Arch linux?

[ArconsII]

I was told Arch Linux is better than Debian and I should switch to it. What are the major differences? Is there any reason to do so?

[4D696B65]

I was told that debian is better than Arch.

[mharrison]

I would suggest wording your question a bit differently as to avoid starting an Arch vs Debian flame war.

Reading up on the Arch website as well as the Debian website might help to answer your general question.

As for should you try it....that is up to you. If you like Debian, stick with it. If you want to test Arch out, I suggest a virtual machine to play around with first.

[Hexley]

The major difference is that with Arch you don't get a graphical interface until you install one..
It's like installing debian base and nothing more.. Then there is other pros/cons but that's up to be your oppinion.

[Mr James]

Arch is better than Sid as a cutting edge rolling release type OS because it is designed to be one. It is also better than testing perhaps as the packages are newer and released as soon as they are stable upstream. Also, there is no periods of upgrade silence as Arch has no feature freeze.
However, as a stable OS suitable for servers and/or household desktops machine where the user wants to use his machine as apposed to spending most of his time fiddling with and fixing it, Debian Stable is the best most professional distro history has seen yet.

[eric1959]

Debian Stable is the best most professional distro history has seen yet.

[jongkind]

I used Arch for over a year. I liked it. I stopped using it though, the main reason is that Arch does not have package signing, this is a security risk.

[confuseling]

I gave Arch a spin for a bit, and quite like it. It has a couple of policies that I don't really agree with - which isn't to say they're bad, just that they aren't what I'm looking for.

The first is to refuse to patch anything except where absolutely necessary to make it build. I think this is really just making a virtue of a necessity - they're still a fairly small outfit, and I doubt they have enough developers to do much more than that. Still, I'm more of a pragmatist; nothing wrong with striving for an ideal, but you have to make the system usable to promote it. Obsessing about upstream purity, like obsessing about free software compliance, becomes counter-productive beyond a certain level. If patching something improves it in the minds of 99% of your users, and it's an easy patch to apply, I see no problem.

Secondly, they don't believe in automatically updating configuration files. Automatic configuration can be taken too far, but I like the Debian model better - tell the user there's a new configuration, and let them compare and decide.

I just got the feeling sometimes that they like putting up barriers to keep the riff-raff out. I want a distro designed for use, not as a training exercise.

[kedaha]

I was told Arch Linux is better than Debian and I should switch to it. What are the major differences? Is there any reason to do so?

You may be interested to read the comparison of Arch with Debian here.

[AnimeHendrix]

Q: How do you know someone is using Arch Linux?

A: They'll tell you.

After seeing the glowing evangelism across the internet for this distribution, I decided to give it a go. At first, I was really impressed.

Then everything started breaking around me. It was at this time I realized I didn't want a complete rolling release distribution. In fact, I don't think anyone does. You want the userland applications to be updated. Things like Firefox, Libreoffice, and the like. But the kernel? glibc? These should be stable. That combined with the INCREDIBLE security risk that is the AUR and the lack of GPG signing and general polish left me longing for stable + backports.

For everything else, there's

Code: Select all

./configure --prefix=/usr/local --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/var
make
su -c 'make install'


[Mr James]

Q: How do you know someone is using Arch Linux?

A: They'll tell you.

Very true.

[0utTh3re]

No linux is inherently better than any other.

Each flavor/distribution/brand is, to a certain extent, only the reflection of a philosophy and at the end of the day, all of the distros pretty much do the same thing.

Granted, the process by which this is accomplished will differ greatly depending on the one’s familiarity with computing in general, linux in general and the particular distro itself.

Is Arch better than Debian? Unfortunately there is not an objective answer to this.

Basically, if the desired computing experience is unknown, then stick with what was first learned, install virtual-box (or something similar) and get hands on experience with whichever OS is fancied and be empowered to make an informed decision based on the needs of the intended experience.

HTH

[jollysnowman]

I've been using Arch since November or so and haven't had any problems that I couldn't fix after reading a page in their wiki or browsing the forums. I haven't experienced any updates that broke either of the two computers I installed it on, one of which acts as a Minecraft/Samba/email server.

Their approach to linux is quite different from Debian's, and both have their own strengths and weaknesses. I like that in Arch, all configuration is my responsibility, and creating init scripts is a little easier and more straightforward.

[servingwater]

Then everything started breaking around me. It was at this time I realized I didn't want a complete rolling release distribution. In fact, I don't think anyone does. You want the userland applications to be updated. Things like Firefox, Libreoffice, and the like. But the kernel? glibc? These should be stable. That combined with the INCREDIBLE security risk that is the AUR and the lack of GPG signing and general polish left me longing for stable + backports.

As much as I like the concept of rolling release that is a very good point.
However I can't speak for Arch but can't you just blacklist vital parts like these?

[Loafers]

What are the major differences?

Rolling release, optimized for i686 only, and bleeding edge.

Is there any reason to do so?

You have to ask yourself the following:
1) Do I REALLY need the greatest and latest version of X?
2) When something breaks, do I have the time/patience to fix it?

If you answered no, then stick with Debian. Else, give Arch a shot; It's a pretty neat distro.

Personally, I used Arch primarily for about a year and had a mixed experience. I think what drove me away was some very minor, but annoying bugs which I didn't have the patience for. The package management is pretty good, maybe not as sophisticated as apt, but the syntax is definitely more concise and simpler.

In terms of speed, I can't really say much except that Debian base boots up faster than Arch and applications are more or less the same speed. Maybe one would notice the difference when doing some serious computing...

Anyway, the best way to know for sure is to try out Arch yourself.

As much as I like the concept of rolling release that is a very good point.
However I can't speak for Arch but can't you just blacklist vital parts like these?

You mean blacklisting package upgrades? Yeah you can do that. Just add the package name to the pacman.conf do not upgrade section iirc.