Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

ihavenoname · 2006-03-04 04:50:48

Yes i actually like both....heres the deal thou.....

Arch is almost perfect.....great speed almost all the packeges i need....PACMAN!!!!! omg i love pacman best pkg manager in all of linux apt-get can forGET about continuing as the best package manager....PACMAN HAS ARRIVED WHOOOO!!!! ok....back to my post
basically thou...my main problem with Arch is that wen it comes to the rare occarance when i need a 3rd party package(Nero,Cedega(the pkgbuild on the fourm doesnt work for me..etc.) ...or one that is distro specifc (NetworkManager etc.) it doesnt work on Arch...its not even configure for it... its not as big a prob w/ cedega i just unpack it in /....but for nero it doesnt work...yes i know theres K3b...but ive been using Nero since windows....and im kinda partial to it....so lately ive been looking at whats coming for FC5 and i am impressed....i reinstalled FC4 on a partion and ive been using it and aside from yum and rpms being a bit weird...it has worked rather well for me...

so on one hand i have Arch with better speed and package managment but...less "3rd party"(for lack of a better word) support

and on the other we have FC(4/5) with its widespread package support and its new feature such as a composite manager for metacity etc. but problems with yum and rpms
and very slight...slow down as compared to arch....however that maybe due to it using the old gnome 2.10 as kde 3.5 seems to be fine.

so i need help decided on what should be my "main" distro....or perhaps how to solve some of the problems I am having...please i need constructive advice...and perhaps if anyone has used FC4 or tested FC5 it would help given the context of the question....
basically what it might end up boiling down to given this is the Arch forum is why should i use arch and not FC....yes i have read the Wiki comparing the two...

please remeber im not "bashing" arch if its not my favorite distro it is def. tied for my favorite distro....it just gives me that nerdy satisfaction...no b.s. just what i need.
and it was the first linux distro i ever saw...

FC4 was my first distro thou...and with SELINUX and large number of packages and larger recognition among software develepers (u know what i mean...its hard to articulate... :oops: )
ya so now im ramabling so ill stop....i know the decsion is ultimatlely mine ...but im just asking for some."brotherly"..advice

shbang · 2006-03-04 05:44:40

Can you write your own pkgbuilds with fc4/5? I'm not bashing your distro either. Peple I work with use it. I love arch because even I can write pkgbuilds. I can install anything I want. If you can't you should spend more time learning bash and less worrying about what distro you use. At least for me Arch is best. I keep learning more and I love it. I can certanly respect other opinions though.

jaboua · 2006-03-04 06:10:01

About third party software, have you checked out AUR? They have over 2000 packages now iirc, including nerolinux and a cedega package that uses the official cedega binaries (if you have them, which it sounds like you do). And as someone mentioned, it's not very hard writing a PKGBUILD, just go with the wiki. And I find Arch easier than fedora on many things as well, the network manager isn't a big loss since the AL /etc/rc.conf is simple to use and mostly, arch has dvdcss, dvdnav, win32codecs and mad in it's respiratories - no messing around with third party mirrors to play media files any more!

I haven't tried nero on linux thou, and for cedega I did the same as you last time I tried it.

hotsauce · 2006-03-04 14:50:13

For Nero:

mkdir ~/nerobuild

Save http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/nerol … x/PKGBUILD in ~/nerobuild
then

sudo pacman -S fakeroot
cd ~/nerobuild
makepkg
sudo pacman -A nero-version_number.pkg.tar.gz

There you go

ihavenoname · 2006-03-04 17:59:43

wow..thanx for all the replies..and ur right i havent really spent much time looking through the AUR...i guess i should go check it out....and i have looked at the pkgbuild wiki it sounds simple enough i just dont know what commands to input in order to get something like nero....and shbang that sounds like a good idea...do u know where i can learn bash? also i wanna learn C++ so if anyone has any good resources for learning those it would be great. My problem thou was with closed source software..i didnt think it was possible to make packages for arch using closed source software....hmm wow...this was very helpful..i am starting to see less reason to use arch. and I wouldnt say that Fedora is more of my distro then arch is ..i have been using arch longer then fedora thou i have had fedora longer...my reasoning here is that im getting really busy with school and i would like to have programs that i might need be readly available...

p.s. yes i def. think arch is easier to setup then any distro ive used...even Ubuntu..as long as u r not afraid to type a few commands and edit a few text documents...so all in all thanx alot for ur help..if ne one else has any other opinons please share them..

hotsauce · 2006-03-04 19:44:23

ihavenoname wrote:

do u know where i can learn bash?

