Arch alternatives

Hide · 2007-03-29 13:10:39

Hi all,

I played with Arch a bit and it's GREAT, but there are some things that bothered me... I would like to hear your opinions about an alternative. I was thinking about Zenwalk, Free/Net BSD or even CRUX.

Thx in advance

scarney · 2007-03-29 13:13:04

first, tell us what is it that bothered you?. and then maybe we will send you packing to an alternative.

pressh · 2007-03-29 13:37:00

if you don't tell what you don't like we don't know which direction to point you ...

Hide · 2007-03-29 14:26:26

First of all, i had severe problems with graphical environments. Both xfce and gnome stopped working after some time (they just didn't boot after startx command).
Second, HAL only worked from time to time.
Then, i couldn't set ntfs partition to be viewable by a regular user, dunno why (there was always "user can't read this fs because it's read-only", sth like that).

What i'm looking for is:
1. Minimalism!!
2. Stability
3. Speed
4, Fairly good package manager

Last edited by Hide (2007-03-29 14:29:13)

phrakture · 2007-03-29 15:23:00

All of those issues are configuration issues. So if you don't have the time to figure them out, you should add to the list:
5. Configuration helpers

I don't think you can get minimalism AND configuration helpers in one go, though some debian derivative might do it.

RevertTS · 2007-03-29 15:30:14

Vector Linux might be something else to look into.

If it's any help, I'm planning on putting a different distro on the computer I'm expecting, so I've been looking into stuff recently. Right now I'm leaning towards Source Mage, but CRUX, Slackware, and LFS are also on my list of considerations.

Lontronics · 2007-03-29 17:18:56

Zenwalk would be good for you

chaosgeisterchen · 2007-03-29 18:01:24

Lontronics wrote:

Zenwalk would be good for you

I have to quote that. You seem to like configuration helpers, just as phrakture said. Although Zenwalk takes a lot of weight off your shoulders, it stays very slim and fast, being utter minimalistic whilst being beginner-oriented. Just might just try it out. They show a very fast development cycle and release a new version of their distribution every few months. Unfortunately, they do not have a rolling release system.

So, if you like XFCE4 as a standard desktop, just try it out. It will hopefully fit your all needs.

byte · 2007-03-29 18:04:23

"Unfortunately, they do not have a rolling release system."

There's always -current. ;}

EDIT: or "snapshot" ... never used a Slack derivative, only the real deal.

Last edited by byte (2007-03-29 18:08:08)

chaosgeisterchen · 2007-03-29 18:07:23

byte wrote:

"Unfortunately, they do not have a rolling release system."
There's always -current. ;}

You have to further specify that. I've oftenly read threads in the Zenwalk forums where they suggest fresh installs upon upgrading in order to guarantee 100% functionality. Has this already changed and am I hence lagging behind concerning my stance?

arox1 · 2007-03-29 18:34:22

chaosgeisterchen wrote:

byte wrote:
"Unfortunately, they do not have a rolling release system."
There's always -current. ;}
You have to further specify that. I've oftenly read threads in the Zenwalk forums where they suggest fresh installs upon upgrading in order to guarantee 100% functionality. Has this already changed and am I hence lagging behind concerning my stance?

Only when mayor changes appear i.e. new toolchain or something that can break your system and it's hard to fix for an unexperienced user

I was upgrading my Zen 4.0 from current everytime when changes appeared and with no problems (so now in fact I'm running 4.4 )

Lontronics · 2007-03-29 19:29:35

Arox is right

I have used Zenwalk for more then a year, and it is not needed to install every new release.
Just change your netpkg settings to snapshot if you want and you do have a bleeding edge system what is always up to date.

But.... there will change something.

If you have read the ZW forums and other ZW related forums, you probably have seen there are plans to extend the time between releases to about half a year. As I understand, current will not change anymore, and snapshot will be the development of the new release. That way developers do have more time to test, and ZW will be more a 'stable and secure' distro then a 'bleeding edge' distro in the future.

But, when you do want a simple, light, fast and user friendly linux distro, you defenately have to try Zenwalk.

