Arch (stability) v debian testing

N1ckR · 2007-06-01 12:16:00

I know it would be unfair to compare Arch to the stable release of debian, Debian Testing and Arch are the 2 distro's on my short list and I am testing both.
I wondered if anyone has any direct experience of running Arch and Debian testing, especially stability - as I cant afford long downtimes (I do have some time for tinkering and maintaining).

Cheers, Nick

hussam · 2007-06-01 12:26:20

it depends on the Debian release cycle. Debian testing tends to be a bit unstable at first but gets more stable as they get closer to their feature and version freeze after which Debian testing will only get bug fixes until Debian testing becomes Debian stable.
Also stability depends on what you are using your computer for. For example, the ArchLinux core/base is more stable then Debian's because of our stock kernel and simple configuration. This means that it will always be easier to solve problems on ArchLinux than on Debian. Another important point is that if you find a problem in a desktop application in ArchLinux, there's a good chance it is a upstream bug and not our fault. The situation is different in Debian.

Last edited by hussam (2007-06-01 12:27:22)

N1ckR · 2007-06-01 12:30:14

Stability for me is web development server (+ home print/file server) and a laptop that I can trust will be safe for my wife to use on a daily basis (without much intervention for me).

One of the reasons I am leaning towards Arch is that I prefer the philosphy of messing with upstream stuff as little as possible, but what happens if there is a critical bug found and upstream are likely to be slow, will the Arch guys patch ?

Last edited by N1ckR (2007-06-01 12:32:08)

slackhack · 2007-06-01 12:40:17

i have a debian testing web/print server and an arch desktop and laptop. the web server has been running fine for the past couple of years, weekly updates, average uptime is about 5 or 6 months. no problems. i've been using arch for almost as long, also with no major incidents. everything just seems to work, most problems are user error, and when there is a bug it's fixed quickly. i just put it on my laptop a couple weeks ago to replace slackware, and i love it. i don't think your wife would have much of a problem with it. i much prefer arch in general, and definitely for the desktop, but debian testing is just as if not more stable, in my experience. i wouldn't hesitate to use either one.

hussam · 2007-06-01 12:40:25

N1ckR, yes definitely security bugs will not be ignored. But the update will have to wait for a patch. Many times a patch will be found in upstream cvs or svn and that's where the ArchLinux developers can get the patch.
For example, if a security bug is found in firefox 2.0.0.4 and it is fixed in mozilla cvs, the ArchLinux devs might get the patch from mozilla cvs so that you don't have to wait for firefox 2.0.0.5 to be out before you are secure again.

Last edited by hussam (2007-06-01 12:42:22)

N1ckR · 2007-06-01 13:08:57

Is there a way to keen updated (with the info not downloading and installing) about updates in a system specific manner (eg something that syncs the pacman db compares and compares to what is installed and lists available updates (and if they are security critical or version update) ?

Sigi · 2007-06-01 13:11:16

pacman -Syu and then <N> ?

N1ckR · 2007-06-01 13:19:50

Sigi wrote:

pacman -Syu and then <N> ?

I know i can do that, but does that tell me if an update is a security update or a version upgrade ?

What would be useful for me would be if I got a desktop icon that told me some updates were available

Sigi · 2007-06-01 13:29:16

There should be a ChangeLog available through pacman3 soon - which will give you the desired output through pacman -Qc. (This isn't working yet and the ChangeLogs are not yet included in the pkgs...)
There is also an update notification tray icon but I can't remember its name atm.

shining · 2007-06-01 13:35:29

N1ckR wrote:

Sigi wrote:
pacman -Syu and then <N> ?
I know i can do that, but does that tell me if an update is a security update or a version upgrade ?
What would be useful for me would be if I got a desktop icon that told me some updates were available

Use debian stable + update-notifier
That way, the package updates will be only security fix, and you'll have a systray icon indicating new updates.

N1ckR · 2007-06-01 13:52:41

shining wrote:

N1ckR wrote:
Sigi wrote:
pacman -Syu and then <N> ?
I know i can do that, but does that tell me if an update is a security update or a version upgrade ?
What would be useful for me would be if I got a desktop icon that told me some updates were available
Use debian stable + update-notifier
That way, the package updates will be only security fix, and you'll have a systray icon indicating new updates.

When I have time to babysit an upgrade I dont mind getting the latest stuff (eg once every week or 2), but I do like to know daily what security updates are needed to be installed ASAP. Thats why I would like to be able to differentiate between security updates and general updates .

N1ckR · 2007-06-01 13:53:48

Sigi wrote:

There should be a ChangeLog available through pacman3 soon - which will give you the desired output through pacman -Qc. (This isn't working yet and the ChangeLogs are not yet included in the pkgs...)
There is also an update notification tray icon but I can't remember its name atm.

Sounds cool. Cheers.

aRcHaTe · 2007-06-01 15:40:54

the name..pacmon or somethink

Sigi · 2007-06-01 15:42:57

Aaaah, I knew it was something with alu... alunn

edit: and, link to its hp

Last edited by Sigi (2007-06-01 15:45:04)

Acid7711 · 2007-06-01 18:33:55

Actually, I use both currently. I use Debian testing only for my file server, however Arch is on every other computer in the house. I find them both to be very stable for what I use them for and have had no problems with both, however I'd much rather be using Arch on the server, but it's working now and I'm not fooling with it.