A lot of good how-tos + guides at The linux documentation project: www.tldp.org

Bash Guide for Beginners
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners- … index.html

Advanced Bash-Scripting Guide
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/index.html

Ciao

ihavenoname · 2006-03-04 20:26:25

thanx!

Mikos · 2006-05-05 15:07:21

Why do you want Nero for Linux? It's piece of sh*t! Really, K3B is _much_ better than Nero.

myst · 2006-05-05 17:08:55

Mikos, you're using KDE? Don't you complex about that?

Mikos · 2006-05-05 17:32:54

myst: Yes, I am using KDE, but I know many GNOME users who uses also K3B, simply because K3B is the best CD/DVD burning application ;-)

But if you don't want to use K3B, there is still GnomeBaker or Graveman, these are also _much_ better than Nero for Linux. Nero is simply piece of sh*t, sorry :-)

(well, it is even worse, because it is proprietary closedsource application)

myst · 2006-05-05 17:35:58

I know I prefer mkisofs + cdrecord

phrakture · 2006-05-05 18:48:13

Mikos wrote:

Why do you want Nero for Linux? It's piece of sh*t! Really, K3B is _much_ better than Nero.

Seconded. I'd suggest you try something else, like k3b or gnomebaker. Both of them are very good, and fully opensource (IIRC nero is not).

cactus · 2006-05-05 19:11:17

Mikos wrote:

myst: Yes, I am using KDE, but I know many GNOME users who uses also K3B, simply because K3B is the best CD/DVD burning application ;-)

So they load the entire kde library just to use one app?

Blech. I hate qt.

lumiwa · 2006-05-05 19:14:40

I had two months Gmone on my computer and I used K3b (and KMail too). But what is interesting, my wife has Windows and Nero but she prefere to burn on my computer with K3b

slackhack · 2006-05-07 19:45:43

ihavenoname wrote:

....but for nero it doesnt work...yes i know theres K3b...but ive been using Nero since windows....and im kinda partial to it....

nerolinux vs. k3b:
http://www.flexbeta.net/main/articles.p … &pagenum=1

you might change your mind of preferring nero to k3b after reading that comparison.

arooaroo · 2006-05-07 21:30:28

cactus wrote:

Blech. I hate qt.

Pray tell? Do elaborate.

ihavenoname · 2006-05-08 07:08:15

Ya, you all are right. I really hadnt used k3b much. I tried it and I was amazed that it was actually free software. I liked it better then nero for windows. Also that fact that Nero used gtk1 makes me rather annoyed. How hard could it have been to chage it to Gtk2?

Anyways back to the whole Fedora/Arch issue. I installed Fedora 5 and tried nero on it, intrestingly enought Nero no longer seems to work with FC5 but it works with Arch. That seems to be the trend with many packages (anjuta, eclipse etc.) Ive been told that Fedora's packages sometimes have issues but the trade off is that Fedora is very bleeding edge. But to be honest it seems to me Arch is more bleeding edge then Fedora, (except for Gnome 2.14 I think Fedora was the first to have that.) In any case I will probably dual boot for now. Im too busy with Finals. Thank you all for your help!

nuopus · 2006-05-11 04:57:16

ihavenoname wrote:

Yes i actually like both....heres the deal thou.....
Arch is almost perfect.....great speed almost all the packeges i need....PACMAN!!!!! omg i love pacman best pkg manager in all of linux apt-get can forGET about continuing as the best package manager....PACMAN HAS ARRIVED WHOOOO!!!! ok....back to my post
basically thou...my main problem with Arch is that wen it comes to the rare occarance when i need a 3rd party package(Nero,Cedega(the pkgbuild on the fourm doesnt work for me..etc.) ...or one that is distro specifc (NetworkManager etc.) it doesnt work on Arch...its not even configure for it... its not as big a prob w/ cedega i just unpack it in /....but for nero it doesnt work...yes i know theres K3b...but ive been using Nero since windows....and im kinda partial to it....so lately ive been looking at whats coming for FC5 and i am impressed....i reinstalled FC4 on a partion and ive been using it and aside from yum and rpms being a bit weird...it has worked rather well for me...

Well, the advantage of the Fedora distribution ... and SuSE also I guess, is the support for it. I too have noticed RPM's being built for these distributions. That advantage though, is that arch lets you easily create PKGBUILDS to turn those RPMs into arch packages. For the installation of Cedega for example, I just created a PKGBUILD for it and kept it in a directory where I keep all of my PKGBUILDS. once you get used to it ... creating custom packages is almost enjoyable IMHO.