For me Zenwalk is still the second best

Hide · 2007-03-29 23:02:52

Thx guys, i'm downloading it now... I'll share my impressions when i try it out a bit

Btw, i installed Frugalware in the meantime, and i don't get sth: why is it said to be for intermediate users? EVERYTHING u'll EVER need is installed by default, even pppoe is set during the instalation process.
Another thing i don't like (connected to the first one) is bloat. I selected reasonable amount of packages during the installation, and i still got xmms, rhythmbox and mplayer (+ totem ).
The last thing that repels is the speed of Frugal. Currently nautilus, firefox, rhythmbox, gaim are active, and it lags... Ok, it's in reasonable amounts, but still...

Regardless of these flaws, i must say that this is the distro i'm the most satisfied with

Last edited by Hide (2007-03-29 23:04:39)

.:B:. · 2007-03-29 23:24:59

chaosgeisterchen wrote:

byte wrote:
"Unfortunately, they do not have a rolling release system."
There's always -current. ;}
You have to further specify that. I've oftenly read threads in the Zenwalk forums where they suggest fresh installs upon upgrading in order to guarantee 100% functionality. Has this already changed and am I hence lagging behind concerning my stance?

They/we do recommend . Especially to the less knowledgeable part of the userbase (that part is quite large...)

Snarkout · 2007-03-31 21:01:03

I'm wondering if you have an issue with your machine or if you are doing some sort of tweaking that's fux0ring things - for either arch or frugal to be "slow" is very strange. The *only* distros I've ever run that are faster than either of those two are slack and slack polishers (like zenwalk).

detto · 2007-03-31 23:15:00

Hide wrote:

Btw, i installed Frugalware in the meantime, and i don't get sth: why is it said to be for intermediate users? EVERYTHING u'll EVER need is installed by default, even pppoe is set during the instalation process.

This was discussed already and will be changed soon, at least to 0.7 release. There'll be a graphical frontend for the thing you use most of the time (WHEN u use CLi) .. -> pacman. So at least THEN it is time to change the about message.

Hide wrote:

Another thing i don't like (connected to the first one) is bloat. I selected reasonable amount of packages during the installation, and i still got xmms, rhythmbox and mplayer (+ totem ).

Well, package selection in the current installer is a bit tough. you have to choose whole group to get installed or go though big lists of packages and throw out yourself what you dont need. After all, the second method is gainful and preferred. Or you do a netinstall and only select "base" group. Then after installation install what you want (just like with Arch).
Oh, and 0.7 release will have (beside pkg manual selection) simple selection of "kde-desktop" "gnome-desktop" and so on, so you can pick one that you like and get a nice desktop system set up. Not everything crowded together.

Hide wrote:

The last thing that repels is the speed of Frugal. Currently nautilus, firefox, rhythmbox, gaim are active, and it lags... Ok, it's in reasonable amounts, but still...

On frugalware or Arch now?
Well, i can't reproduce this speed problems on arch neither on frugalware here. Both blazingly fast (well frugal a bit faster in my eyes, but that's hairsplitting now )

Lontronics · 2007-04-01 09:20:31

I was happy to see Snarkout mentioning that Slack and Slack polishers were faster then Arch.

I did notice the same. I do like pacman, and the way it is handling packages. Arch is working nice, installation of for example nvidia, ipw3945 and synaptics drivers is really easy and the network-profiles stuff is something I am really enthousiastic about.
But, although Arch is compiled with i686 optimisation, Zenwalk is noticable 'snappier'.
I am wondering why, because with the processor optimisation in mind and less processes running in background, you should expect the opposite...

Any ideas?

arox1 · 2007-04-01 10:05:27

I noticed that too

i. e. on Zen mousepad pops up immediately, on Arch I have to wait about 1-2 sec

Maybe it's filesystem fault? I had xfs on Z and changed to ext3 on Arch

Last edited by arox1 (2007-04-01 10:10:35)

.:B:. · 2007-04-01 16:35:58

Mousepad is pretty fast around here too (pops up almost immediately on Arch when I use it). I do notice Arch being slower than Zenwalk though . Amarok for example loads awfully slow, ktorrent isn't fast either, but maybe that's due to me not preloading KDE stuff.

I have my root partition with reiserfs with notail, noatime options. Of course you cannot have it all: Zenwalk is slim and streamlined, but you'll have to do a lot of work (compile apps, build packages) if you want something not available onboard, while arch has its repos... Difficult tradeoff if you ask me.

