Arch vs. debian sid?

playdafunkimuzic · 2009-08-05 14:58:01

Hey y'all,

I've been using arch for a while now...but debian sid always seemed like a decent idea due to the large software repositories available for debian. Considering the minimal, net install version: what are your opinions?

Allan · 2009-08-05 14:58:39

Use what you think is best for you.

Misfit138 · 2009-08-05 15:15:16

Arch has a ports system, which is nice for quick and expedient recompiling. Arch has a more simple init and cleaner configuration files. I find pacman output much more readable, relevant and preferable vs. apt. Pacman is also much faster than apt in my experience.
There is a glut of .debs and Debian repos on the net, but I prefer [core], [extra] and [community]; it keeps everything simple.
I have never found a package in Debian that was not also readily installable in Arch.
The Arch install is much more transparent, and I also think Debian documentation is shamefully convoluted, overly general and fragmented compared to the Arch wiki.
I prefer Arch, because it fits better for me.
Everything is a compromise.

snowpine · 2009-08-05 17:12:49

Arch and Sid are comparable in many ways, and I use them both (on different computers).

The advantage of Arch, IMHO, is this: Sid is the "testing ground" for what will eventually become Debian Stable. New users often start with Stable, then move on to Testing as they learn more about the system, and perhaps eventually graduate to Sid if they are comfortable being "out there on the edge" with the elite users. Arch *is* Arch, in other words, it's designed to be a complete, finished, usable distro in and of itself, and new users are encouraged to dive right into the same waters with everyone else (with the help of the Beginner's Guide and Wiki, of course).

Nezmer · 2009-08-05 23:18:33

playdafunkimuzic wrote:

due to the large software repositories available for debian.

Don't let the number of packages fool you . The way debian package is different compared to Arch (Arch:foo=Debian{foo-base,foo-devel,foo-debug,foo}) . foo in Arch comes without debugging symbols by default of course .

There is an APT term for packages that have dependencies but no package depends on them . If you can generate a list of those packages , you would know If the Arch repos cover your needs .

Make sure you read about ABS & AUR too .

I would like to add that breakages are fixed almost instantly in Arch . The infrastructure is flexible enough to allow this . In Debian , the package will stay broken If the maintainer or the team responsible for the package are busy with their lifes .

ozar · 2009-08-05 23:23:01

playdafunkimuzic wrote:

Hey y'all,
I've been using arch for a while now...but debian sid always seemed like a decent idea due to the large software repositories available for debian. Considering the minimal, net install version: what are your opinions?

You should definitely try it so that you'll know know for certain whether or not you like it better or less than Arch.

jelly · 2009-08-06 07:15:10

sidux might be a nice too

Last edited by jelly (2009-08-06 08:25:59)

ngoonee · 2009-08-06 07:30:26

Misfit138 wrote:

Arch has a ports system, which is nice for quick and expedient recompiling. Arch has a more simple init and cleaner configuration files. I find pacman output much more readable, relevant and preferable vs. apt. Pacman is also much faster than apt in my experience.
There is a glut of .debs and Debian repos on the net, but I prefer [core], [extra] and [community]; it keeps everything simple.
I have never found a package in Debian that was not also readily installable in Arch.
The Arch install is much more transparent, and I also think Debian documentation is shamefully convoluted, overly general and fragmented compared to the Arch wiki.
I prefer Arch, because it fits better for me.
Everything is a compromise.

I have found a few. Depends on what you use/need, and how much you experiment with lesser known software or fringe usage patterns.

However, making your own PKGBUILD isn't so hard, and the AUR request sub-forum is there for just that reason.

Honestly, I tried sidux before Arch, and couldn't get it to work (my fault, I'm sure, but that's how its like), now I have no reason to want to try Sidux anymore.

aditnsr · 2009-08-07 12:29:02

Hi,

I think if you ask this on Arch forum, you will hear more people say that Arch fits their needs better and
if you ask on Debian forum you will get more answers that basically say Debian is better.

