Arch vs. Debian

KyKo · 2008-06-24 09:11:23

He said not to get your knickers in a twist!

sniffles · 2008-06-24 09:52:40

RedShift: If " ", "hehehehe" and "just joking don't get your knickers in a twist" don't slap you and scream "YO He's not being serious !" then you have some deep problems.

RedShift · 2008-06-24 10:00:53

I thought people would get my continuation with the bombcar thing...

dyscoria · 2008-06-24 11:37:32

Hmmm so silly quarrels aside, back on topic. I've recently got my dad using linux. What he hated most about windows was the constant crashes, so I recommended Debian. It was originally gonna be Ubuntu, but for surefire stability Debian edged ahead. He doesn't need bleeding edge stuff and latest features usually so that wasn't a big deal. This should help him learn more about linux, then one day he might be ready to use Arch Until then, Debian is working very nicely.

dolby · 2008-06-24 12:17:18

RedShift wrote:

I always found debian to be a big mess. Take a look at the initscripts, they are inconsistent like hell. And the output is just dumped on the screen, sometimes with newlines, sometimes without newlines. All of which makes it hard to debug. And love what they did (NOT) with the pure-ftpd package, you wouldn't believe how fscked the configuration is. And best of all, I couldn't find the documentation of their specific way of configuration!
And I especially hate it when you install software and automatically starts, and it automatically starts on boot too. All without being asked.
And those annoying blue screens asking you to configure package x. It won't just leave you alone for just one freaking minute.
People talk about debian like it's the greatest thing. No more debian for me. Ever.

x2 + Debian packaging is grose. All those splitted packages that dont make sense and , although being 100% binary the Debian way, means all features of a packages should work, NO i dont want eg. wmii+libixp to install along when all i want is dwm.

Last edited by dolby (2008-06-24 12:18:56)

sniffles · 2008-06-24 12:33:28

Never mind, what the hell(as) am I thinking saying good things about Debian in a thread called "Arch vs Debian" residing on the Arch Linux Forums. I must be out of my mind, even more than usual.

So here: Man Debian f*****g sucks big time. APT is a steaming sack of s**t and it should DIE. Arch Power ! Arch Pride !

Last edited by sniffles (2008-06-24 12:37:53)

underpenguin · 2008-06-24 16:15:25

sniffles wrote:

Never mind, what the hell(as) am I thinking saying good things about Debian in a thread called "Arch vs Debian" residing on the Arch Linux Forums. I must be out of my mind, even more than usual.
So here: Man Debian f*****g sucks big time. APT is a steaming sack of s**t and it should DIE. Arch Power ! Arch Pride !
Keep It Sniffing Sniffles. <3 moljac024 + his-long-lost-but-now-found-cat

Holy s*** moljac found his cat?!?!?!?

Llama · 2008-06-24 18:07:55

JeremyTheWicked wrote:

I realized there is something there called xdg which is a CLI system for menu manipulation.

xdg-utils? Any hints on how to use them ?

sniffles · 2008-06-24 19:46:41

underpenguin wrote:

sniffles wrote:
Never mind, what the hell(as) am I thinking saying good things about Debian in a thread called "Arch vs Debian" residing on the Arch Linux Forums. I must be out of my mind, even more than usual.
So here: Man Debian f*****g sucks big time. APT is a steaming sack of s**t and it should DIE. Arch Power ! Arch Pride !
Keep It Sniffing Sniffles. <3 moljac024 + his-long-lost-but-now-found-cat
Holy s*** moljac found his cat?!?!?!?

Yep !! Check it out: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 41#p385041

alleyoopster · 2008-06-25 03:26:40

I recently (this week in fact) finished installing Etch on a machine for an 85 year old that was sick of XP Trojans and the like. Originally he couldn't get on with some differences (google desktop) and insisted on keeping XP, then it just literally stopped working and pushed through a comfort zone and found linux quick and easy. His requirements are simple admittedly, just browsing the headlines through several broadsheet sites, printing and sending emails. In this case I think (hope) Debian will fit the bill perfectly. You install it and just leave it and not really have to worry about it for a long time. I have done the same on a complete new comer to computers. They have etch and it just works. The only real decision I was faced was Desktop choice, but the feedback I have had has been positive for Gnome - easy on the eye, not cluttered and simple.

Someone else (over 60) I installed Ubuntu a long time back and she loves it over Windows and has upgraded herself without issue. I wish I had gone with Debian here mostly due to it being a lot faster.

