Third
Dpb, you will like, trust us
This is an old thread... I've been using Arch for quite some time already.
]]>Dpb, you will like, trust us
]]>Arch is more up to date. This is a huge advantage on many desktops and even on some servers.
Arch is more responsive in my experience. THE reason why I gave up Debian and started looking for another distro, was the high latency and low responsiveness on my desktop.
Of course Debian also has its advatages: more packages, more reliable and mature, bigger community, somewhat more sophisticated package managment, etc
]]>Thanks for all the replies.
<...>
I like what I've read about the making of new packages for Arch, seems so simple.
-dpb
Meybe somebody can hepl to make packager fot Arch that one? :oops:
]]>I've always hated the ncurses configures too. And before Debian I've even built Linux From Scratch, so editing the files by hand isn't hard for me.
I like what I've read about the making of new packages for Arch, seems so simple.
I'll give Arch a try, once I get a net connection to my new apartment, and see if I like it.
-dpb
]]>I'm a big java fan, and Debian's non-non-GPL support makes it difficult to install Java applications via apt.
I find Debian sluggish in comparison to Arch, but that's jus an informal benchmark (probably more useful than a formal benchmark ). Knoppix, however, seems to be only marginally slower than Arch, I don't understand why.
I don't know how to build or customize packages for Debian. Its so easy with Arch.
Arch seems to be easier to configure, but that might just be because I've learned more about configuration since I got Arch than I knew when I had Debian.
Debian is more stable, but less up to date than Arch.
Debian is fully GPL compatible. This is a plus and a minus.
Once you try Arch, you'll know whether its better for you.
Dusty
]]>- Prozessor optimization is only one brick in the wall. A well done setup does a better job. Lately, after I burned my Arch with a now solved kernel26-jfsutils-bug, I tried debian sid. It was faster then arch - and more complete. But yes, it is a step older. Gnome 2.4 is the limit, even if you run debian sid (don't know about debian experimental, is that stuff running at all?). But it is well configurated. Fast and stable. Why the hell do I use arch ?
- Apt-get can do some things, pacman can't - so far. What I like on apt if compared to pacman, is it will check dependencies before downlads. Pacman still fetches stuff, and compares then. This is a bad behaviour, as far as I am concerned. On more point: using apt-get install gnome-* will fetch all packages matching the wildcard. I was glad, pacman could do the same, if I remember the pain with gnome 2.6, this feature was needed.
- Debian has a large number of packages. If they are not enough, use apt-source, ore alien to integrate rpm's. Wow.
- Localization is a point the debian community is very hard working for. If you want a complete(!) german or russian or arabic or japanese linux, from console up to gui, use debian. I don't know if you can do with arch, but I fear not.
- Debian uses 'normal' static /dev. You can do what you want to do with your devices. If you like, use udev. No problem, well integrated. Use discover, mdetect, read-edid, hotplug, fxload, kudzu and a modulized kernel, if you want some comfort.
So why do I use arch?
Good question. Looks well. Bleeding edge, but newest code on the machines. Arch don't cares for free or non-free debates. In debian, it is still a risk to install mplayer, because it uses windows codecs. Therefore, it is not an official part of debian. You will find several port trees and debian sources anyway, but if the maintainer does a lousy job, your apt database will soon be f*cked up. This is only one example.
So, in the end, I think it is debians "we only integrate real free and gpl licensed code" paradigma, that lead me from debian to arch.
]]>Debian has many more packages than Arch, so it has better support for many software.
Can you post replies and tell me what makes Arch better than Debian?