I say try both and see for yourself.

jelly · 2009-08-07 13:06:53

hmm or get a piece of paper and write down on the left column arch , the right column debian sid. now write down the pro's/con's Example:

Last edited by jelly (2009-08-07 13:08:41)

playdafunkimuzic · 2009-08-07 17:06:45

jelly wrote:

hmm or get a piece of paper and write down on the left column arch , the right column debian sid. now write down the pro's/con's Example:
Arch | Debian
-pacman | -apt get
-.deb | -.pkg.tar.gz
-AUR | -homemade .debs
-taco's | -no taco's

What's this talk about tacos lately...what are they...besides the food?

moljac024 · 2009-08-07 19:32:24

jelly wrote:

hmm or get a piece of paper and write down on the left column arch , the right column debian sid. now write down the pro's/con's Example:
Arch | Debian
-pacman | -apt get <-- both get the job done, not that much difference
-.deb | -.pkg.tar.gz <-- see above
-AUR | -homemade .debs <-- 1 point for Arch
-taco's | -no taco's <-- 2 points for Arch

So, to sum it up:

Arch | Debian
3 : 0

szymon_g · 2009-08-07 23:27:00

jelly wrote:

-pacman | -apt get

just in case- the 'most proper' package manager is aptitude. apt-get is getting obsolescent

jelly wrote:

-homemade .debs

making 'simple' debs is quite easy (checkinstall).

doorknob60 · 2009-08-08 01:21:23

I like Arch better, but that's my personal opinion. Currently I'm sitting in front of an Arch box, and about a foot to the right of me is a Debian (Lenny) box connected via Synergy, so it's obvious that I like both. However, I feel Arch works better on this computer, and it's easier to set up with my hardware, surprisingly. Also I like pacman better than apt a bit (it's faster and doesn't crap out as often. And has -f and -d options for when ti does ), and I hate making DEBs but I like making PKGBUILDs. Either way you'll probably be happy with your choice though, since Debian is a pretty good distro. And AUR FTW!

AdrenalineJunky · 2009-08-09 04:40:30

szymon_g wrote:

jelly wrote:
-pacman | -apt get
just in case- the 'most proper' package manager is aptitude. apt-get is getting obsolescent
jelly wrote:
-homemade .debs
making 'simple' debs is quite easy (checkinstall).

true ^^

pacman and aptitude are the two best package managers i've ever used, i do think pacman is a bit faster, but i also like synaptic a little more then shaman, so its sort of a wash.

arch tends to be - at least from my experience - more stable then sid/sidux, and it seems to get new packages a bit before sid/sidux as well.

i used sid for a couple weeks and sidux for a month or so, and after using arch i have no desire to go back, that said, everyone has thier own opinions, so you should probably just give it a try yourself.

Gen2ly · 2009-08-09 05:51:14

Just installed Debian on a router and I can tell you: it's not bad. Apt is pretty good as a package manager goes. As a few people may have told you in paraphrase, Debian isn't real streamlined. Sometimes you have to use other tools besides apt to get the job done, and their documentation while good and very through takes a lot of ciphering. Also when building my router I found the automatic configuration of some packages a pain, some that include stripped down configs. By all means, give Debian a try though, I like it.

If you want a script that will help with common management tasks you can look at my post: Package Management from the Command Line.

agapito · 2009-08-09 06:11:08

playdafunkimuzic wrote:

Hey y'all,
I've been using arch for a while now...but debian sid always seemed like a decent idea due to the large software repositories available for debian. Considering the minimal, net install version: what are your opinions?

large software repositories?

I used Debian and i compiled a lot of programs manually because i couldn't find on their repos. I had to install dev-dependencies manually and install "dirty" with make install. It was a pain. With Archlinux this never happened. Long life to PKGBUILDS.

ahcaliskan · 2009-08-11 02:55:23

Debian is more versatile, automatic and complex than arch, yet they share similar developer culture. I've used debian several years and can easily say that arch is like debian sid. Arch is however easier and a good choice when it comes to understand linux basics and advance as a developer.

Misfit138 · 2009-08-11 17:31:31

playdafunkimuzic wrote:

... debian sid always seemed like a decent idea due to the large software repositories available for debian....

Core 347 packages
Extra 4424 packages
Community 3717 packages
Testing 110 packages
--------------------------------
8598 packages

AUR 17,726 PKGBUILDS
--------------------------------
Total 26,324 :)

playdafunkimuzic · 2009-08-11 18:03:22

Misfit138 wrote:

playdafunkimuzic wrote:
... debian sid always seemed like a decent idea due to the large software repositories available for debian....
Core 347 packages
Extra 4424 packages
Community 3717 packages
Testing 110 packages
--------------------------------
8598 packages
AUR 17,726 PKGBUILDS
--------------------------------
Total 26,324

lol, owned. well, doesn't look like i'm leaving arch

AdrenalineJunky · 2009-08-11 18:13:13

to be fair, that includes many packages that provide the same thing, whether it be for seperate architectures (32/64 bit) or just duplicate aur packages (bin32-wine, bin32-wine-suse | bin32-wine-stable, wine-stable) or the same thing with slightly different patchaes (wine-wc, wine-revalation, wine-sporefix) and a totoal of 1479 packages flagged out of date.

bottom line though, both debian and arch have impressive software repositories - i'm sure each of them has packages the other doesn't, but they both have alot to offer.

mutlu_inek · 2009-08-11 23:49:41

The only advantage is see in Debian is that it offers debug packages. I hate not having them in Arch.