These cases give a clear preference to Debian. The user has no need for up-to-date packages, just basic tools that work to get the job done. Personally I prefer up to date and relatively stable system such as Arch.

meandean · 2008-06-25 04:47:55

JeremyTheWicked wrote:

Forget about mp3 etc

a default debian install should play mp3, libmad is included in the main repo

bgc1954 · 2008-06-25 12:19:50

alleyoopster wrote:
These cases give a clear preference to Debian. The user has no need for up-to-date packages, just basic tools that work to get the job done. Personally I prefer up to date and relatively stable system such as Arch.

Actually, I just finished installing Arch on my 73 year old mother's ancient emachine--533 celeron--and I originally was going to put Debian Etch on it. After numerous install tries and failures I decided to give Arch a try on her machine--happened to have an older Arch disk with me (never know when you'll need one).

I probably could have succeeded with Debian if I would have dug into boot options more but the Arch install CD pointed out the lowmem option right on the opening screen which gave me the idea to try it out as nothing else seemed to work. "Eureka!", I said as the base install finished on the emachine and then I installed xfce4 as it seemed to be the right choice for older hardware and an old Win 2000/XP user.

My mom's quite happy with the results and says it's way faster than Windows ever was--she seemed to get alot of spyware, etc. on her Winblows system within days of me doing a fresh install--where are you surfing the net mom??. I'll do a pacman update on it now and then so it should be fine for her. And even if I didn't, it would still work fine as is but wouldn't be as up to date--not a big deal to her.

meandean · 2008-06-26 03:54:06

bgc1954 wrote:

and I originally was going to put Debian Etch on it. After numerous install tries and failures I decided to give Arch a try on her machine--happened to have an older Arch disk with me (never know when you'll need one).

what kind of failures? Was you using the GUI installer or the curses based installer?

meandean · 2008-07-01 16:32:53

dolby wrote:

NO i dont want eg. wmii+libixp to install along when all i want is dwm.

aptitude -R dwm
only installs dwm

meandean · 2008-07-01 16:47:48

josomebody wrote:

What bugged me the most about it was the bloat (e.g., it installs every available xserver-xorg-video-* package by default, stuff like that wastes space and it's a pain to go through and uninstall all that unnecessary junk),

The default install does install a lot of bloat but that is easy to correct.....dont do a default install.

A base debian install is around 200mb I think. Pretty slim IMO.

josomebody · 2008-07-02 00:59:33

meandean wrote:

The default install does install a lot of bloat but that is easy to correct.....dont do a default install.
A base debian install is around 200mb I think. Pretty slim IMO.

True true. I've only done maybe two or three Debian installs and never got in depth enough with the install process to trust myself with fooling with it. I switched to Deb from Ubuntu because I was pretty familiar with a general GNU/Linux system and wanted the simplest, most flexible setup I could handle, and spent a lot of time in Debian instead of distro shopping. Arch has proven to meet my needs in that direction a lot better than Debian did, it just took me a while to discover it and take the opportunity to play with it.

If Arch is simple, flexible, and lightweight out of the box, why fool with tweaking an install of a system that doesn't work as well for me?

Not to say that Debian isn't a good system for what they intend it to be, not at all. It's robust, it works, it's highly tweakable, and they generally do a good job at meeting their design goals. I'm just into not having things I don't need and not having to jump through any hoops to get there.

And it's ungodly easy to build Arch packages.

faelar · 2008-07-02 11:40:20

I wasn't lucky for my first debian installation...

We are currently testing hosting panels, and our server will probably run debian (it doesn't bother me because I am not the one who will work on the system). Lenny will be ready soon, so why don't give it a try on one of my computers ?

I know that sentences like "It's crap" are not helping at all, only reflect personnal opinion, but hey ! Look at their website ! What a mess ! I have many friends who run debian, and they agree, so it's not just me

The two first download where something like debian-lenny-beta2.iso (netinstall). The first attempt to burn seems successful, but the CD won't boot... Ok, let's do it right this time, download the same file again, check the md5sum, burn it with recorder, check the md5... No error, nothing, but I wasn't able to start the installation.

After that, I checked for the "stable" (4 years old omg) iso, ok the installation was launched ! Blabla bla, enter enter, hey ncurse is great, looks like an arch installation, network blabla bla auto.... failled. Failled ? I couldn't manage to connect, what a shame I successfully installed fedora, openSUSE, mandriva, arch and even freeBSD on this box !

I downloaded another iso the next day, lenny again, but this time the name was debian-testing-CD1.iso It workded, installed a lot of things like the whole gnome desktop (My own mistake I believe, I don't blame debian for that).

Ok I need php, mysql and apache of course. "apt-get install php", many packages with that name ? "apt-cache search php" OMG ! I was lost, wich package was the right one ?

The auto-conf seems to work well, but files where lost everywhere in differents folders.

