what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

sm0Ken · 2008-09-22 22:54:08

... like is this from Debian? or is it from RedHat/fedora? or Slackware?

or is it a unique, from-scratch collection?

inquiring minds wanna know

finferflu · 2008-09-22 23:04:07

Arch Linux is an independently developed i686/x86-64 optimized community distribution, based on a rolling-release package model and targeted at competent GNU/Linux users. Development focuses on a balance of minimalism, elegance, code correctness and modernity. Version 0.1 (Homer) was released March 11, 2002.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux

Apart from that, the original developer was inspired by CRUX, but Arch itself was written from scratch.

* Q: Is Arch Based on CRUX?
* A: No. Arch is independently developed, was built from scratch and is not based on any other GNU/Linux distribution.
Before creating Arch, Judd Vinet admired and used CRUX, a minimalist distro created by Per Lidén. Originally inspired by ideas in common with CRUX, Arch was built from scratch, and pacman was then coded in C. The 2 share some guiding principles; for instance, both are architecture optimized, minimalist and K.I.S.S. Both ship with ports-like systems, use *BSD-style init systems and, (like *BSD), both provide a minimal base environment to build upon. Arch features pacman, which handles binary system package management and works seamlessly with ABS, the Arch ports-like system. CRUX uses a system called prt-get, which, in combination with its own ports system, handles dependency resolution, but builds all packages from source, (though the CRUX base installation is i686 binary). Arch officially supports x86-64 and i686, whereas CRUX is i686 only. Arch features a large array of binary package repositories as well as the AUR.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … ch_vs_CRUX

sm0Ken · 2008-09-23 04:54:17

AHA, thanks.

Actually, I haven't tried ARCH yet but just came across an ARCH derivative called "faunOS". I downloaded the pendrive version, used it a few times and I like what I see. I was curious as to its ancestry which led me to ARCH..

I've used Linux for 13 yrs; now primarily using RHEL, SuSE, & BSDs on the workplace boxes, Fedora on my laptop, plus Debian, CentOS, on the home desktops. I am not totally satisfied with any current distro yet, so I am out there looking, trying out other ones. I am a functional minimalist. I have low regard for KDE/Gnome desktops: too bloated. I prefer the old lightweight desktops like FVWM, windowmaker.

Korey Kaczynski · 2008-09-23 04:57:36

You'll probably love Arch. Honestly, Arch is the only distro I've been satisfied with.

Stythys · 2008-09-23 05:03:06

arch is teh best!!!

ornitorrincos · 2008-09-23 09:26:14

everybody knows arch derives from ark linux that's why so many people confuse them

joke, it just takes concepts from some places and puts all of them under the same distro (heh, as the platypus!)

Last edited by ornitorrincos (2008-09-23 09:27:11)

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-23 09:44:44

I thought Arch was derived from Ubuntu.

cwjiof · 2008-09-23 10:33:57

Korey Kaczynski wrote:

You'll probably love Arch. Honestly, Arch is the only distro I've been satisfied with.

Yes, I really agree with you, especially for my poor computer.

haxit · 2008-09-23 11:45:10

Lord Illidan wrote:

I thought Arch was derived from Ubuntu.

Lol, srsly?

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-23 18:38:22

haxit wrote:

Lord Illidan wrote:
I thought Arch was derived from Ubuntu.
Lol, srsly?

Come on, everyone knows Arch is derived from Ubuntu! Pacman is just apt-get with a different name and different options. And the murky stuff under the hood is Ubuntu, too

Ok, I actually always knew that Arch is not an Ubuntu derivation, but it makes me laugh to see threads like this when it's in a prominent position on the wiki.

And if you had to ask me to compare the 2 distros, hmm, personally, I think Ubuntu is easier to install and use out of the box than Arch (if you're a linux n00b, that is), but if you, like me, and most of the ppl on this forum, have a bit of linux experience, and not afraid to do some RTFM-ing, then Arch is excellent.

