Ubuntu -> Arch. My first impressions after the switch

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-05 14:32:56

The grep command gave something like that:

(**) Option "AIGLX" "true"
(**) AIGLX enabled
(WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x23
(WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x24
(WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x25
(WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x26
(WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x27
(WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x28

There were more of these warnings with increasing hex numbers on the right.

I have some more info on this flickering thing:
The GL screensavers flicker, the regular ones don't. Then: the video playback flickers as well. I can fix it in mplayer by selecting "x11" as the video driver. I don't know how to change this in other players though.

Arkane · 2008-06-05 17:47:59

I've had this problem too, I stopped using C-F (partly) because apps like blender flickered every time a window behind them was updated. Not nice when you try to use Conky.

Last edited by Arkane (2008-06-05 17:48:12)

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-05 18:10:01

Exactly. I use Compiz mainly b/c of it's Expose MacOSX like function. For now I switched compiz off and installed Kompose...

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-06 10:11:49

One more thing in favor of Arch: I just discovered that suspend to RAM and suspend to disk work perfectly (I could never get them to work with Ubuntu).

ioky · 2008-06-21 07:57:12

I would say ubuntu is good for use a Desktop. Much faster to get it work out the way I wanted. and never need to do much major work beyond that. Take about 15hours to confg everything to into a point, what I can call perfect.

At the other hand, Arch are much cleaner, it doesn't have something that I don't really need. (eg 100s of un-use video driver.) and it is lighting fast. very good on i686 system. very simple. you can really see the difference on some old machine. although, it take much longer time to confg, into a point where I call perfect, but in Arch perfect is perfect, the OS and setting just for that machine it runs on. Take about 20 - 30hours

That is included the time of downloading the package.

I love them both as OS, because they are simply good at what they are really doing.

Last edited by ioky (2008-06-21 07:58:12)

JeremyTheWicked · 2008-06-21 11:19:43

Arch is a little faster on my system than Ubuntu but I attribute this to the fact that I have less services running (I never had the patience to tweak Ubuntu for speed).
The funny thing is that my Arch install is the same size as Ubuntu's. I compared today the two partitions minus /home and /mnt and /media and they both take up 5GB. Arch is after a recent "pacman -Scc" but I have the ABS tree installed so it evens itself out.
Ubuntu is less work if you accept the default settings - when I was trying to get away from the "Ubuntu way" it was always a pain (at the end I thought f*ck it and installed Arch ). And the dist-upgrades never work flawlessly - the rolling release system is something I enjoy a lot.

B-Con · 2008-06-21 20:17:23

I was also an Ubuntu -> Arch-ie. I'll take pacman and PKGBUILDs over apt-get and clunky DEBs.

toad · 2008-12-23 19:38:31

ioky wrote:

Arch ... is lighting fast.

That is so true. Kubuntu 8.10 with KDE4.2 was sluggish on my my AMD2600+ with 1GB RAM to say the least. Arch is flying!!! And it is flying still when I rip a dvd with k9copy (never got that to work on kub 8.10) and watch telly with kaffeine on the side. I am truly gobsmacked. Not even a pure Debian delivered that kind of speed.

Oh, and I've got an NVIDIA GeForce 5200 card (128MB) but don't bother with compiz - the new KDE4 glitz is quite enough for me (and KDE4.2 promises so much more).

As for installability - I got everything to work so far apart from dual keyboard layout (great documentation!). I did the KDE bit but the keyboard remains unimpressed. Nest stop is xorg.conf and if that does not work prolly /etc/rc.conf but I don't know yet...

So glad I made the switch:D

ogronom · 2008-12-23 21:31:21

JeremyTheWicked wrote:

Arch is a little faster on my system than Ubuntu but I attribute this to the fact that I have less services running (I never had the patience to tweak Ubuntu for speed).
The funny thing is that my Arch install is the same size as Ubuntu's. I compared today the two partitions minus /home and /mnt and /media and they both take up 5GB. Arch is after a recent "pacman -Scc" but I have the ABS tree installed so it evens itself out.
Ubuntu is less work if you accept the default settings - when I was trying to get away from the "Ubuntu way" it was always a pain (at the end I thought f*ck it and installed Arch ). And the dist-upgrades never work flawlessly - the rolling release system is something I enjoy a lot.

Wow! 5Gb O_o
What did you install there???
with pacman -Scc I get 2 (+ 1 for KDE that I don't use) = 3 max

ibendiben · 2008-12-24 00:00:09

JeremyTheWicked wrote:

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.

If there comes a time you really need to know which mirrors are the fastest in your area, try rankmirrors. It's a python script that comes with pacman (afaik).

ps. Gobolinux is great

Raws · 2009-10-22 15:43:13

Hello All!

I've made the same transition (ubuntu to Arch) about two or tree months ago, with the difference that I was Windows only user before that. The way I see it, both arch and Ubuntu are great distributions, that fill perfecly they intended purposes. It ends up in the needs of each user. Arch is more flexible, fast, bleeding edge, and gives power to the user, but requires knowledge in exchange.

I would be intimidated, and probably would not made the transition from windows if it was the only option at the time.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, is extremely friendly with "noobs" and old Windows users, and works well on a simple desktop role. Just put it on the box, install in about 20 min. and everything is ready to work (with some exceptions like proprietary codecs). And even then, it requires just some clicks here and there to start running.

For me, the trade off to Arch is more than worth it. I like to know how my machine works (and arch is wonderfull in helping you to learn that) and to have control over It. But other users, like, for instance, my parents, will probably never come close to a system like that.

Thats my 2cts.

Gen2ly · 2009-10-22 22:46:17

Welcome to Arch, Raws. Just FYI.

Threads older that six months:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/For … Bumping.27

Hello everyone thread:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=32421&p=1

Acecero · 2009-10-23 02:24:38

Raws in the future, please don't revive old threads. Make a new one if you have to.

Allan · 2009-10-23 03:16:32

Gen2ly wrote:

Welcome to Arch, Raws. Just FYI.
Threads older that six months:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/For … Bumping.27
Hello everyone thread:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=32421&p=1

Closing.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-06-05 14:32:56

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

#27 2008-06-05 17:47:59

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

#28 2008-06-05 18:10:01

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

#29 2008-06-06 10:11:49

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

#30 2008-06-21 07:57:12

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

#31 2008-06-21 11:19:43

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

#32 2008-06-21 20:17:23

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

#33 2008-12-23 19:38:31

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

#34 2008-12-23 21:31:21

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

#35 2008-12-24 00:00:09

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

#36 2009-10-22 15:43:13

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

#37 2009-10-22 22:46:17

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

#38 2009-10-23 02:24:38

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

#39 2009-10-23 03:16:32

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

Board footer