Other than that, I cannot imagine a better distribution.

jdhore · 2009-08-12 00:51:22

Misfit138 wrote:

playdafunkimuzic wrote:
... debian sid always seemed like a decent idea due to the large software repositories available for debian....
Core 347 packages
Extra 4424 packages
Community 3717 packages
Testing 110 packages
--------------------------------
8598 packages
AUR 17,726 PKGBUILDS
--------------------------------
Total 26,324

Don't forgot, those are all actual packages. Debian uses libwhatever, libwhatever-dev, libwhatever-doc, libwhatever-dbg, libwhatever-utils...Also don't forget that in Debian stuff like Pidgin itself is split into about 7 packages so Arch probably would win without counting the AUR anyway.

sand_man · 2009-08-12 02:35:41

mutlu_inek wrote:

The only advantage is see in Debian is that it offers debug packages. I hate not having them in Arch.
Other than that, I cannot imagine a better distribution.

But with ABS you can create your own debug packages if you really needed to.

Ranguvar · 2009-08-12 03:25:14

sand_man wrote:

mutlu_inek wrote:
The only advantage is see in Debian is that it offers debug packages. I hate not having them in Arch.
Other than that, I cannot imagine a better distribution.
But with ABS you can create your own debug packages if you really needed to.

I do admit that the option of quickly downloadable binary packages of debug symbols is very nice.

I'm trying out Debian Squeeze on my laptop. I'll probably go back to Arch on it, for one main reason: It's MUCH easier to create a custom package, or a more up-to-date version of it in Arch (when it's not already there, thanks to the massive AUR). If I really want a new version of a package, and for some odd reason Arch doesn't have it, I can grab the PKGBUILD, edit the pkgver and md5sums, and usually, I'm done. On Debian... well, if there is anything like that, let me know please. I haven't used Checkinstall yet, I admit that too, but I'd be worried about using a package generator for Arch, let alone a much more heavily patched and such distro like Debian. Checkinstall is basically just a fakeroot-style wrapper around make install, right? While the Debian repos are expansive, they do miss edge cases more than you might think (Avidemux is missing! There is an unofficial repo for it though). Also gone is the ability to grab development (git, svn, cvs) snapshots of packages without much hacking, whereas on Arch there's a ton of devel PKGBUILDs in the AUR, and worst case it's fairly simple to make your own.
Really, PKGBUILDs have spoiled me... the only distro/OS even close to Arch's bleeding-edge updates and wide coverage is FreeBSD, which at least has a visible way of rebuilding packages and modifying the build files. Slackware, maybe (a little over-manual, but still nice), and Gentoo's ebuilds are quite complex, but I'm getting off topic.
I recommend that people who are considering Debian try it, like I have. Just be sure that all your odd software works fine. If not, welcome back to the land of ./configure and make, just with Checkinstall thrown in.

In the interests of NOT starting a flame war, the above is my own personal complaints about Debian. I think Debian is a very solid distro, and I'm glad Debian exists. I just like to state my opinion. All the above sounds decidedly negative, which isn't the impression I meant to give -- again, I think Debian's nice for a lot of uses and applaud their work.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-08-05 14:58:01

Arch vs. debian sid?

#2 2009-08-05 14:58:39

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#3 2009-08-05 15:15:16

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#4 2009-08-05 17:12:49

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#5 2009-08-05 23:18:33

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#6 2009-08-05 23:23:01

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#7 2009-08-06 07:15:10

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#8 2009-08-06 07:30:26

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#9 2009-08-07 12:29:02

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#10 2009-08-07 13:06:53

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#11 2009-08-07 17:06:45

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#12 2009-08-07 19:32:24

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#13 2009-08-07 23:27:00

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#14 2009-08-08 01:21:23

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#15 2009-08-09 04:40:30

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#16 2009-08-09 05:51:14

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#17 2009-08-09 06:11:08

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#18 2009-08-11 02:55:23

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#19 2009-08-11 17:31:31

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#20 2009-08-11 18:03:22

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#21 2009-08-11 18:13:13

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#22 2009-08-11 23:49:41

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#23 2009-08-12 00:51:22

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#24 2009-08-12 02:35:41

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#25 2009-08-12 03:25:14

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

Board footer