Last edited by Acid7711 (2007-06-01 18:34:25)

N1ckR · 2007-06-19 11:43:09

I have tried both Debian Testing and Arch for a 2/3 weeks each and I still cannot decide !

What it boils down to is I prefer Arch's simplicity BUT am still a bit unsure about Stability/Security.

I think it comes down to how well managed the repos are (that is in terms of testing and keeping up to date with security and bugs); I do not think it matters if its a Rolling release or scheduled release, its how well managed things are.

I do like the split of current and extra (very BSD like) and think this is a good way to help ensure good system stability.

Obviously Debian is very well structured and has a strict policy on how things move from unstable to testing to stable and this is something I am still unsure of Arch in this aspect, I know there is policy in place, but I do not know the details of this...

Maybe you guys can help me out with this ?

Cheers, Nick

Last edited by N1ckR (2007-06-19 11:57:57)

byte · 2007-06-19 14:15:52

As for Arch, security isn't handled at all. It's just part of the usual update routine with new upstream releases. There are occasional posts on the ML or bugtracker pointing to security advisories and those are normally acted upon very quickly.
What I'd like to see is a more featureful flagging mechanism for the package browser.

If you're a fan of policy behind the scenes go for Debian.

N1ckR · 2007-06-19 14:23:58

byte wrote:

As for Arch, security isn't handled at all. It's just part of the usual update routine with new upstream releases. There are occasional posts on the ML or bugtracker pointing to security advisories and those are normally acted upon very quickly.
What I'd like to see is a more featureful flagging mechanism for the package browser.
If you're a fan of policy behind the scenes go for Debian.

I sometimes think there is too much policy in Debian...

I know Debian trys to patch as little as possible and stick to upstream, but how little I do not know.

Last edited by N1ckR (2007-06-19 14:26:53)

byte · 2007-06-19 14:47:13

N1ckR wrote:

I sometimes think there is too much policy in Debian...
I know Debian trys to patch as little as possible and stick to upstream, but how little I do not know.

There is too much policy in Debian for sure.

About patching, no. They patch like hell to first and foremost confirm to their own guidelines. And if the upstream author(s) doesn't really agree with those suggestions/modifications, they might get bigger and bigger.

LFS and Slackware are probably the ones with the least patching. Arch should be close I guess.

Misfit138 · 2007-06-19 19:35:14

You seem to need some help making a decision. Just use Arch.
If you're not happy with it, feel free to come back to complain, and blame me.
I'll give you a free attitude adjustment.

N1ckR · 2007-06-19 20:19:10

Misfit138 wrote:

You seem to need some help making a decision. Just use Arch.
If you're not happy with it, feel free to come back to complain, and blame me.

Well, Im edging on the side of Arch, mainly because of the community.

Misfit138 wrote:

I'll give you a free attitude adjustment.

Feel free to try...

Misfit138 · 2007-06-19 20:32:21

You can't get a better community than this.
I ask dopey questions all the time and am always pleased at the patient, gracious responses I get.
You'll be happy with Arch, I promise!

Abacus_Monkey · 2007-06-20 03:19:57

I was quite happy with Debian testing for a short while, but as soon as you need to customise any part of it you need to figure out how the heck "the debian way" is meant to be done.

This brings me to why I swapped (back) to Arch. I updated my debian testing system with their nvidia drivers and next thing I know Xorg doesn't work. So I need to find someone who knows. Thanks to the great debian community *cough* there was no easy way of doing this. After finding the bug report and failing to fix it I decided I should try a non-precompiled nvidia kernel. How do I do this? Use a bunch of Debian specific procedures that are obscure and confusing of course! Long, long, long story short it wouldn't work no matter which method of installing and configuring the driver I used.

I'm glad though, cos I'm back with Arch ...... least if something goes wrong with Arch its fixable....

Arch Linux

#1 2007-06-01 12:16:00

Arch (stability) v debian testing

#2 2007-06-01 12:26:20

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#3 2007-06-01 12:30:14

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#4 2007-06-01 12:40:17

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#5 2007-06-01 12:40:25

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#6 2007-06-01 13:08:57

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#7 2007-06-01 13:11:16

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#8 2007-06-01 13:19:50

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#9 2007-06-01 13:29:16

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#10 2007-06-01 13:35:29

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#11 2007-06-01 13:52:41

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#12 2007-06-01 13:53:48

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#13 2007-06-01 15:40:54

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#14 2007-06-01 15:42:57

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#15 2007-06-01 18:33:55

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#16 2007-06-19 11:43:09

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#17 2007-06-19 14:15:52

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#18 2007-06-19 14:23:58

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#19 2007-06-19 14:47:13

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#20 2007-06-19 19:35:14

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#21 2007-06-19 20:19:10

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#22 2007-06-19 20:32:21

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

#23 2007-06-20 03:19:57

Re: Arch (stability) v debian testing

Board footer