alternative to arch?

jerem · 2006-01-01 17:10:56

According to FreeBSD's documentation, binary packages are even the preferred way of installing software.

Thus it can be turned into a nice desktop system.

soloport · 2006-01-01 19:11:18

I've found that when I think Arch has erroded our productivity, nine-times-out-of-ten or *less*, it isn't Arch. I think the same can be said for any distro you would adopt.

Sometimes it's us -- something we've done that was real <sarcasm>brilliant</sarcasm>.

But more often, it turns out to be the hardware. No operating system is going to do well under dire hardware-related circumstances. Before moving away from Arch, have you considered this?

In November alone, we blew through a 300GB HDD, two Motherboards and three 450W Power Supplies. Each time we started out wondering if it was Arch that was at fault for the "strage" behavior. Each time, in the end, it was the hardware that was the root cause of the problem.

Just a thought...

deficite · 2006-01-02 05:14:18

Usually when I become unhappy with Arch it is very brief and its not Arch but instead Linux or just computing in general. I then realize what I'm truly frustrated with and go back to Arch. Linux might make me mad, but at least it isn't Windows. Can't say I like BSD too much either.

jellywerker · 2006-01-03 04:53:54

my hardware should have been fine, but I don't know, I truly think it was arch. Anyways, I got some laptops old ibm thinkpad (p2) and a vaio pcg-c1x (p1 266) The thinkpad has some weird problem with it's mobo that'll take a while to track down, but the vaio is great, it jsut needs the love that linux can give it

If I do a floppy install on the vaio, will it detect the wireless card so I can do a network install? I figure arch is a nice slim distro for it, and that it will handle web browsing and word processing quite well, should even play video.

mac57 · 2006-01-13 19:33:15

I'm sorry that you are having problems with Arch. I have just recently installed it, and it has been wonderful. Getting it up and running has been smoother and easier than any distro I have ever used before, and I have used a lot.

One that I have used, and still do, on an older computer, is VectorLinux 5.1. I find it very similar to Arch in some respects, in that it emphasizes light and fast, and doesn't have a bunch of needless configuration GUIs that hide what is really going on. Nonetheless, they do provide one excellent ncurses based console tool, VASM, which brings together most of the obvious configuration tools in one place.

You may wish to try VectorLinux. You will find it AMAZINGLY fast - in my experience, Arch is the only release that has challenged it for the title of "fastest release I have worked with". VectorLinux's only drawback is that its Slack roots mean that package management is substandard. There is essentially no dependency management in its package manager, which can be a pain from time to time. Still and all, VectorLinux is good enough that I will keep it on my old Dell R450 - nonetheless, I am keeping Arch on my current 3.0 GHz P4!

mac57 · 2006-01-13 19:35:47

One last thought, which didn't occur to me until after I had posted the last message - you will find that VectorLinux has an excellent and very helpful community on its forums. This is another way in which I find it very similar to Arch. Both have excellent and helpful folks that are willing to help. You had asked for a good community as part of what you were looking for, so I thought I would mention that.

jellywerker · 2006-01-13 20:01:28

Dead topic, I have arch working well now.

Euphoric Nightmare · 2006-01-18 03:53:27

LB06 wrote:

You want Debian. It is just like Arch, but more stable and secure, and less agile, simple and uptodate.

You're joking right? Debian is completely different. Sure easy to get up and running and good package management. But I really think that Debian is a beginner distro. It seems to attempt to set up everything for you, while Arch leaves everything up to you.

Debian isn't too bad, but I would really look into FrugalWare and Rubix. Both use pacman. But maybe it would be a good idea to look at some Debian based distros.

Euphoric Nightmare · 2006-01-18 03:54:21

jellywerker wrote:

Dead topic, I have arch working well now.

Heh, should have read on. I tend to jump the gun sometimes.

Leigh · 2006-01-22 11:54:14

Vector linux sounds so interesting. Thanks for the
tip. I have spar space for experiments and am going
to give it a shot. It might be a very cool thing to
have as a dual boot along side arch.

Leigh · 2006-01-22 15:19:28

Well I gave Vector-Linux a shot and am dual booting with arch and vector. Vectors
install was totally impressive in getting a up and running system with minimal
things to fix. It actually configured my dual monitors correctly which was a
shock to me. I'm not sure yet about package managment and so on but from
first impression this seems like a gem of a distro. Especially at the very least,
a backup system.

Update.... I spoke too soon. Vectors package managment using slapt-get
seemed very kaotic especially compared to archs package menagment.
I guess it took trying out a new distro to jog my memory and truly apreciate
Arch linux and how well organized it is compared to most distro's or at
least the ones I am familiar with.

Mikos · 2006-02-07 17:43:19

I am using Arch and Gentoo. I have tried a lot of distributions (Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu, Vector Linux, Fedora Core), but nothing beats Arch Linux or Gentoo.

Debian - in my opinion bloated system. You must use Debian unstable if you want up-to-date packages (and it is really _unstable_). And there are splitted *-dev packages, which is really pain in the ass if you want to compile something. And another pain in the ass are System V-like initscripts, it is much more heavier and bloated than BSD-like initscripts in Arch or Gentoo.

Ubuntu - same as Debian, but slightly better for desktop

Slackware - good clean distribution, but with very bad package management. Slapt-get or Swaret aren't even comparable with pacman or portage. The official Slackware package repository is missing a lot of really important packages (and some packages are outdated, for example there isn't apache 2.x, only old apache 1.x). And last but not least, Slackware is one-man-show.

