Page 1 of 2
Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 00:16
by soaringowl2145
I am considering running Debian Sid. I have already read some reasons why some consider Arch to be better, but now I am looking for reasons why Sid might be better.
Can someone that runs Sid, or anyone else please tell me the advantages of using Sid over Arch?
Thanks in advance.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 00:38
by dasein
Others' opinions cannot possibly substitute for your own judgment.
Run each for a month. Pick whichever you prefer. "Problem" solved.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 01:19
by MALsPa
One month of using one or the other might not be enough (my opinion). More important, perhaps, is to carefully consider what Sid is for, and what Arch is.
Regarding "sid" (aka "unstable"):
[...] Most of the development work that is done in Debian, is uploaded to this distribution. This distribution will never get released; instead, packages from it will propagate into testing and then into a real release.
Please note that security updates for "unstable" distribution are not managed by the security team. Hence, "unstable" does not get security updates in a timely manner. [...]
"sid" is subject to massive changes and in-place library updates. This can result in a very "unstable" system which contains packages that cannot be installed due to missing libraries, dependencies that cannot be fulfilled etc. Use it at your own risk!
https://www.debian.org/releases/sid/
That's quite different from what Arch is all about, in the sense that sid is part of the development process that leads to Debian Stable, while Arch is a rolling-release distribution -- there is no "Arch Stable."
Not sure if any of that helps. If there are any "advantages" of one over the other, I think that depends on what the individual user thinks would be best for her or him after the differences between the two distributions are considered. Me, I prefer to run Stable, and to also run Arch, but I pass on Sid.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 02:12
by Bulkley
The nature of the opening post suggests that you should probably not run either. Sid is called Unstable for a reason; it is not a cutting edge distro for the average user. I haven't run Arch but I understand that it requires a level of knowledge above the average user. I could be corrected on that.
The best way to answer your question is to try various distros in a VM setup.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 02:35
by dasein
MALsPa wrote:One month of using one or the other might not be enough (my opinion).
Opinions vary, of course. A month with Arch was adequate for me to realize that it wasn't the distro for me. At least in my experience, the most salient differences between any two distros don't take months/years to discern.
Others' mileage will vary, obviously.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 03:23
by MALsPa
dasein wrote:MALsPa wrote:One month of using one or the other might not be enough (my opinion).
Opinions vary, of course. A month with Arch was adequate for me to realize that it wasn't the distro for me. At least in my experience, the most salient differences between any two distros don't take months/years to discern.
Others' mileage will vary, obviously.
All true. Generally, I like to see how things go over a longer period of time, but that isn't always the case, even with me. In some cases, I've needed less than a week. Arch, for me, seems like I came to appreciate a lot more as the months turned into years. I've never run Sid, and I ran Siduction for like a month or two before I dropped it. As dasein wrote, "Others' opinions cannot possibly substitute for your own judgment." That's really the bottom line, but I thought I'd take a stab at trying to offer a little help to the OP. Probably didn't help much.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 08:53
by kedaha
I run a quite a few machines using Debian stable at home and at work but I triple boot stable, testing and sid on my home computer in order to keep abreast of development. I have never used Archlinux.
With regard to sid, nothing better in my view than to quote from Osamu Aoki's
Debian Reference:
2.1.3. Life with eternal upgrades
Despite my warnings above, I know many readers of this document wish to run the testing or unstable suites of Debian as their main system for self-administered Desktop environments. This is because they work very well, are updated frequently, and offer the latest features.
Caution
For your production server, the stable suite with the security updates is recommended. The same can be said for desktop PCs on which you can spend limited administration efforts, e.g. for your mother's PC.
It takes no more than simply setting the distribution string in the "/etc/apt/sources.list" to the suite name: "testing" or "unstable"; or the codename: "buster" or "sid". This makes you live the life of eternal upgrades.
The use of testing or unstable is a lot of fun but comes with some risks. Even though the unstable suite of the Debian system looks very stable for most of the times, there have been some package problems on the testing and unstable suite of the Debian system and a few of them were not so trivial to resolve. It may be quite painful for you. Sometimes, you may have a broken package or missing functionality for a few weeks.
If you run sid then, while not entirely on your own, you may not receive much help from other sid users but are rather expected to resolve broken packages or missing functionality yourself.
Conclusion: It would be better to run Archlinux because it's likely you'll obtain better support in the form of forum posts and so on from like-minded users. Sid and testing really are stages in the ongoing system aiming at successive stable releases and not alternative "cutting-edge distros" for
Shiny_New_Stuff.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 11:04
by dasein
kedaha wrote:Conclusion: It would be better to run Archlinux because it's likely you'll obtain better support in the form of forum posts and so on from like-minded users.
