Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-04 13:29:29

I am not a Linux expert, but I'm not your typical Ubuntu-noob gone Arch. I've been using Linux back in 2000 (Aurox - a Polish version of RedHat - it was a horrible experience ). After that I had a wonderful iBook from Apple. I was using Debian alongside on my old PC. When iBook's motherboard died I bought a new shiny Dell Inspiron and installed Ubuntu. It was 2 yrs ago and I was playing with different distros (Gentoo and Linux From Scratch included. BTW. Have you ever heard about Gobo?) but none of them hooked me enough to switch... until I found Arch.

So: here is my highly subjective opinion after a week or 2 with Arch:

Ubuntu Hardy Heron vs. Arch + KDEmod

1. Installation

Pretty easy on both systems (as I can use nano and can read comments / documentation ).

2. Boot time with the stock kernel.

Similar. About 30 seconds in both cases. About 1 minute until I get a fully usable X environment.

3. Package management

I find pacman easier to use than apt-get and friends. apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg, dselect, etc. etc. Confusing. On the other hand, the Ubuntu servers are two times faster than Arch's (at least here). All Arch servers I've tried give me download speeds of about 60kB/sec.

Updating packages hasn't led to any major problems so far (2 years Ubuntu and 1 week Arch - although I had some issues when upgrading to new versions of Ubuntu).

4. Initial configuration

A LOT easier on Ubuntu (where most drivers are one click away). Setting up an Arch desktop that suits my needs took me about a day.

5. Finding help: community and documentation

Arch has the best wiki ever! (Gentoo's might come close). If it wasn't for the wiki and the forums I would've never made it. BTW. this forum is the most competent and newbie friendly Linux forum I've ever been.

6. Usage of resources & responsiveness.

The results may be biased b/c I'm using Gnome on Ubuntu and KDEmod on Arch. Anyways: Arch w/ KDE is more responsive but uses more RAM (unnoticeable until I turn on a virtual machine).

7. Other

I couldn't get MS Office 2003 to install on Arch (might be an older wine version or something - I didn't have the time to play with it). On Ubuntu it installed and ran flawlessly.
Compiz-fusion works great on both boxes with my ATI Radeon X1400, although I have the feeling that Ubuntu gets slowed down by it in a way Arch doesn't.

That's it so far. If you've gotten this far you might as well leave a comment

Last edited by JeremyTheWicked (2008-06-04 13:31:34)

Allan · 2008-06-04 13:37:02

Welcome to Arch.

JeremyTheWicked wrote:

I couldn't get MS Office 2003 to install on Arch (might be an older wine version or something - I didn't have the time to play with it). On Ubuntu it installed and ran flawlessly.
Compiz-fusion works great on both boxes with my ATI Radeon X1400, although I have the feeling that Ubuntu gets slowed down by it in a way Arch doesn't.

I have it working flawlessly after following this guide: http://wine-review.blogspot.com/2008/01 … -with.html

JeremyTheWicked wrote:

BTW. Have you ever heard about Gobo?)

It is one of my favorite alternate Linux distributions, mainly because it actually does something different from all the others.

dyscoria · 2008-06-04 13:42:42

2. Ubuntu I think is one of the bloat distros that has actually improved its boot time over the last few releases
4. Naturally more difficult for arch, but works out better in the long run
5. I have to disagree here. Arch wiki is immense, and beginner's guide especially so, but Gentoo's plethora of information resources is unbeatable, period.

Anyway, Arch and Ubuntu ftw! (yep, that's both i'm vouching for )

Daenyth · 2008-06-04 13:53:59

Don't forget that arch has the best IRC channel of any linux distro!

wonder · 2008-06-04 14:18:20

3. use a mirror from your country.

Bestiapeluda · 2008-06-04 14:33:45

the mirror in Brazil gives me 250 kb/s, wich is my limit.

Misfit138 · 2008-06-04 14:40:17

Who is in/near Poland who can suggest a faster mirror for this man? 60Kb/s should not be his sentence forever.

Arkane · 2008-06-04 14:40:57

The belnet mirror gives me more than 2MB/s from my university's network (western Switzerland). You could try either that one or the German mirrors.

Last edited by Arkane (2008-06-04 14:42:38)

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-04 15:20:37

@Allan: Unfortunately, these instructions haven't changed a thing: the MS Office installer still crashes. Gotta stick with dual boot and/or VirtualBox. And Gobo is interesting indeed. A pity so few people use it - it's not polished enough because of that.

@Daenyth: I never new about an IRC channel. Where can I find it?

With regards to the servers:

I use German servers, because Polish servers (I'm Polish) gave me even slower results. I have no idea where the problem is. Maybe I should try a Brasilian server It's strange b/c apt-get on Ubuntu is twice as fast (120 K/s on average).
I've just tried belnet and it gave me 59 K/s on average.

lucke · 2008-06-04 15:34:50

I'm using hosteurope.de and it fully utilizes my 1 Mbit downstream.

Last edited by lucke (2008-06-04 15:37:22)

finferflu · 2008-06-04 15:37:30

I have a Gobolinux ISO sitting on my harddrive, and it's been there for a loooong time. Time to try it out I guess.

Anyway, I really appreciate this honest review, and for that I find it very interesting.

