It feels like he's describing installing Linux (any distribution) around 1997-1998. A bit complex, lots of manual setup, etc. Not terrible, and it has its benefits for sure, but it feels a tad like a step back.
My main issue is that the rolling release thing didn't actually solve the problem that I expected it to - which is that I didn't want to need to install a new release every 6 months to keep up with changes. While Arch makes it so that you don't need to frequently re-install, if you don't update often enough, you can get into situations where upgrading will break your system.
At this point, I'm afraid to do the upgrade on my server for a number of reasons, first is that I might run out of disk space on root part-way through (I should mount something else to /tmp for this). And, the other reason, as mentioned above, is that the upgrade might bork my system, and that's just something that I can't afford on my server.
I realize now that this was a really poor choice as a server distro, but I am happy that Arch does not get in your way with system config stuff and you can find just about anything you want to install in either the base or community repos.
Also I use some esoteric software that is more difficult to get on Ubuntu.
I'm a developer though that's been using Linux as my main OS since the days of red hat 4 in 1996 so I'm quite used to it. Arch focuses more towards seasoned users that want to do their configuration this way. The rolling release schedule can introduce some issues for me but they typically are fixed within hours to a few days as new packages come in.
All in all I'm very happy with it as my primary OS for both work (within a creative agency) and at home. Certainly as a developer I've found it far easier to get things to work on it than other linux flavours.
Different strokes for different folks really. I still continue to recommend Ubuntu and Fedora to friends looking a more friendly and "out of the box" experience. Arch is not there to fill that niche.
Cynically I suppose that the people involved in making this software aren't encouraged to improve ease of use because then they couldn't be "helpful" in the IRC channel used for support.
Is something like this the reason so many open-source projects so vehemently opposed to usability?
Whether I'm an "outcast" or a "neckbeard" is entirely for others to decide. What I can tell you is that based on your comment, you simply have never experienced the joy of building something from scratch.
Rather than defend Arch explicitly, I'd like to use an example.
I like bicycles. I cycle 20 miles daily on my work commute and use my bike as my only form of transportation for running errands and getting around town.
The most "usable" route of transitioning to a car-free lifestyle would have to be going to a bike shop and buying one that fits. Now of course there's nothing wrong with this approach.
However, using this approach, when something goes wrong (as inevitably will happen with all machines, mechanical or digital) my reaction would most likely be be to look down at the problem, scratch my head, then walk my ass to the bike shop.
The approach I prefer is to build my bike from scratch. Acquire the perfect frame, the ideal wheelset, a rack that saves me some extra grams over what comes default on most transpo bikes.
Then all the tools.
When something goes wrong with my bike, I know exactly what's wrong. I know what shortcuts I took, what configuration I chose, and most importantly, I've got all the tools necessary to fix the problem.
Further, I know my bike is as fast and efficient as possible (given all necessary trade offs) because I was able to choose the ideal components.
tl;dr: I use Arch because time spent tinkering is time spent learning and optimizing. For more info I suggest anyone interested read The Arch Way: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
VERY happy Arch user for 2 years now. And also planning on building my own bicycle from scratch for the same reasons you named.
I wonder if this is one of those spectrums like Introvert ←→ Extrovert.
People who study the roots ←→ People who just pick the fruit.
From Wikipedia: "In the book, the Narrator describes the "Romantic" approach to life of his friend John Sutherland, who chooses not to learn how to maintain his expensive new motorcycle. John simply hopes for the best with his bike, and when problems do occur he often becomes frustrated, and is forced to rely on professional mechanics to repair it. In contrast, the "classical" Narrator has an older motorcycle which he is usually able to diagnose and repair himself through the use of rational problem solving skills."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_M...
You could just learn to maintain/repair the store bike, which has after all been designed to work by someone, and probably does most of the time. I've ridden bikes for years and only replaced things as they wear. Not that there's anything wrong with building your bike from scratch, but it's not an automatic guarantee of superiority.
Personally, I find Ubuntu like a store-bought bike that uses a bunch of non-standard parts. You may have a complete tool kit, but you don't have the right tool for this bike.
Or: when I troubleshoot Ubuntu, I learn Ubuntu. When I troubleshoot Arch, I learn Linux.
In actuality, there's no superior way of learning, and no superior way of getting into cycling! Take the tone of my comment as a reaction.
Also, you do get more vanilla software from these distro. It's a lot less likely that someone modified the software to work with their distro idiosyncrasies. Sometimes that's a big plus.
I used Gentoo around 2002-2005 or so and I learn a great deal of what I know about Linux through the experience. I now run Ubuntu or Debian cause there are other things I want to learn about ;p
I've found the Arch community to be EXTREMELY helpful because they are encouraged by people who want to know what's going on and not just taking whatever is pre-packaged into the distro and shoved down their throats.
The beauty of Linux is that there's something for everyone. We could speak with equal pejoratives about distributions that do everything for the user but the reality is that Arch is around because there is a community who wants it --- and they're not the "necbeard crowd."
What OS do you use? I'm sure we could hurl insults at you, too. That wouldn't be a constructive conversation, though.
Here I go again ... feeding trolls. Sorry folks.
Like you said, most people using Arch are those who want a great deal of control over their desktop machine, but without the compilation and general cruft of Gentoo. And those will be the ones putting Arch on servers, I believe.
http://google.com/search?q=zen+and+the+art+of+motorcycle+mai...
Most arch users attempt to solve their own problems before asking another.
What do you expect to get out of your system? Maybe Arch just isn't tailored for your needs (but you could certainly configure it to meet your needs with a pinch of effort).
Maybe it is more likely that they use arch because it's the tool that meets their needs and that they enjoy using...