Really good point.
kedaha wrote:Sid and testing really are stages in the ongoing system aiming at successive stable releases and not alternative "cutting-edge distros" for Shiny_New_Stuff.
Even better point, succinctly phrased.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 13:27
by Ardouos
Bulkley wrote:The nature of the opening post suggests that you should probably not run either.
I concur. Bleeding edge systems require users time to maintain it and find their own answers. The communities generally prefer that the user does their own research before coming to a conclusion to what is suited for them. Even so, they should be able to produce enough information and evidence to show that they actually have done any research with facts and details rather than rush straight to the question hoping for a quick answer that will presumably suit them.
I think this thread has run its course with the following backing of:
Daesin wrote:Run each for a month. Pick whichever you prefer. "Problem" solved.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 15:18
by phenest
Ardouos wrote:I think this thread has run its course with the following backing of:
Daesin wrote:Run each for a month. Pick whichever you prefer. "Problem" solved.
I think this is the better conclusion to this thread:
Bulkley wrote:The nature of the opening post suggests that you should probably not run either.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 15:29
by Danielsan
Bulkley wrote:The nature of the opening post suggests that you should probably not run either.
Yep and for that reason, imo, we must always suggesting to use any alternative to Debian...
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 15:55
by acewiza
Certainly no expert here, but I have run a plethora distributions both personally and professionally over the past couple of decades including a 6-month Sid experience during the Jessie era. There will always be some drawback to ANY disastro (not a typo!) in the Linux realm, so I will only offer my evaluation criteria, which is really quite simple. I measure that factor in what I'll call for lack of a better term, the "frustration count." If after some arbitrary length of time, the system returns misbehavior episodes exceeding my tolerance level, it gets dumped. Having said that, the only tangible advice I can offer is that the hardware always seems to return to Debian stable after some OS misadventure. Sometimes it takes longer than others, but that is the consistent pattern I've seen over the years.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 17:09
by Wheelerof4te
In my humble experience, Debian Stable is both easy to install and maintain. That's why you should listen dasein's advice and stick to Stable if you choose Debian.
Sid right now is not a good idea right after new Stable release. I don't know about Arch, got used to .deb and stayed with .deb.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-19 23:05
by emariz
Use Aptitude to build a complete Debian system from a minimal base (say, the standard package group or less), then install Arch (you will start from a similar, minimal base and use PacMan.) Choose the one package manager which suits you better, for there is no comparison between them. Everything you do to maintain your rolling system will depend on the robustness and the versatility of the core you chose.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-20 03:16
by soaringowl2145
Wheelerof4te wrote:
Sid right now is not a good idea right after new Stable release. I don't know about Arch, got used to .deb and stayed with .deb.
Once the first point release for Stretch is released, would that be a good time to do the upgrade? Also can you please explain why Sid is not a good idea right after a major release?
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-20 03:25
by alan stone
When you stop
comparing what is right here and now with what you wish were, you can begin to enjoy what is.
- Cheri Huber
Enjoy both and choose.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-20 07:18
by Wheelerof4te
soaringowl2145 wrote:Wheelerof4te wrote:
Sid right now is not a good idea right after new Stable release. I don't know about Arch, got used to .deb and stayed with .deb.
Once the first point release for Stretch is released, would that be a good time to do the upgrade? Also can you please explain why Sid is not a good idea right after a major release?
https://www.debian.org/releases/sid/
This distribution will never get released; instead, packages from it will propagate into testing and then into a real release.
A lot of packages have been put on hold in order to focus on Stretch's release. Now all those packages will migrate for the upgrades. Meaning, more chances for something to break. As for your first question, the answer is "not really".
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-20 11:27
by dasein
soaringowl2145 wrote:Once the first point release for Stretch is released, would that be a good time to do the upgrade?
Sid is NOT an "upgrade." As has already been explained to you, it's a different beast entirely. Sid is about bug-hunting, not ShinyNewShit.
soaringowl2145 wrote: Also can you please explain why Sid is not a good idea right after a major release?
It's an artifact of Debian's release model. The development branches are always buggiest on either side of a freeze. The Wiki has more detail.
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-21 21:38
by pcalvert
Although I have not used it (yet), I believe that
Void Linux is worthy of consideration. I only mention that because it may suit your needs, and there's a good chance that you weren't aware of it (until now).
Phil
Re: Archlinux vs Sid
Posted: 2017-06-22 09:03
by Nili
I'll use Arch Linux for the bleeding edge, Debian for the stability. Both great selections for their different goals.