Ubuntu vs. Arch

ganja_guru · 2005-07-02 20:10:12

ok this is not a which is better discussion, but rather thinks i like in ubuntu which im not very sure how to get in arch

Pros - Ubuntu Hoary .... (love that name)

1. out of the box auto mounting...works even in kde(ive installed kde packages)...they dont seem to be using ivman/submount) does anyone have any idea what theyre using?..cause mounting seems much more refined than ivman(and no xml files,dbus,hal deps)

2. Xine - my favourite player, has crap menu's in arch ...the fonts are large and ugly with an aliased look...not so in ubuntu, the menu fonts are really clean and small...ive tried searching and am not sure where exactly to change this option? can anyone help me with that

3. Ubuntu for AMD64 - really really fast..seriously.

4. ubuntu with gnome looks *really* refined. Kubuntu looks likes crap

Cons:

1. a very large number of annoying dependencies...ubuntu seems to split packages like kde into kde-devel and related stuff, making every small program u need to install thru apt-get download a few million dependencies..it doesnt take long, but is annoying nevertheless..

2. gcc and automake not installed by default..wtf?

3. no PACMAN!!!!!!

overall its a very nice distribution...im still wondering how these guys afford to send pressed cd's free all over the world..they dont ahve an eneterprise edition either..

thanks for your time...ill post if i can think of anything else to say..please help me out with my questions if possible..

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-07-02 20:34:14

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be a discussion about. Are we actually comparing the +/- of Arch/Ubuntu?

I can tell you a few things I don't like about Hoary:

1. the grub automagic configuration. I've noticed a small bug in that--I don't know if I'm the only one that gets this problem, but i submitted a bug for it. I have two hard drives, one EIDE and one SATA. If I try to put one operating system on SATA and one on EIDE, it confuses my two drives and puts the wrong numbers there. For instance, say I was dual booting windows(hd0) and ubuntu(hd1) (just an example)--it would but ubuntu as hd0 and windows as hd1. It happens everytime--god bless backups.

This brings me to something that I don't particularly like in the arch installer. If I already have grub installed and I go into the arch installer, and opt not to install grub again, it takes my /boot/grub/menu.lst and clears it out, so I have nothing. Again, god bless backups.

2. Millions of useless menus in gnome. I don't know why I hate this but I do.

3. ubuntu apt repositories. It would be okay if I could remember to run apt-get update.

4. I've noticed in both (K)Ubuntu's that a lot of the utility type programs crash unexpectedly. For example the user management program in kubuntu almost always crashed when I tried to save changes.

I guess thats it. I'm not saying Ubuntu wasn't a pleasant experience, because it was. There are just a few things that I don't like about it, which is the same for any distro (oddly except for arch (IMO), I can't think of anything I want different about it, besides a few little things in the installer).

Duke · 2005-07-02 21:09:05

I don't see why Kubuntu looking like crap is a good thing... I'd personally say it's a con, since I do actually enjoy using KDE. As for automounting, KDE with dbus and hal kinda gets rid of the need to automount for me, but maybe that's just me.

jerem · 2005-07-02 22:21:06

Oh stop those stupid comparisons.

Both are powerful distros.

Ubuntu is more polished than Arch, but Arch is faster and more bleeding-edge.

And apt-get is as(more?) powerful as pacman.

It's just a matter of taste.

Ubuntu is more of a everyday desktop distro and Arch is more of a power-user distro.

I personnally use Ubuntu as an all-purpose distro, starting with the base (server) install and selectively installing additionnal software.

By the way, stop comparing distros with stupid things like automounting. You can setup every distro to do this. It's just a matter of your skills being good enough to do that.

sarah31 · 2005-07-02 22:26:59

Never had installer grub issues but then again when I used linux the goal was not to use the windows method of fixing issues...reinstalling. As far as I am concerned if an installer works the first time you install a distro and can boot then it has done its job. It doesn't need to be perfect, and everyone knows that there is no perfect installer in linux, or fancy either.

I have never used nor never would use ubuntu. I have all the respect in the world for Debian based distros but they are not for me. They are too controlling and hard to personalize and keep the personalizations.

Apt is a great front end for the debian package manager but the problem I always had is that the dependecies were overwhelming and the damn splitting of packages into dev and not dev. One day when doing some clean-up on my Libranet (libracrap) system I wanted to remove one SMALL package and because of its gnome dependencies I was going to lose a functional gnome DE. It was the last straw.

Debian system are too kludgey and too far behind the time.

Arch on the other hand light weight and easy to manage once you realize that using linux requires you to get your hands dirty sometimes (or alot). The packages (for the most part) have the base dependencies and do not force you to suck on MB's of pointless packages you will never use or for features you may never use, want, or thazt even function.

Arch has its problems such as package stability, bouts of slow develpment and package maintenance, and so forth but it does deliver what it sets out to do. It ain't perfect because no distro is and no OS is, in general.

cdk · 2005-07-02 22:46:11

i happen to like both distros however i dont use arch very much anymore. I found arch a great disro and it will always have a place in my heart but i wanted a larger repo. Constant dev. Ubuntu isnt perfect but if you enable all of the repos and then add the backports i find it as bleeding edge as arch. Im always running the latest kernel and libs. Plus i really like the way ubuntu handles the setting up wifi. It made my netgear card work right out of the box which i was never able to get to work in arch (i guess im not skilled enough). Sometimes i do get frustrated with apt but it is possible to not install all of the dep if you want too. You can do it manually. Ifs def not as fast as arch but then again not many things are. I use archie everyday with my laptop as its my favorite live CD but thats about all the arch i get now a days.

I think when arch developes a bit more and certain things like repos and package stability get ironed out i start using it again. But as of now ubuntu just offers 10x the features arch does.

cheers,
CDK

p.s. i know that arch is supposed to be stripped down and thats why many of you love it!

dtw · 2005-07-02 23:21:28

right - i'm locking this thread for several reasons:

1) It has a stupid title which does not relate to the content - i'm sick to death of that

2) 1 is such an excellent reason i won't bother with the rest

If you want to know how Ubuntu does things a certain way just ask them! Ask on their boards! All you are doing here is posting total and utter flame bait and it is utterly without purpose or point - if you really want to know what you want to know you CAN post these as actual questions.

As a forum adviser I really have better things to do with my time than follow this type of thing once a month to see when, not if, it will turn into a flame war.

For goodness sake PLEASE can we simply avoid making posts that are going to start flame wars!

Arch Linux

#1 2005-07-02 20:10:12

Ubuntu vs. Arch

#2 2005-07-02 20:34:14

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch

#3 2005-07-02 21:09:05

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch

#4 2005-07-02 22:21:06

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch

#5 2005-07-02 22:26:59

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch

#6 2005-07-02 22:46:11

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch

#7 2005-07-02 23:21:28

Re: Ubuntu vs. Arch

Board footer