Arch vs. debian sid?

AdrenalineJunky · 2009-08-12 03:30:46

i never had a problem with checkinstall when i was using debian.

Misfit138 · 2009-08-12 12:52:18

Ranguvar wrote:

.... I think Debian's nice for a lot of uses and applaud their work.

Agreed. There are so few distros that I would consider 'high quality', though Debian is certainly one of them.

ahcaliskan · 2009-08-12 13:56:36

creating a package in debian is a advanced enterprise, so I agree, it's difficult, but not impossible. It's easy to create a custom and up2date package once you understand how things work in debian.

Solid1986Snake · 2009-08-13 16:09:44

Ranguvar wrote:

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.

These 2 Comments summarize exactly my experience...

mutlu_inek · 2009-08-13 20:05:48

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.

Yes, you can. And I try to do so when necessary. But often the bug in a certain package is not contained within its specific source code, but an error in underlying library code. Thus, what often happens is that I discover layer after layer, compiling four or five packages from ABS in order to get a meaningful backtrace.

Even more than being personally annoyed when doing this, I think it is unfortunate that rather few Arch users actually do this more than occasionally. I am under the impression that very few bugs with backtraces are reported by Arch users, despite the fact that the disctribution is cutting edge and could thus very well contribute to finding bugs early on. Even unstable packages, e.g. those for KDE, do not provide debug information.

rwd · 2009-08-13 20:39:15

Debian supports many cpu architectures such as ARM and PowerPC. So If you have lots of gadgets and you want to standardize on one distro that might be an argument to choose Debian.

Mr.Elendig · 2009-08-13 21:37:53

AdrenalineJunky wrote:

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.

Debian is actually worse in that regard. (in my experience with it)

Solid1986Snake · 2009-08-14 13:36:28

What about the idea of an additional arch repo with debugging symbols?

kensai · 2009-08-14 13:45:36

To sum it up, Debian SID is not meant to be a rolling release distribution, is just throw there everything that is new, and let the users solve the breakages and incompatibilities, because more than often half the intended updates are shipped and some days after that the other half is shipped, sometimes things tend to get very broken in the repository.

Arch Linux is intended to be a rolling release distribution, and because of that nature breakage can occur but not breakage per se, but the need for manual intervention in some updates.

Arch wins!

Allan · 2009-08-14 13:51:10

Solid1986Snake wrote:

What about the idea of an additional arch repo with debugging symbols?

This needs implemented in makepkg first: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10975

Ranguvar · 2009-08-16 04:39:11

I would _love_ a debug symbols repo, although it's been said it won't happen... that would make bug reports, etc. TONS easier.

Vintendo · 2009-08-16 07:46:53

What bugs me most about debian is the way the start up scripts are organized. I love the way Arch does that, it's so simple and clear. And I think pacman is a more clear package manager than apt, especially the output

sand_man · 2009-08-16 09:59:09

Ranguvar wrote:

I would _love_ a debug symbols repo, although it's been said it won't happen... that would make bug reports, etc. TONS easier.

Well by the look of that bug report, it looks like it will happen eventually.

zen3 · 2009-09-07 22:12:34

moljac024 wrote:

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 ARE_YOU_SERIOUS?
-.deb | -.pkg.tar.gz <-- see above
-AUR | -homemade .debs <-- 1 point for Arch
-taco's | -no taco's <-- 2 points for Arch
Why 2 points?
So, to sum it up:
Arch | Debian
3 : 0

Apt, is the best PM ever written.
What are you talking about? OMFG. Can't believe, you dare compare apt to pacman. w00t!

sand_man · 2009-09-07 23:06:49

zen3 wrote:

moljac024 wrote:
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 ARE_YOU_SERIOUS?
-.deb | -.pkg.tar.gz <-- see above
-AUR | -homemade .debs <-- 1 point for Arch
-taco's | -no taco's <-- 2 points for Arch
Why 2 points?
So, to sum it up:
Arch | Debian
3 : 0
Apt, is the best PM ever written.
What are you talking about? OMFG. Can't believe, you dare compare apt to pacman. w00t!

So please tell us why it is so good.

Ranguvar · 2009-09-07 23:39:41

I think he was kidding Not to say that Apt/dpkg/aptitude/etc.etc.etc. isn't good though, it is.

Last edited by Ranguvar (2009-09-07 23:40:07)

jinks · 2009-09-08 08:46:50

I use Debian on my router/firewall since it's more a fire and forget system than Arch. You don't need to keep up with updates regulary and it just chugs along. I think it's also easier to upgrade when being way outdated, apt-get -u dist-upgrade, press y or n a few times and you're done. Of course a firewall is usually a pretty minimal system, I experienced way more hassle while using Debian on a desktop system with more packages.

I usually use Arch for everything else rigth now (to be honest, not far longer than a month, when I switched from Gentoo because I was tired of all the waiting without some real benefit), excep a few servers where I need "extreme" configurability and Gentoo with it's use-flags made more sense.

My biggest gripe with Debian: It friggin starts everything which has an initscript right after install and configures it to be autostarted at reboot. -- No, thank you! *I* know when my services are configured and when I want to start them, or if i want to autostart them at all.

giri · 2016-01-19 13:53:16

What I hate about arch is, that it comes in a really naked state after installing. I reinstall my OS about 4 times a year, and setting up arch is a pain up the ass. Debian on the other hand is pretty usable after installing because it comes with most programs I need. I also had some stability issues with arch I hadn't with debian sid. (My opinion may be a little outdated, I used arch about a year ago.)
What I liked in ARCH was the AUR. The use of PKGBUILDS is a really comfortable way to compile programs, but I also learned the hard way that this is not the most reliable way to install software on my machines. (Lost some files with an mis configured cloud-client.)

Last edited by giri (2016-01-19 13:56:08)

WorMzy · 2016-01-19 14:03:25

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but I'm not sure why you felt the need to bump a six year old thread to share your thoughts from a year ago..

I think I'll take this opportunity to close this topic.

Closing.

Arch Linux

#26 2009-08-12 03:30:46

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#27 2009-08-12 12:52:18

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#28 2009-08-12 13:56:36

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#29 2009-08-13 16:09:44

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#30 2009-08-13 20:05:48

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#31 2009-08-13 20:39:15

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#32 2009-08-13 21:37:53

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#33 2009-08-14 13:36:28

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#34 2009-08-14 13:45:36

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#35 2009-08-14 13:51:10

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#36 2009-08-16 04:39:11

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#37 2009-08-16 07:46:53

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#38 2009-08-16 09:59:09

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#39 2009-09-07 22:12:34

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#40 2009-09-07 23:06:49

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#41 2009-09-07 23:39:41

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#42 2009-09-08 08:46:50

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#43 2016-01-19 13:53:16

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

#44 2016-01-19 14:03:25

Re: Arch vs. debian sid?

Board footer