Arch Linux compatibility

umairalipathan · 2011-08-17 09:57:41

I have just come to know about arch linux and its lightweight/low-power features. I am working on a project where power consumption is a major issue. I have been using UBUNTU and now I am looking for a better low-power distro. I want to know if Arch Linux has the same application compatibility as UBUNTU? I mean, do the applications like the recent versions of ffmpeg and opencv work fine in arch linux? Moreover, is its power management different/better than UBUNTU?

bernarcher · 2011-08-17 10:34:08

This is better suited for the discussion section. Moving.

examon · 2011-08-17 10:40:34

@power management

Arch is distro where you build most of the things as you wish (unlike Ubuntu where it's already built).... It's hard to say if Arch got better powermanagement cos it depends how you built system.

sanderd17 · 2011-08-17 13:17:44

For the power management, that has already been answered. It completely depends on how you build it. The more technical you want to get, the better results you will achieve.

For the application compatibility, Arch is a rolling distro and updated almost immediatly to the vanilla versions of all popular packages. If you want to search for official packages, you can do a search here: http://www.archlinux.org/packages/ . You will find that the versions are almost always newer than any other stable distro. Arch also has a repository of user contributed, not-supported packages: The Arch User Repository (AUR). Off coarse, the version of those packages here depends on how active the user is. They can easily be installed via AUR helpers. http://aur.archlinux.org/

ANOKNUSA · 2011-08-17 16:12:47

As sanderd17 said, Arch is constantly being updated. Many of the packages found in the AUR are also VCS packages, so you can update them at will as new code gets pushed. Since you're working on a project that may be of some importance, though, managing updates in order to maintain stability might be a concern for you, so if you decide to make the switch I'd check out this wiki page as well. The instability I've experienced has always been of my own design. Now that I use a simpler system, I haven't had any real problems to speak of. Power consumption is the same bag: the simpler the system, the less power it should use. The primary aspect of Arch is that the user has complete control over the system they build, so know what your wants and needs are and plan ahead before leaping into it.

Also: It's possible to build Unity from source on Arch using the AUR, but the default GNOME 3--with GNOME Shell--is in the repositories. 99.9 % of the time the Arch repos contain vanilla packages as they're released from upstream, with no branding or anything, so there is no "default" setup like other distros have. Just a heads-up.

DSpider · 2011-08-17 18:03:21

Wait. Power as in computational power (available resources) or power as in electricity? Because Arch can be built to use very little resources (minimal X config or maybe no X at all, if we're talking about a server here). And since it can use very little resources (low CPU requirements), maybe you could underclock the CPU to acceptable levels, thus using less electricity.

RAM would be important here too. Theoretically, the more files are cached to RAM, the less it reads from the HDD. Heck, you could run the entire OS from a virtual HDD, using RAM as storage. Would be more responsive too (SSD-like) but power-wise, we're probably talking about a few cents per week here...

Try dimming the monitor backlight. In some study they've found that using an automated script that gradually dimmed the backlight between the hours 18:00-24:00 reduced monitor's power consumption by around 25% for that day.

sanderd17 · 2011-08-17 18:08:14

Energy wise: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1822946

But if the OP wants the same app support, I think he also wants to run GUI apps. So minimal X is probably needed.

DSpider · 2011-08-17 18:39:24

I still think the CPU is the most power hungry in normal use. Uderclock that for an usable enough desktop, maybe using something minimal like openbox, tint2 (which are considered to be well written), and you should be ok. Usually there's a "sweet spot" of performance/watt efficiency and if you can get it to where it's just enough to do what you want it, the electricity bill may reflect this (tho, probably not by much to justify the effort).

Then the GPU is a close second. Unless, of course, it's running a rendering session or video conversion (also viewing h264 HD content, which is done at hardware level from around the time the Geforce 6000 series came out).

Also, a more efficient power supply wouldn't hurt either. At least a bronze class (80+). Silver and gold are usually expensive and they may or may not pay off over a few years. Depends how much you use it, I guess... For instance if you pay too much for a gold class PSU and those extra $$ would start to pay off after 4 years... in contrast to a cheaper bronze class that pays off after, say, 6 years... then it could be worth getting the more expensive gold one. But if it's a crappy brand, that doesn't even last you 3 years and you have to buy another, then that bronze class (from a better brand) could be the smarter choice.

This would depend on luck too. Hahaha... A PSU may last 3 years or 1.5, who knows... Maybe I'm complicating things too much. The time and effort may not even justify it, financially speaking.

Last edited by DSpider (2011-08-17 18:40:15)

Arch Linux

#1 2011-08-17 09:57:41

Arch Linux compatibility

#2 2011-08-17 10:34:08

Re: Arch Linux compatibility

#3 2011-08-17 10:40:34

Re: Arch Linux compatibility

#4 2011-08-17 13:17:44

Re: Arch Linux compatibility

#5 2011-08-17 16:12:47

Re: Arch Linux compatibility

#6 2011-08-17 18:03:21

Re: Arch Linux compatibility

#7 2011-08-17 18:08:14

Re: Arch Linux compatibility

#8 2011-08-17 18:39:24

Re: Arch Linux compatibility

Board footer