meta data inside googling and googling posts from 2009, finally it worked fine. Yea 100Mb ram usage, i still have to tweak my i3
but imagine configuring all this shit without Internet.
I'm a BSDLinuxHurd user BTW! whoops, where is GNU!?
LOL mate you didn't get the pun ;) thanks for stopping by.
The only real problem I have had was that all of a sudden, tty was flickering and i3 was very unresponsive. Since I was using NVIDIA and nouveau worked fine on tty(X didn't detect any screens), I asked on NVIDIA forums for help. Eventually(through my logs) he discovers that the card was using 2x PCI lanes instead of x16. I look on the back, and guess what I see? My HDMI cable was halfway out.
Call off my meeting mum, pacman broke my shit again
Hahaha so good
Currently on Void Linux. I really miss the AUR even though Void has most of the AUR packages I used in it's repos. Though I won't switch back unless Arch gives the option to use Runit.
I may be a noob or something, but I couldn't use Arch for more than 1 to 2 years without it breaking. At first, it was "my fault" for not reading the devs mistakes and make manual intervention to my system, which borked it. Ok, fine. But last time I used it, which was about 3 or 4 months ago I think, I used it for 6 months and then it borked with a strange error about the system time not being the same as the bios time (or something similar). Never saw that error before or after on any systems I manage. The bios date and time were ok. Arch wouldn't boot on other machines either, so I just copied my most recent files to my backup location, wiped it and installed void for a short time (hours), then fedora. Wanted to go back to void, but I stuck with fedora. In any case, I wasn't using Arch in any stupid way, I only used firefox and a few KDE applications, nothing fancy. No AUR either. I always checked for updates a few times a day, with most being 3 days of not updating (only a very few times), always rebooting in-between updates and waiting 3 to 5 minutes to restart, because systemd has insane time-outs and whenever I modified a timeout for an app, another timeout would come out of the woodwork to refill the gap, which made me give up. And I was always checking the RSS feed for manual interventions when updating. I looked again on the website after it borked, maybe I have missed it by a minute or so, but no, there were no reasons why it should have borked.
Manjaro seems to be doing ok, I've used it for more than a year, had a few hiccups recently, but it came back to normal after a few more updates. What I hate about Manjaro is its resource usage compared to even Fedora, not to mention Arch and Void, but whatever, I hate distro hopping, so as long as Manjaro still keeps on working or until I change PCs again, I will keep using it.
“It doesn’t break”
Proceeds to explain how it does break
I use manjaro (based on arch), it works excellent out of box, and the AUR has pretty much everything, no ppas needed. Of course, it has done buggy things, but so has ubuntu and fedora. If you want stability, then debian stable would be your best bet instead. I used debian for a few years before switching to manjaro xfce for the better software support
Well, I don't like shit people telling me that they use arch while I was using ubuntu.
BTW, I use arch.......
i prefer arch linux and gentoo. they are so cool. and with i3,bspwm ,it get you looked like a hacker.hehe
Thanks to Arch now my very old computer is now a useful home server
I installed updates on Arch based distros and broke them twice. Chakra and Manjaro both broke.
given the high speed internet situation in my banana republic, arch keeps me in the city
Yes daddy show me the arch install
sudo rm -rf /eyes/ --no-preserve-sight
The feeling of sudo pacman -Syyu ing during this video.
Personally, no-one should use a distro solely on its popularity or ease-of-use. Just use what's best for you and sadly, it will involve doing your own research and having your own experience. You're going to do some distro-hopping (not fun for many) but that's how it's best done. For me, I go with KDE Neon on my work machine and Arch on my personal machine.
Just remember, that distros are the same at the core. They just have different package managers and base applications.
I installed Arch Linux and was impressed with some things, but then I had problems with Steam Play. After about 5 failed attempts to get the nVidia drivers installed I got them working and it was working pretty good. Then I went back to KUbuntu and tested and the games that failed on Arch worked there. So I tried a new thing, I downloaded Ubuntu Server, basically just a command line only install. Then I added what I wanted. I got about 20fps better in some games that with KUbuntu. So I am sold on installing my own from the Server edition of Ubuntu. If Arch got better support for Steam and Steam Play then I might try that again.
I must say that for people coming from Windows a rolling release actually feels more normal. It is, after all, what Windows have done since Windows 2000. Checking for updates is actually one thing most windows users are used to.
Btw I use bedrock (with an arch stratum)
I wouldn't call default arch minimal. Base bootable lvm install is about 3G. Most of that comes from the linux and linux-firmware packages. Memory usage without GUI and nothing running is 233M. Most of that is systemd and lvmetad. I was expecting under 100M. I'll have to try another init and not use lvm to see that with arch.
the focused support in arch is a good point; but i still think that you don't use debian because it's not cool to say "i use debian"
Hey man is 30GB root ok for arch install 2018? Packages gets bigger (increase in size) every day.
Hi Luke, What Is your opinion about slackware? Have you ever use it?
You CAN, but you are not always up to date or forced to be, that should always be clarified.
Rolling release just give you this possibility to be on the bleeding edge. But if you are serious and have work to be done, then, trust me you won't updating non-stop. I was even with 400+ needed updates or more, didn't updated for months. And of course i's always stable. I'm with ArchLinux for years.
I like arch on laptop, but for me it's unusable on desktop...
>kernel update
whoops, input devices doesn't work anymore
>systemd update
whoops, have to fix bootctl
This happened 2 times in a row. I have problems with ubuntu too, so, yeah...
I'm on manjaro now..
I have only one question: Why is Cypher telling me the benefits of Arch?
I'm using void btw..
The two greatest things with arch are the wiki and your script.
Oh and the AUR, so three things...
On god arch Linux breaking is a meme. I've had it for a year and a half and nothing has ever gone wrong spontaneously
All the reasons you stated for using Arch can equally be applied to Debian. Minimal install, 100% free software if you want it. And if you want bleeding edge and occasional hiccups that need fixing like Arch, you can use sid/unstable. Yes, Arch is a meme. I use Void btw
I installed Arch on a family friend’s computer, posted about it on Reddit and I got a bunch of negative comments!
I use Arch btw
Hi how could I install the mx 150 nvidia graphics card? in arch linux? which one did you install online?
did I read on the site that it has no drivers?
I like super distribution. can you help me please install it is very bad view the screen
Any reason why you didn't use ubuntu server install or the ubuntu net install if bloat was your concern? Or even debian server/net install. Other mainstream distros like fedora also has a server/net install option.
I think the biggest reason to use arch Linux over the minimalist server install in other distributions, as Luke pointed out in the video, is that the arch Linux community is larger compared to the community of people that use the server version of other distros. Everyone who installs arch Linux is going through the minimal install process, whereas in other distributions most people are going to be using the graphical version. This difference is going to make it easier to get help with a minimal install in arch than with a minimal install of another distro.
But that doesn't matter... why would it change the help online if someone installs ubuntu server and then a DE vs someone installing an ubuntu spin with a default DE? The help online still applies. That's like saying people on manjaro or antergros can't use the arch wiki for help. Many people, even people who are not running arch at all, use the arch wiki for help and it still applies.
Ah... you haven't seen someone in debian editing the dependencies of a .deb manually... and notice that there was something wrong.
Have you ever heard about GuixSD? What do you think about it? Can you talk about it?
what can i say about arch, its a good distro but its easy to get broken if you go wrong installing things.
The reason; if your going to learn an OS, learn Arch, everything else is easy, after some familiarity; so is Arch
btw i use freebsd