Hey, Guise[sic]!

I'm a rather computer-illiterate Linux noob, using Crunchbang and loving it- but I've been attracted to Arch for some time...mainly because of it's have-it-your-way ability; it's KISS philosophy, and especially for it's ability to provide me with a great learning experience, through it's great documentation.

Trouble is: I don't like to do updates! I like to get something that works well, and which is set-up the way I want...and just leave it. (I used WIN98 up to 2007...think I updated it ONCE!)

So...supposing I installed Arch, and rarely update it? What will happen? Will the Linux police come and arrest me? Will my 'puter 'splode? Will Arch break?

I mean, I'd love to do this for the experience...but if I'm going to take the time and trouble to do it, I'd like something that I can keep on my hard drive for a back-up OS for several years.

What think ye?

Also....with all the updates (if I were to do 'em) where does all the "old stuff" go? I mean, when you update, just the size of Arch on one's disk just grow and grow, until the HDD is full...or what?

Thanks all!

Like you said, Arch has excellent dodo - read it.
Start with this maybe.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks! I had actually come across that article a few days ago; rereading it now, the task of maintaining Arch seems less daunting.... I think come winter, when I have more free time, I'm going to give it a whirl. I'll only update it once a month or so- it'll be a secondary OS, dual-booted....so if nothing else, it'll be a good learning experience (I spent 2 hours watching CLI tutorials on Youtube last night- stuff I should have learned 3 years ago, when I first started using Linux. Not only will it prepare me for Arch...but the info already came in handy and was put to good use this morning!)

IMHO, Arch lost its KISS agenda when they switched to systemd.
Arch's documentation is indeed very good, I use it often when I have problems on other distros.
So, obviously rolling release is not something you want (though you should re-think your current update strategy from a security point of view), which pretty much eliminates one of Arch's major advantages.
At least you will have to study the update hints on the Arch site to the point where you last updated, so that you are warned about potential problems.
Honestly, if it is the KISS aspect that attracts you and not the rolling release aspect go with something different, like Slackware or Salix.

Updates are not installed next to the already existing software, they replace the already it. So no, your system will not grow endlessly.

Normally I would agree that Arch may not be the best choice for you, but a monthly update is certainly do-able. Read the news site before update. I have a system that I update every 6 to 12 months, and it always breaks - but it's always covered in the news. Sometimes a simple fix, sometimes not.

As for systemd, it's the way ahead - just another thing to learn.

I learned Linux with my very first system an Arch system I had to rebuild dozens of times. I can understand the not update thing, and as far as myself I am much the same way. Though one big reason you do updates is for security patches. Every time they find a problem or security hole, it is patched and then an update made available. As far as my machines, I just make sure everything is operational and secure and thats good for me!

TobiSGD, what a GREAT idea! Just read the Arch documentation! I've always been opposed to rolling releases....but I could still learn a lot just from reading the Arch stuff...and I could take my time doing it.

I'm taking another look at Slackware, as per your recommendation. I was intimidated by it at first...but now that I'm getting familiar with the CLI...the only thing that worries me is the package management not doing the dependencies automatically...but hey, we can't have everything- and it will be an opportunity to learn- which is what i want after all.

"Simplicity and stability"....that's me. I'm going to seriously give this some thought. I may need to get a second (cheap used laptop) 'puter, so I can access the web while installing....as I don't want to do it in a VM.

Thanks for the suggestion! Sorry to hear that Arch is going with SystemID (I don't really know what that is..but if it's the latest and greatest, and contradicts the KISS principle...I don't like it already

Syg00 and Tech7, thanks for your input, too! Ironically, even though I'm a privacy buff, I've never been too concerned about computer security. I'm the guy who used WIN98 from 98-07...I think I updated it once...never used AV or a firewall....in all those years, I got one trojan. I sometimes wonder (With Winders, anyway- not so much Linux) if the so-called patches and security fixes aren't doing the very opposite of what their intended purpose is? -as it seems like often, the people who do it by the book- i.e. all the updates and patches; AV; etc. seem to be the ones who always get the viruses.....

I really like the sound of Arch...I had rejected it a while back...but I keep being drawn to it. If it weren't for it being a rolling release, there'd be no question....but it is hard for me to get past that. (I just hope and pray that they never change my beloved Crunchbang! -if it weren't that I wanted a little challenge for my noobish [non]skill-level, I'd just forget about even messing with anything else...)

TobiSGD, I watched a Slack installation tutorial on Youtube last night. Doesn't look bad! I think I could do it even without access to the interweb whilst doing it, as lonmg as I get my ducks in order about manual partitioning beforehand! I think Slack will be "the one". I feel so much better, not having to contend with a rolling release- and the few things about it that scare me...well, they'll just be something to learn- which is the whole point of me having a secondary OS to begin with, right?

Thanks!

First of all, Arch is not terribly hard to set up. If you have any working knowledge of Linux you should be able to get through this walk through farily easy.

As far as updates are concerned, ArchLinux is a rolling distro. This means that there are not version numbers released in stages at all. You get what you get. As a result, updating is very important so that you have the most up-to-date packages to keep things working smoothly...

I only update my boxes once weekly which is more than sufficient. If that is too much to ask from you then you may be better off working off a distro that offers stable releases and minimal updates to packages. But if you go this route you will possibly be missing out on current package releases and opportunities for cutting edge software that is offered in the regular repo and the AUR.

I still use Debian on some of my servers for stability and production purposes...However, on all my desktops and laptops I only use ArchLinux and I won't go back. I love it!

1 members found this post helpful.

It cuts to the chase, doesn't it?

1 members found this post helpful.

It does. Sadly, the documentation is the only thing that fits my needs, the distro itself is a no-go for me. Seriously, KISS and systemd? If you want to see how KISS looks like go no further than Slackware or CRUX. Arch has switched their agenda from KISS and "wanna have the latest" to "wanna have the latest" only, but they have still not updated their website to reflect this change.

2 members found this post helpful.

Thanks, all. This has been very enlightening. The main thing that was attracting me to Arch (even though I knew it was a rolling release) was the great documentation- which, if all distros had, would probably be a better way of winning converts to Linux, as opposed to the modus-operandi of many distros today, which seems to be "imitate Windows; offer lots of eye-candy; shovel-in a crapload of programs of every conceivable variety".

But, alas, I am just really not well-suited to a rolling release distro- not even for experimentation. The Debian family suits me just fine for my actual primary OSes.... and I think Slack will do the trick for my secondary/experimental/learning OS. I definitely do prefer old and stable and simple. (Although, I'm sure that that simplicity will be a challenge for me!). I truly have no need for the latest & greatest- as I don't do gaming, nor do I use the latest/greatest hardware. (Heh...the one game I do play- Emilia Pinball- I don't think has been updated or changed this century! )

Arch definitely sounds like it has a lot of great attributes though- and I may even do an install of it in VirtualBox...just for the experience, and to have the benefit of reading the documentation, and actually putting it into practice.

It's like we're twins.

When you update, the previous version packages are kept incase you need to downgrade, and the new software installation replaces the previous. When you have your system up and running the size will remain generally the same. In my opinion, a stable operating system like debian might suit your needs better.

Definitely. The Debian-based Crunchbang is actually the perfect OS for me, for everyday use (I haven't booted-up actual Debian in months now). I still want to install something that will force me to learn, though- but I think, as someone else suggested, Slackware would be better for me for that purpose- and then at least after I get it working and set-up the way I want it, I'll still have a usable secondary OS in it- as opposed to Arch, which I know I'd never update...and it'd just languish and go stale and be a waste.