Now I know that debian isn't for me. It's not that debian is a "bad" distro or anything else, it just doesn't suit me. I don't think like a debian user that's all

meandean · 2008-07-02 17:35:15

faelar wrote:

After that, I checked for the "stable" (4 years old omg) iso,

what? Stable is not four years old...

, hey ncurse is great

I like the curses bases installer too but for those that want something 'pretty' start the installer with installgui command

auto.... failled. Failled

That just means that auto (DHCP) network configuration failed, setup the network manually or ignore it and continue the install and setup the network later.

, installed a lot of things like the whole gnome desktop (My own mistake I believe, I don't blame debian for that).

prettty nice for those that want a quick and easy desktop

Ok I need php, mysql and apache of course. "apt-get install php", many packages with that name ? "apt-cache search php" OMG ! I was lost, wich package was the right one ?

depends on which you want... might prefer the results from apt-cache search php --names-only

meandean · 2008-07-02 17:51:33

josomebody wrote:

If Arch is simple, flexible, and lightweight out of the box, why fool with tweaking an install of a system that doesn't work as well for me?

Agreed. I like arch a lot too and it does seem to offer a little more control than debian but it ONLY offer control whereas debian seems to do some stuff for the user - how much it does is left up to the user. If you want that much control and do not want to dig-in to access it then Arch is the way to go.

Oh, and I consider debian to be lightweight and simple out of the box.....just have to be careful not to grab the box marked BLOAT.

lenny:/home/luser# ./ps_mem.py
 Private  +   Shared  =  RAM used       Program

 76.0 KiB +  34.0 KiB = 110.0 KiB       getty
 88.0 KiB +  24.0 KiB = 112.0 KiB       klogd
128.0 KiB +  33.0 KiB = 161.0 KiB       syslogd
148.0 KiB +  56.0 KiB = 204.0 KiB       init
180.0 KiB +  62.0 KiB = 242.0 KiB       cron
152.0 KiB + 108.0 KiB = 260.0 KiB       xinit
252.0 KiB + 104.5 KiB = 356.5 KiB       su
324.0 KiB +  33.0 KiB = 357.0 KiB       udevd
332.0 KiB + 148.0 KiB = 480.0 KiB       login
408.0 KiB + 130.0 KiB = 538.0 KiB       sh
440.0 KiB + 145.0 KiB = 585.0 KiB       startx
608.0 KiB + 305.0 KiB = 913.0 KiB       mrxvt-mini
900.0 KiB +  75.0 KiB = 975.0 KiB       nmbd
  1.1 MiB + 908.0 KiB =   2.0 MiB       smbd (2)
  3.3 MiB + 447.5 KiB =   3.7 MiB       icewm
  5.3 MiB + 206.5 KiB =   5.5 MiB       Xorg
  7.4 MiB + 687.0 KiB =   8.0 MiB       bash (3)
---------------------------------
                         24.4 MiB
=================================

 Private  +   Shared  =  RAM used       Program

And it's ungodly easy to build Arch packages.

If it aint in the debian repo then I dont need it...

I do know there are various tools on debian to build packages but I am not familar with them. I do occasionally install a package, repack it into a build folder, make some manual tweaks, build the custom package and then reinstall it and there are tools to help with that. Of course the apt-get source command is for building source packages, and many other tools to build packages are in the repo. But as I said, I dont know much about them.

Last edited by meandean (2008-07-02 17:53:16)

faelar · 2008-07-02 19:54:26

what? Stable is not four years old...

I just wanted to say etch is not shiny and new here. It was just a joke from a rolling-releases fan.

auto (DHCP) network configuration failed, setup the network manually or ignore it and continue the install and setup the network later.

You can hardly ignore a network faillure when you're doing a netinstall...
Of course I tried to set my IP manually, but I wasn't more successful

depends on which you want... might prefer the results from apt-cache search php --names-only

For mysql I used synaptic (I like to try differents tools), the problem is not the output, only the number of "parts" for the same thing, you have something-client, something-client-devel, something-docs, something-server, something-server-devel etc...
Of course, devel is for development, you have the documentation in a separate package, I understand how it works, but I don't like this organisation.

I don't intend to offend anybody

meandean · 2008-07-02 21:45:37

faelar wrote:

It was just a joke from a rolling-releases fan.

rolling release fans should be looking at lenny or sid.....not joking about stable....ha.....ha....

You can hardly ignore a network faillure when you're doing a netinstall...

the netinst disk contains a base system..no internet needed...

Of course I tried to set my IP manually, but I wasn't more successful

network card not supported by free software I guess?

