Debian vs. Arch

dpb · 2004-04-15 10:21:50

I'm using Debian as my main OS. I've read on the Arch webpage about it and came to the thinking that Arch is very similiar to Debian. Pacman seems very much like apt in Debian.

Debian has many more packages than Arch, so it has better support for many software.
Can you post replies and tell me what makes Arch better than Debian?

dp · 2004-04-15 10:46:55

arch is much more up to date

aCoder · 2004-04-15 10:52:58

Arch has everything most need, and like dp said, it's up-to-date. Debian has a version paranoia, and it really only hurts them security-wise, if you remember they were broken into because of a hole that was fixed in an already released kernel. Also, I like pacman better than apt, but that might just be because it's pacman, and I really liked Pac-Man.

wakeupbomb · 2004-04-15 12:11:52

i686 optimized, more up-to-date, pacman is easier to use

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-04-15 12:48:22

I won't dissapoint you, but

- Prozessor optimization is only one brick in the wall. A well done setup does a better job. Lately, after I burned my Arch with a now solved kernel26-jfsutils-bug, I tried debian sid. It was faster then arch - and more complete. But yes, it is a step older. Gnome 2.4 is the limit, even if you run debian sid (don't know about debian experimental, is that stuff running at all?). But it is well configurated. Fast and stable. Why the hell do I use arch ?

- Apt-get can do some things, pacman can't - so far. What I like on apt if compared to pacman, is it will check dependencies before downlads. Pacman still fetches stuff, and compares then. This is a bad behaviour, as far as I am concerned. On more point: using apt-get install gnome-* will fetch all packages matching the wildcard. I was glad, pacman could do the same, if I remember the pain with gnome 2.6, this feature was needed.

- Debian has a large number of packages. If they are not enough, use apt-source, ore alien to integrate rpm's. Wow.

- Localization is a point the debian community is very hard working for. If you want a complete(!) german or russian or arabic or japanese linux, from console up to gui, use debian. I don't know if you can do with arch, but I fear not.

- Debian uses 'normal' static /dev. You can do what you want to do with your devices. If you like, use udev. No problem, well integrated. Use discover, mdetect, read-edid, hotplug, fxload, kudzu and a modulized kernel, if you want some comfort.

So why do I use arch?

Good question. Looks well. Bleeding edge, but newest code on the machines. Arch don't cares for free or non-free debates. In debian, it is still a risk to install mplayer, because it uses windows codecs. Therefore, it is not an official part of debian. You will find several port trees and debian sources anyway, but if the maintainer does a lousy job, your apt database will soon be f*cked up. This is only one example.

So, in the end, I think it is debians "we only integrate real free and gpl licensed code" paradigma, that lead me from debian to arch.

Dusty · 2004-04-15 15:54:17

I prefer Arch over Debian because a pacman -Sy is waaaaay faster than apt-get update on my dialup connection. An update used to take 15 minutes, as long as a small package on debian, only 2 or three minutes with pacman. So I feel comfortable adding repositories.

I'm a big java fan, and Debian's non-non-GPL support makes it difficult to install Java applications via apt.

I find Debian sluggish in comparison to Arch, but that's jus an informal benchmark (probably more useful than a formal benchmark ). Knoppix, however, seems to be only marginally slower than Arch, I don't understand why.

I don't know how to build or customize packages for Debian. Its so easy with Arch.

Arch seems to be easier to configure, but that might just be because I've learned more about configuration since I got Arch than I knew when I had Debian.

Debian is more stable, but less up to date than Arch.

Debian is fully GPL compatible. This is a plus and a minus.

Once you try Arch, you'll know whether its better for you.

Dusty

aCoder · 2004-04-15 22:25:23

I really don't like Debian's paranoia. They make to big of an issue over everything! Arch is great because it makes huge upgrades simple, and available right away thanks to some great package maintainers. I think Debian's become a bit disorganized and thier site is pretty hard to navigate at times, so I've never been able to try sid, but I've tested that new 'debian-installer' POS, and that was a horrifying experience. I also prefer putting together simple configs than trying to understand how they translated options into dialogs, navigating them, and praying it understood what I wanted, which usually didn't happen. Nano is definitely a better tool than debconf or whatever they call it!

topito · 2004-04-15 23:55:50

I have been using debian for more a less 2 years, always the unstable branch. I switched to AL 4 weeks ago all my computers, I liked debian but AL is much much faster, cleaner and pacman doesn't do weird thinks like apt-get does sometimes. Also I hated that ncurses menus to configure packages that not always works, much better editing config files by hand.

dpb · 2004-04-16 07:26:02

Thanks for all the replies.

I've always hated the ncurses configures too. And before Debian I've even built Linux From Scratch, so editing the files by hand isn't hard for me.
I like what I've read about the making of new packages for Arch, seems so simple.

I'll give Arch a try, once I get a net connection to my new apartment, and see if I like it.

-dpb

Mindaugas · 2004-04-16 08:13:28

dpb wrote:

Thanks for all the replies.
<...>
I like what I've read about the making of new packages for Arch, seems so simple.
-dpb

Meybe somebody can hepl to make packager fot Arch that one? :oops:

LB06 · 2004-04-28 16:27:53

Arch's layout is much cleaner. For example /etc/rc.conf. This one file is used to configure the entire base system. On Debian you have to edit several hard to find config files (compared to Arch).

Arch is more up to date. This is a huge advantage on many desktops and even on some servers.

Arch is more responsive in my experience. THE reason why I gave up Debian and started looking for another distro, was the high latency and low responsiveness on my desktop.

Of course Debian also has its advatages: more packages, more reliable and mature, bigger community, somewhat more sophisticated package managment, etc

Haakon · 2004-05-09 12:27:33

As for the "Debian has more packages" argument, it is of course true. Arch is missing several packages I really need. However, This is my third day of using Arch, and I've already made 3 packages of my own -- it's that easy. When I have sufficient trust in them, I'll submit them. As Arch get more users, it'll also get more package contributors, and soon enough we'll catch up with Debian

noprob · 2004-07-02 18:34:20

I second the motion in favor of arch..

tmadhavan · 2004-07-03 15:59:14

Third

Dpb, you will like, trust us

dpb · 2004-07-04 19:37:42

tmadhavan wrote:

Third
Dpb, you will like, trust us

This is an old thread... I've been using Arch for quite some time already.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-04-15 10:21:50

Debian vs. Arch

#2 2004-04-15 10:46:55

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#3 2004-04-15 10:52:58

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#4 2004-04-15 12:11:52

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#5 2004-04-15 12:48:22

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#6 2004-04-15 15:54:17

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#7 2004-04-15 22:25:23

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#8 2004-04-15 23:55:50

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#9 2004-04-16 07:26:02

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#10 2004-04-16 08:13:28

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#11 2004-04-28 16:27:53

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#12 2004-05-09 12:27:33

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#13 2004-07-02 18:34:20

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#14 2004-07-03 15:59:14

Re: Debian vs. Arch

#15 2004-07-04 19:37:42

Re: Debian vs. Arch

Board footer