Vector Linux - similar to Slackware, but with more packages and with user-friendly approach. But package management is still bad (using Slapt-get).

Fedora Core - well, I _hate_ Red Hat based distributions and RPM. Mega-bloat. Stay away from it ;-) Same for Suse and Mandriva.

So to sum it up - if you want really great binary-based distribution, use Arch Linux (or maybe you can try some Arch spin-offs, like Frugalware). Arch is IMHO really the best binary-based distribution. And if you want great source-based distribution, then Gentoo is the best choice.

rose · 2006-02-07 18:42:41

Mikos wrote:

Fedora Core - well, I _hate_ Red Hat based distributions and RPM. Mega-bloat. Stay away from it ;-) Same for Suse and Mandriva.

Actually SuSE is a very good distro if you don't want/can/have time to fiddle with your system. I'm using SuSE exclusively since they released 10.0. It's pretty bleading edge (gcc 4.0; kde 3.5 in an alternative repository). It's also extremely easy to use - it seems to "just work". Last but not least, it's stable. Unlike Arch, they don't do version updates - only security/crash fixes. You might think it's a disadvantage (you have to wait a few months for new software), but I learned to appreciate this - thanks to this policy the distro is really polished&stable.
I don't use Arch anymore :oops: and don't intend to any time soon. When I used Arch about a year ago, the constant stream of updates, with no stable "checkpoints" really got on my nerves. I also couldn't stand its insane dependecies (gnome on kde, kde on gnome, xine on kde, etc.).
I know most Archers don't like hearing criticism like this. But I had to speak out Arch devs actually do a really great job. For example, I love Arch's layout of configuration files. Pacman is also very nice in that it's really fast (unlike YaST, which takes forever to launch).

Mikos · 2006-02-07 20:15:58

Unlike Arch, they don't do version updates - only security/crash fixes. You might think it's a disadvantage ...

Yes, i know it, and for me it is a really great disadvantage. Rolling updates is a must have for me. For this reason, I always used for example Slackware Current or Debian Unstable, because like I said, I don't like "stable" releases.

Arch Linux (or Gentoo if I want source-based distro) is for me the ideal of linux distribution. I have tried many distributions, but no one fits my needs. Except of Arch and Gentoo. Arch is precisely what I want from a linux distribution.

EDIT: But of course I understand that we all have different needs ;-)

rose · 2006-02-07 21:26:14

Mikos wrote:

EDIT: But of course I understand that we all have different needs ;-)

That's right.

lumiwa · 2006-02-07 23:00:10

Mikos wrote:

Unlike Arch, they don't do version updates - only security/crash fixes. You might think it's a disadvantage ...
Yes, i know it, and for me it is a really great disadvantage. Rolling updates is a must have for me. For this reason, I always used for example Slackware Current or Debian Unstable, because like I said, I don't like "stable" releases.
Arch Linux (or Gentoo if I want source-based distro) is for me the ideal of linux distribution. I have tried many distributions, but no one fits my needs. Except of Arch and Gentoo. Arch is precisely what I want from a linux distribution.
EDIT: But of course I understand that we all have different needs ;-)

Yes, we all have different needs. And for me is also what kind of operating system I need it. Is satble, secure? For me is both important, special secure. I had before SuSE from version 5.4 i think and I never had a problem with security and SuSE was stable too. I like Arch but...as you said everyone have different taste .

Mikos · 2006-02-08 01:55:26

rose: I have heard that SUSE 10 is really slow (especially KDE) in comparison with other distros, is it true or not?

lumiwa · 2006-02-08 02:15:16

Mikos wrote:

rose: I have heard that SUSE 10 is really slow (especially KDE) in comparison with other distros, is it true or not?

I can answer you to because I had SuSE from 5.4 I think and 10.0 too and on my computer was KDE fast as now on Arch. And BTW Skpe which I use need on Arch almost one minute but on SuSE it opened few seconds...

rose · 2006-02-08 10:47:30

Mikos wrote:

rose: I have heard that SUSE 10 is really slow (especially KDE) in comparison with other distros, is it true or not?

On my 2.5-years old computer, it is fast enough. I don't think it's slower than Arch.
It has some nice optimizations, like preloading of firefox and openoffice.

Arch Linux

#26 2006-01-01 17:10:56

Re: alternative to arch?

#27 2006-01-01 19:11:18

Re: alternative to arch?

#28 2006-01-02 05:14:18

Re: alternative to arch?

#29 2006-01-03 04:53:54

Re: alternative to arch?

#30 2006-01-13 19:33:15

Re: alternative to arch?

#31 2006-01-13 19:35:47

Re: alternative to arch?

#32 2006-01-13 20:01:28

Re: alternative to arch?

#33 2006-01-18 03:53:27

Re: alternative to arch?

#34 2006-01-18 03:54:21

Re: alternative to arch?

#35 2006-01-22 11:54:14

Re: alternative to arch?

#36 2006-01-22 15:19:28

Re: alternative to arch?

#37 2006-02-07 17:43:19

Re: alternative to arch?

#38 2006-02-07 18:42:41

Re: alternative to arch?

#39 2006-02-07 20:15:58

Re: alternative to arch?

#40 2006-02-07 21:26:14

Re: alternative to arch?

#41 2006-02-07 23:00:10

Re: alternative to arch?

#42 2006-02-08 01:55:26

Re: alternative to arch?

#43 2006-02-08 02:15:16

Re: alternative to arch?

#44 2006-02-08 10:47:30

Re: alternative to arch?

Board footer