For mysql I used synaptic (I like to try differents tools), the problem is not the output, only the number of "parts" for the same thing, you have something-client, something-client-devel, something-docs, something-server, something-server-devel etc...
Of course, devel is for development, you have the documentation in a separate package, I understand how it works, but I don't like this organisation.

Wouldn't that be a good thing to keep the bloat down and not install things you do not need? I never do anything with the docs or devel anyway... I mean if you install xorg on arch you still have to figure out what package contains the driver and what you need for glx and dri and so forth... Isn't that about six one way, half dozen the other?

I don't intend to offend anybody

no offense taken and none intended - just some discussion on a discussion forum

Inxsible · 2008-07-02 23:00:48

I installed Arch late last night. Downloaded the ftp iso, and tried to set my static ip settings. But it just wouldn't work. Then I downloaded the core iso, installed Arch and then set the very same static ip settings and my ethernet worked.

My point, If you really want to try out a distro, you should be prepared to circumvent a few things.

Anyway, I now have a triple boot system of Arch + FVWM-Crystal, Debian + Xfce and Debian + Fluxbox.

Will probably get rid of one of the xfce once I am more familiar with Arch.

Debian tries to encompass all kinds of users, from a person who just wants to browse the internet without having to worry about anything else to the excitable linux fan boy who wants to break everything just so he can fix it.

Arch is more suited for users who at the very least know their way around the basics of Linux. It says so on the home page.

Ubuntu - the first that I started with, is amazing for uber noobs. It is a great distro to get their feet wet. I was attracted to it, because of the fact that you get a shiny new OS every 6 months...but after a couple of dist-upgrades..I saw my folly and went to Debian testing - which has quite up to date software. I have had to downgrade the kernel in lenny because the 2.6.24 would not load my sound card, no matter how many modprobes i did or manually entered my sound card entries in /proc/asound. So there are a few quirks

Debian Unstable - well the name says it all and I wouldn't recommend it.

All in all, every distro will have their quirks and the user will have to get around those if they really want to use it.

If you fail at the installation itself, and give up -- then I don't think you have given a fair chance to the distro at all. You should use it for a few months to get to know it before you can give it top honors or dump it in the nearby drain.

faelar · 2008-07-02 23:14:43

network card not supported by free software I guess?

The computer was from 2003, if etch was 4 years old it had left 1 years to make it work for the debian guys
The last installation of debian was ok, all the distros I mentioned before too, so I don't know... the hardware handle linux smoothly, just bad luck I suppose...

Wouldn't that be a good thing to keep the bloat down and not install things you do not need? I never do anything with the docs or devel anyway... I mean if you install xorg on arch you still have to figure out what package contains the driver and what you need for glx and dri and so forth... Isn't that about six one way, half dozen the other?

In my way of thinking, first you ask for what you want, and then you start bothering about the details. First I ask for xorg, then pacman ask me if I want the keyboard input (yes), the vesa driver (no) etc...

rolling release fans should be looking at lenny or sid

Sid ? Lenny ? Toy Story... Sorry but Overloard, Core Dump and Don't Panic are so far the best names

my0pic · 2008-07-03 02:32:09

faelar wrote:

Sid ? Lenny ? Toy Story... Sorry but Overloard, Core Dump and Don't Panic are so far the best names

Chuck Norris uses Arch and he don't need a gui !

stucky · 2008-09-02 17:33:02

Don't really understand the comparison. I have distro-whored for years now and have settled on Debian and Arch exclusively. I would say I lean more towards Debian due to the stability and the relative ease of use. Arch is gaining on me more all the time however. I don't think it's really that n00b unfriendly, however it has taught me quite a bit.

Arch Linux

#51 2008-06-24 09:11:23

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#52 2008-06-24 09:52:40

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#53 2008-06-24 10:00:53

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#54 2008-06-24 11:37:32

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#55 2008-06-24 12:17:18

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#56 2008-06-24 12:33:28

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#57 2008-06-24 16:15:25

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#58 2008-06-24 18:07:55

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#59 2008-06-24 19:46:41

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#60 2008-06-25 03:26:40

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#61 2008-06-25 04:47:55

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#62 2008-06-25 12:19:50

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#63 2008-06-26 03:54:06

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#64 2008-07-01 16:32:53

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#65 2008-07-01 16:47:48

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#66 2008-07-02 00:59:33

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#67 2008-07-02 11:40:20

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#68 2008-07-02 17:35:15

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#69 2008-07-02 17:51:33

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#70 2008-07-02 19:54:26

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#71 2008-07-02 21:45:37

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#72 2008-07-02 23:00:48

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#73 2008-07-02 23:14:43

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#74 2008-07-03 02:32:09

Re: Arch vs. Debian

#75 2008-09-02 17:33:02

Re: Arch vs. Debian

Board footer