yep. and when install, there will be minimum environment. Arch is How you make it(tm) Enjoy. 2016/04/15 6:10 "Guus Snijders" <gsnijders@xxxxxxxxx>: > Op 14 apr. 2016 22:21 schreef <theodore.preuninger@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > > For example non OS: > > > > A hammer is the best to get in a nail. Could use a screw driver, but > > that is not the best tool for the job/task. > > > > Comparing ARCH to other distros in the SAME CATEGORY (not for example > > against pfSense - one of many distros designed for connection sharing), > > what jobs/task is it the best at? > > IMHO Arch is very good at: > - Educating users who want to know how Linux really works > - pleasing power users in letting them have control over the system > - being nice to users who don't want to reinstall every few months, just > because there's a new release > - people who like to use (b)leading edge software > > Or in short: for those who like to stay in control of their systems. > > It's less suited for those that have little interest in the O.S. and/or > reading documentation. > > I guess the old UNIX adage can be applied here: > It is very user friendly. It's just picky who it's friends are. > > For me personally, Arch is very good for my home systems. Keeping > everything up2date is just one command away and rarely breaks stuff. Even > when something breaks, it's usually a simple fix. > I myself wouldn't use it @work, mainly because of 3rd party (commercial) > applications that have a hard time keeping up with the pace of OSS > development. > > My info on other distros is a bit dated. I used debian before switching to > Arch. In those days Gentoo and LFS were mostly named as options for power > users, besides freebsd/netbsd. > Arch looked a bit like Gentoo without the long waits for compiling, with a > very enthusiastic community and a very nice package manager. ~10 years > later I'm still using the same installation (though only the pacman log > proves it ;) ). > > Mvg, > Guus Snijders >
