Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Archlinux vs Sid

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!
Message
Author
soaringowl2145
Posts: 33
Joined: 2017-01-26 14:24

Re: Archlinux vs Sid

#21 Post by soaringowl2145 »

Thanks for the responses!

alex.theoto
Posts: 13
Joined: 2014-12-17 16:50

Re: Archlinux vs Sid

#22 Post by alex.theoto »

I use Archlinux for more than 3 years with no problems and I can say it is very good distro.
Years ago I used Debian stable but because the outdated packages I tested the testing and unstable branch but at that time, I didn't understand how 'dangerous' dist-upgrade can be if you don't know what is going on. So after destroying my system, I returned to stable.

Right know, I use both Arch and sid on different computers and I can say they both works ok.
You have to be careful in dist-upgrade, reading which packages will mark as 'auto-remove'. There are times that it is better to only upgrade and wait 1-2 days so the dist-upgrade dependencies will set properly. (maybe I'm wrong here)
Right know I use 'apt upgrade' since this command looks better for my upgrades, and when there are non-upgraded packages, I use dist-upgrade with caution by reading which new package will install and which will mark as 'auto-remove'.

On the other hand, Arch is very good because their wiki is perfect and updated (something that debian doesn't have in their wiki site) and their forum is very active (but you have to know what is going on on your system).

In both cases, the end user MUST have the knowledge to fix their system and to know how they setup their system. That said, because when your system will brake, you are the one with broken system and you have to find the solution.

Last note, everything depends from the installed packages and their dependencies. For example, if you use gnome or kde, these desktops change their packages more frequent and in my experience they are more unstable than Debian stable. The same goes for Arch too, so I use simple desktops.

Edit: Arch has more updated packages than sid.

Wheelerof4te
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Archlinux vs Sid

#23 Post by Wheelerof4te »

Another solid choice if you want an Arch-based distro is Manjaro. It's a lot easier to install than Arch, and it's reasonably up to date.

User avatar
HuangLao
Posts: 485
Joined: 2015-01-27 01:31
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Archlinux vs Sid

#24 Post by HuangLao »

Wheelerof4te wrote:Another solid choice if you want an Arch-based distro is Manjaro. It's a lot easier to install than Arch, and it's reasonably up to date.
might want to reconsider Manjaro....they have their own set of problems:
http://allanmcrae.com/2013/01/manjaro-l ... stability/
http://allanmcrae.com/2013/10/compariso ... -handling/

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Manjaro- ... 8151.shtml
and it happened again a year later
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments ... red_again/

Wheelerof4te
Posts: 1454
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Archlinux vs Sid

#25 Post by Wheelerof4te »

^That's too bad. I knew there has to be something wrong with them. Just felt too good to be true when Manjaro OTB recognized my Broadcom Wi-Fi chip.

It's back to Debian as my fallback OS then. Currently chugging on Windows 10. Felt bad about erasing it since it has personal sentimental value.

Post Reply