Cosay · 2008-09-24 16:38:11

Lord Illidan wrote:

Come on, everyone knows Arch is derived from Ubuntu! Pacman is just apt-get with a different name and different options. And the murky stuff under the hood is Ubuntu, too

Dude, that actually made me laugh!

slackhack · 2008-09-24 16:59:12

sm0Ken wrote:

AHA, thanks.
Actually, I haven't tried ARCH yet but just came across an ARCH derivative called "faunOS". I downloaded the pendrive version, used it a few times and I like what I see. I was curious as to its ancestry which led me to ARCH..
I've used Linux for 13 yrs; now primarily using RHEL, SuSE, & BSDs on the workplace boxes, Fedora on my laptop, plus Debian, CentOS, on the home desktops. I am not totally satisfied with any current distro yet, so I am out there looking, trying out other ones. I am a functional minimalist. I have low regard for KDE/Gnome desktops: too bloated. I prefer the old lightweight desktops like FVWM, windowmaker.

You really need to try Arch -- it's custom made for someone like you.

Well - you'll make it custom yourself, but you know what I mean.

piotroxp · 2009-02-27 08:45:33

arch is soooo porno

jb · 2009-02-27 13:20:17

Stythys wrote:

arch is teh best!!!

You know we have scripts to automate that message, right?

will1911a1 · 2009-02-27 13:41:43

Lord Illidan wrote:

I thought Arch was derived from Ubuntu.

Everyone knows that.

litemotiv · 2009-02-27 14:23:00

Lord Illidan wrote:

Come on, everyone knows Arch is derived from Ubuntu! Pacman is just apt-get with a different name and different options. And the murky stuff under the hood is Ubuntu, too.

yea but i like the default ubuntu theme better though, that all-black background with white letters that arch uses is really ugly!

jelly · 2009-02-27 14:41:21

litemotiv wrote:

Lord Illidan wrote:
Come on, everyone knows Arch is derived from Ubuntu! Pacman is just apt-get with a different name and different options. And the murky stuff under the hood is Ubuntu, too.
yea but i like the default ubuntu theme better though, that all-black background with white letters that arch uses is really ugly!

Nooo the ubuntu brown theme is so nice, i can shit on it

Kilz · 2009-02-28 14:06:00

litemotiv wrote:

Lord Illidan wrote:
Come on, everyone knows Arch is derived from Ubuntu! Pacman is just apt-get with a different name and different options. And the murky stuff under the hood is Ubuntu, too.
yea but i like the default ubuntu theme better though, that all-black background with white letters that arch uses is really ugly!

I must be missing something then. The default gnome background is green on my arch install.

litemotiv · 2009-02-28 14:26:48

Kilz wrote:

I must be missing something then. The default gnome background is green on my arch install.

http://www.raiden.net/images/articles/a … mage59.JPG

na12 · 2009-02-28 14:31:18

Kilz wrote:

litemotiv wrote:
Lord Illidan wrote:
Come on, everyone knows Arch is derived from Ubuntu! Pacman is just apt-get with a different name and different options. And the murky stuff under the hood is Ubuntu, too.
yea but i like the default ubuntu theme better though, that all-black background with white letters that arch uses is really ugly!
I must be missing something then. The default gnome background is green on my arch install.

He meant before you install gnome

EDIT: ups,I am too late

Last edited by na12 (2009-02-28 14:33:56)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-09-22 22:54:08

what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#2 2008-09-22 23:04:07

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#3 2008-09-23 04:54:17

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#4 2008-09-23 04:57:36

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#5 2008-09-23 05:03:06

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#6 2008-09-23 09:26:14

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#7 2008-09-23 09:44:44

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#8 2008-09-23 10:33:57

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#9 2008-09-23 11:45:10

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#10 2008-09-23 18:38:22

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#11 2008-09-24 16:38:11

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#12 2008-09-24 16:59:12

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#13 2009-02-27 08:45:33

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#14 2009-02-27 13:20:17

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#15 2009-02-27 13:41:43

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#16 2009-02-27 14:23:00

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#17 2009-02-27 14:41:21

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#18 2009-02-28 14:06:00

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#19 2009-02-28 14:26:48

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

#20 2009-02-28 14:31:18

Re: what Linux distro did ARCHlinux derive from?

Board footer