You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Since Arch originated from Grux, then Grux must have something in it. I am wondering whether Arch is a Grux improved version or different from Grux somewhere.
Anyone used Grux before? What are their difference? or just "same difference"?
When false is taken for true, true becomes false;
If non-being turns into being, being becomes non-being.
Pages full of fantastic talk
Penned with bitter tears;
All men call the author mad,
None his message hears.
Offline
Do you mean Crux ? :?
Mr Green
Offline
Do you mean Crux ? :?
Yeah, he means Crux.
"Technically, you would only need one time traveler convention."
Offline
I'm not sure that Arch originated from Crux but there are definitely similarities...
both use devfs, both have a package manager and a ports-type system. In Arch you don't necessarily need to build packages as they are available via pacman, in crux there aren't so many packages so you need to build a lot more of your own. The Crux ports system is much like ABS in that you sync with a 'tree' and then build packages to install via the package manager. Crux also uses rc.conf from where you can load modules and start daemons, etc.
Both are lightweight and very well-organised - I personally don't see a hell of a lot of difference, but crux seems to require more input and setting-up than Arch would. The people on IRC are very helpful, but of course nothing like the Arch community!
Offline
I agree with robot5x...
but for me I'm happy with Arch
Mr Green...
Mr Green
Offline
Sarah31 likes Crux better, what more can I say?
I understand that the package managment system for Crux is more community driven and thus less standardized. No doubt Sarah will tell me I'm wrong.
Arch *is* indeed based on Crux.
Dusty
Offline
Pages: 1