Last edited by B (2007-04-01 16:37:01)

arox1 · 2007-04-01 17:44:06

I installed CK kernel and now Arch is as fast as Zen

Lontronics · 2007-04-01 20:22:45

Because of your results I did the same, but am back to the default kernel again.
Unfortunately I did not notice any difference at all....

But what I don't get; why is the ck kernel not the default kernel?
As I understand, the ck kernel does have patches included to improve speed for a default desktop computer.
I could imagine there is a possibility on installation to choose between a 'server' and 'desktop' kernel...

Last edited by Lontronics (2007-04-01 20:25:03)

benplaut · 2007-04-01 21:16:55

.

Last edited by benplaut (2021-06-25 12:28:41)

deficite · 2007-04-01 23:23:09

He's already using ArkLinux

Last edited by deficite (2007-04-01 23:23:26)

Lontronics · 2007-04-03 17:24:11

Lontronics wrote:

... But what I don't get; why is the ck kernel not the default kernel?
As I understand, the ck kernel does have patches included to improve speed for a default desktop computer.
I could imagine there is a possibility on installation to choose between a 'server' and 'desktop' kernel...

I am using the kernel26ck kernel now as default, but without a much better result.
But why not making this kernel the default, when it's patches do give most users an improvement?

Jan

Weeks · 2007-04-03 17:34:13

Hide wrote:

First of all, i had severe problems with graphical environments. Both xfce and gnome stopped working after some time (they just didn't boot after startx command).
Second, HAL only worked from time to time.
Then, i couldn't set ntfs partition to be viewable by a regular user, dunno why (there was always "user can't read this fs because it's read-only", sth like that).
What i'm looking for is:
1. Minimalism!!
2. Stability
3. Speed
4, Fairly good package manager

1. Arch is as minimalist as you configure it to be.
2. I can see where you are coming from. I suggest FreeBSD.
3. Hmm. I don't know many distributions that are compiled for the i686. I believe gentoo lets you compile everything to your requirements - you may receive some improvements there, but I'm unsure how much. Perhaps you're merely running slow applications. You could try running openbox instead of xfce.
4. I like this package manager Debian's package manager is meant to be excellent. FreeBSD's also.

It seems like you need a distribution that hides away some of the details. Your xfce and ntfs problems could be fixed with enough personal study, and probably HAL too (but I dislike that program too). If you really just don't want to bother with these issues I suggest FreeBSD or Ubuntu.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-03-29 13:10:39

Arch alternatives

#2 2007-03-29 13:13:04

Re: Arch alternatives

#3 2007-03-29 13:37:00

Re: Arch alternatives

#4 2007-03-29 14:26:26

Re: Arch alternatives

#5 2007-03-29 15:23:00

Re: Arch alternatives

#6 2007-03-29 15:30:14

Re: Arch alternatives

#7 2007-03-29 17:18:56

Re: Arch alternatives

#8 2007-03-29 18:01:24

Re: Arch alternatives

#9 2007-03-29 18:04:23

Re: Arch alternatives

#10 2007-03-29 18:07:23

Re: Arch alternatives

#11 2007-03-29 18:34:22

Re: Arch alternatives

#12 2007-03-29 19:29:35

Re: Arch alternatives

#13 2007-03-29 23:02:52

Re: Arch alternatives

#14 2007-03-29 23:24:59

Re: Arch alternatives

#15 2007-03-31 21:01:03

Re: Arch alternatives

#16 2007-03-31 23:15:00

Re: Arch alternatives

#17 2007-04-01 09:20:31

Re: Arch alternatives

#18 2007-04-01 10:05:27

Re: Arch alternatives

#19 2007-04-01 16:35:58

Re: Arch alternatives

#20 2007-04-01 17:44:06

Re: Arch alternatives

#21 2007-04-01 20:22:45

Re: Arch alternatives

#22 2007-04-01 21:16:55

Re: Arch alternatives

#23 2007-04-01 23:23:09

Re: Arch alternatives

#24 2007-04-03 17:24:11

Re: Arch alternatives

#25 2007-04-03 17:34:13

Re: Arch alternatives

Board footer