_Marco_ · 2008-06-04 15:41:07

for the irc channel it's on the homepage
http://archlinux.org/irc/

[very OT]
I have an offtopic question for you..
can you past here your xorg.conf (or the part relevant for the ati x1400 card)
I have the same video card and compiz doesn't work (with the current xorg & AIGLX)
thanks for your help

klixon · 2008-06-04 16:03:45

Server = http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp. … po/os/i686
this one gives me a maxed out (1,4 mb/s) connection with ups and downs, from the Netherlands

edit: copied from wrong file

Last edited by klixon (2008-06-04 16:05:24)

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-04 17:06:10

Update with regards to the download speed: I checked back with Ubuntu and the download speed was as bad as on Arch so I called my internet provider - they confirmed the problem is on their part. Arch servers are not guilty it turns out.

@_Marco_ My xorg.conf is the result of aticonfig --initial plus a fix from the ATI wiki page regarding direct rendering (the short section regarding the DRI driver). Btw. I use compiz-fusion though (installed it with the instructions from wiki). And thanks for the IRC channel

Gobolinux is very innovative - they actually implemented some of the things that I always thought should be done in Linux but didn't know how to implement them. What made me drop it was some crazy problems with Gnome installation. I am not a patient person.

Update w/ regards to the boot time

I measured the boot time precisely and Arch wins (with a lot of daemons starting in the background):
From GRUB menu to the GDM/KDM:
Ubuntu: 40 secs. Arch: 20 secs.

From GRUB menu to the fully running Gnome/KDE:
Ubuntu: 90 secs. Arch: 60 secs.

My subjective feeling was quite inaccurate as it seems. Arch rules again

Last edited by JeremyTheWicked (2008-06-04 17:23:37)

_Marco_ · 2008-06-04 17:23:37

but do you use XGL? (for compiz)
'cause mine stopped working with the new xorg... (it always worked perfect...)

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-04 17:24:27

No. I don't have neither XGL nor AIGLX installed (at least pacman -Q knows nothing about it )

_Marco_ · 2008-06-04 17:31:27

oO
I don't understand HOW this is possible, but I'll try to rebuild my xorg.conf then..
thanks for your infos

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-04 18:09:11

I don't either. I'm new to compiz. I double checked and I'm positive that I have no trace of aiglx or xgl. I only installed xorg, catalyst and compiz-fusion group.

wonder · 2008-06-04 18:12:17

aiglx isn't a package like xgl. aiglx is a feature in catalyst. try to grep Xorg.0.log and see that

Cerebral · 2008-06-04 18:44:02

ACccccccccccccccccccccccctually, AIGLX is a feature of Xorg, that requires certain openGL extensions to work. Fglrx happens to provide these extensions.

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-04 18:46:13

Good to know I was wondering...

Talking about compiz: do you guys experience flickering of some 3d apps as well when using compiz? E.g. I cannot use OpenGL screensavers b/c of that.

Last edited by JeremyTheWicked (2008-06-04 18:47:53)

Asgaroth · 2008-06-04 18:54:44

JeremyTheWicked wrote:

Good to know I was wondering...
Talking about compiz: do you guys experience flickering of some 3d apps as well when using compiz? E.g. I cannot use OpenGL screensavers b/c of that.

Xgl or AIGLX?

_Marco_ · 2008-06-04 18:58:33

ah thx cerebral ... I thought it was a "catalyst exclusive feature" tm
edit:
now compiz work... but I don't understand "why"
my passages:
hwd -u
hwd -xa
aticonfig --initial
pacman -S compiz-core emerald ccsm

what I don't understand is...
"isn't needed (or better WASN'T needed) XGL/AIGLX to run compiz?"
thanks for your explanation (and thanks to jeremy for the suggestion, I always used the old AIGLXed xorg)
(@mods if it's TOO offtopic I start a new thread)

Last edited by _Marco_ (2008-06-04 19:09:46)

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-04 20:41:46

Asgaroth wrote:

JeremyTheWicked wrote:
Good to know I was wondering...
Talking about compiz: do you guys experience flickering of some 3d apps as well when using compiz? E.g. I cannot use OpenGL screensavers b/c of that.
Xgl or AIGLX?

From Cerebral's answer it seems to be AIGLX.

Cerebral · 2008-06-05 13:25:01

JeremyTheWicked wrote:

Asgaroth wrote:
JeremyTheWicked wrote:
Good to know I was wondering...
Talking about compiz: do you guys experience flickering of some 3d apps as well when using compiz? E.g. I cannot use OpenGL screensavers b/c of that.
Xgl or AIGLX?
From Cerebral's answer it seems to be AIGLX.

Generally, if you didn't do anything complicated to set it up, it's AIGLX. You can verify it by

grep -i "aiglx" /var/log/Xorg.0.log

Arch Linux

#1 2008-06-04 13:29:29

Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#2 2008-06-04 13:37:02

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#3 2008-06-04 13:42:42

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#4 2008-06-04 13:53:59

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#5 2008-06-04 14:18:20

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#6 2008-06-04 14:33:45

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#7 2008-06-04 14:40:17

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#8 2008-06-04 14:40:57

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#9 2008-06-04 15:20:37

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#10 2008-06-04 15:34:50

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#11 2008-06-04 15:37:30

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#12 2008-06-04 15:41:07

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#13 2008-06-04 16:03:45

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#14 2008-06-04 17:06:10

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#15 2008-06-04 17:23:37

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#16 2008-06-04 17:24:27

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#17 2008-06-04 17:31:27

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#18 2008-06-04 18:09:11

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#19 2008-06-04 18:12:17

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#20 2008-06-04 18:44:02

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#21 2008-06-04 18:46:13

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#22 2008-06-04 18:54:44

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#23 2008-06-04 18:58:33

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#24 2008-06-04 20:41:46

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

#25 2008-06-05 13:25:01

Re: Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

Board footer