Overall, the advantages of Arch totally outweigh the small advantage of a few RPMs being made for the FC distribution.

wain · 2006-05-11 11:04:08

slackhack wrote:

nerolinux vs. k3b:
http://www.flexbeta.net/main/articles.p … &pagenum=1
you might change your mind of preferring nero to k3b after reading that comparison.

K3B depends on cdparanoia, cdrdao, cdrtools, ffmpeg, flac, hal, id3lib, kdelibs :twisted:, libid3tag,libmpcdec,libsamplerate, musicbrainz, normalize, readline, sox, taglib, xvidcore

Nero just depends on gtk :!:

Mikos · 2006-05-11 11:34:25

wain wrote:

K3B depends on cdparanoia, cdrdao, cdrtools, ffmpeg, flac, hal, id3lib, kdelibs :twisted:, libid3tag,libmpcdec,libsamplerate, musicbrainz, normalize, readline, sox, taglib, xvidcore

This is all right, you shouldn't want to reimplement wheel! This is Unix philosophy, maybe you don't understand it...

And kdelibs aren't problem for KDE users (and as I said, I know also many GNOME users who use K3B, simply because K3B is the best ;-)). If you want something based on GTK, there is still good GnomeBaker or Graveman.

But if you want, use that shitty stupid proprietary clesedsource piece of crap (Nero), it's your problem :-P

veek · 2006-05-11 12:21:58

Mikos wrote:

This is all right, you shouldn't want to reimplement wheel! This is Unix philosophy, maybe you don't understand it...

Not reinventing the wheel is fine, but I still see wain's point.
Having to include the entire kdelibs for one program is kind of annoying
(I don't use kde). Especially if you don't use any other kde programs.
You've got the entire library sitting there for use by one app.

But k3b is a great program and it doesn't concern me all that much.

FUBAR · 2006-05-11 12:27:35

I can't imagine k3b is the _only_ useful QT/KDE program you'd want on a desktop.

I don't use KDE either, but that doesn't keep me from using k3b, Umbrello, Krename, ...

wain · 2006-05-11 17:19:44

Porting win32 applications to unix it is not reinventing the wheel. It create diversity

Nero is not a shitty stupid proprietary clesedsource piece of crap... it just works and is a good alternative for some people.
Maybe tomorrow or next week some piece of Nero will become free 8)

Mikos · 2006-05-12 00:19:24

veek wrote:

Not reinventing the wheel is fine, but I still see wain's point. Having to include the entire kdelibs for one program is kind of annoying (I don't use kde).

I was talking about other listed dependencies (cdrtools, id3lib, ffmpeg, sox, etc.). Kdelibs are noted in the following paragraph (where I suggest GnomeBaker or Graveman as GTK based alternative to K3B).

Mikos · 2006-05-12 00:20:31

wain wrote:

Porting win32 applications to unix it is not reinventing the wheel. It create diversity
Nero is not a shitty stupid proprietary clesedsource piece of crap... it just works and is a good alternative for some people.
Maybe tomorrow or next week some piece of Nero will become free 8)

Sorry, I don't want to flame, but in my opinion it really is a shitty stupid proprietary clesedsource piece of crap :-) And it doesn't work good at all (especially compared to K3B).

Arch Linux

#1 2006-03-04 04:50:48

Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#2 2006-03-04 05:44:40

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#3 2006-03-04 06:10:01

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#4 2006-03-04 14:50:13

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#5 2006-03-04 17:59:43

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#6 2006-03-04 19:44:23

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#7 2006-03-04 20:26:25

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#8 2006-05-05 15:07:21

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#9 2006-05-05 17:08:55

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#10 2006-05-05 17:32:54

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#11 2006-05-05 17:35:58

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#12 2006-05-05 18:48:13

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#13 2006-05-05 19:11:17

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#14 2006-05-05 19:14:40

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#15 2006-05-07 19:45:43

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#16 2006-05-07 21:30:28

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#17 2006-05-08 07:08:15

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#18 2006-05-11 04:57:16

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#19 2006-05-11 11:04:08

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#20 2006-05-11 11:34:25

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#21 2006-05-11 12:21:58

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#22 2006-05-11 12:27:35

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#23 2006-05-11 17:19:44

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#24 2006-05-12 00:19:24

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

#25 2006-05-12 00:20:31

Re: Fedora Core vs. Arch Linux (not a flame war...)

Board footer