Ditching Ubuntu, any suggestions ?

[TheNosh]

When I have finally have time, I'm planning to ditch Ubuntu for another distro. I'm looking to find something relatively light and fast running Gnome or Xfce. It also needs decent repositories and preferably it should be one with a rolling release cycle but that's not to important. I'm open to all sugestions, be they Linux, BSD, or something I haven't heard of as long as they're backed up with reasons.


Currently I'm leaning towards Arch.

[koshatnik]

Slackware.

[TheNosh]

Slackware.

thank you for the quick reply, but could you please give some explanation for you're suggestion.

[Sealbhach]

Arch has got lots of fans, takes a bit more effort to set it up but the package manager is top class.

.

[zipperback]

May I please ask you WHY you want to switch?

Is there a feature that you don't like? Or is there something that you need that Ubuntu doesn't have for you?

Perhaps if we knew why you want to switch, then we could perhaps offer some solutions which will help you better meet your needs.

- zipperback
:popcorn:

[TheNosh]

Arch has got lots of fans, takes a bit more effort to set it up but the package manager is top class.

.

thats what i've heard which is why it's the option i'm currently leaning towards, i don't really mind the setup effort thing.

[koshatnik]

thank you for the quick reply, but could you please give some explanation for you're suggestion.


Err... I like it. :)

Well, I think that its kind of respectful to give it at least a go once in your linux life. Its the oldest distro of linux still being maintained, Patrick is a top bloke, it has a massively helpful community, you can make it as skinny or as heavy as you like, and no linux distro I have used (from about 24 or so to date) has been faster or more stable than slackware.

I've yet to try Arch so can't comment. Frankly, Slackware is a great hobby OS.

Debian distro's for me though, are the way forward if you just want something to work with no dicking about. I love Ubuntu for that. But I just think you can't call yourself a true linux-head until you've a) run slackware, b) done a full Gentoo build and install

I've not done b) yet as I still have a life.

[gn2]

I'm planning to ditch Ubuntu for another distro.

Why?
Do you have any problems running Ubuntu, or are you just bored and looking for something new?

[bodyharvester]

this thread is a breath of fresh air, were discussing all the possibilities of alternatives, imagine what choices youd have with Windows :D

#1 - id suggest macpup, not as a main os, but its different enough to hold your interest for a while

#2 - or you could just close your eyes and buy a linux magazine and see what distro it gives you :D

god i love this kind of freedom, it makes me giddy

[TheNosh]

May I please ask you WHY you want to switch?

Is there a feature that you don't like? Or is there something that you need that Ubuntu doesn't have for you?

Perhaps if we knew why you want to switch, then we could perhaps offer some solutions which will help you better meet your needs.

- zipperback
:popcorn:

Why?
Do you have any problems running Ubuntu, or are you just bored and looking for something new?


in oder of importance it's as follows:

1) find something lighter on resources. --if my hardware can do most of the things it does now, only faster, why shouldn't it?

2) rolling release. --the six month schedule is a tad annoying, but i like having new stuff.

3) i've gotten bored --may as well try something new then

[TheNosh]

#1 - id suggest macpup, not as a main os, but its different enough to hold your interest for a while

i already try just about every puplet i can get my hands on, so i'm familiar with macpup. puppy was my first distro and i still love it.

#2 - or you could just close your eyes and buy a linux magazine and see what distro it gives you :D



i'm looking for more of a reasoned decision than a random one, that's why i started this thread.

[gn2]

in oder of importance it's as follows:

1) find something lighter on resources. --if my hardware can do most of the things it does now, only faster, why shouldn't it?

2) rolling release. --the six month schedule is a tad annoying, but i like having new stuff.

3) i've gotten bored --may as well try something new then

1: The difference between Ubuntu and any other distro on most hardware would be so negligible as to make no appreciable difference.

2: LTS means you don't have to swap every six months, and newer isn't always better

3: Only valid point, if you want a change, just go for it

Arch gets good reviews (by the people who like it), but it's not really anything special.

[benj1]

crunchbang (http://crunchbanglinux.org/)

based on ubuntu so got all the repos.
based on open box so lightweight.
isn't brown :)

just started using it myself, and really like it

not rolling release, but you cant have everything

[Stevie78]

Xubuntu isnt brown either and lightweight :)

I planning doing the same as you actually. Ive got an oldish laptop which Im going to use as a guinea pig for other lightweight distros.

Im gonna try both Xubuntu and Crunchbang. :popcorn:

[TheNosh]

1: The difference between Ubuntu and any other distro on most hardware would be so negligible as to make no appreciable difference.
i've heard different things from different people regarding that issue, but different distros do have different minimum requirements, and i know for a fact that puppy is much faster than Ubuntu on all hardware i've used it on (even with compiz), it's just out of the running due small repos and less features.

2: LTS means you don't have to swap every six months, and newer isn't always better
newer is better in many cases though. and the last Ubuntu LTS doesn't have EXT4 support, witch in my experience is a good feature.

3: Only valid point, if you want a change, just go for it
i feel that my other two points were valid, that's why i posted them.

Arch gets good reviews (by the people who like it), but it's not really anything special.

just out of curiosity, have you personally used arch?

[benj1]

Xubuntu isnt brown either and lightweight :)

I planning doing the same as you actually. Ive got an oldish laptop which Im going to use as a guinea pig for other lightweight distros.

Im gonna try both Xubuntu and Crunchbang. :popcorn:

neither is kubuntu but anyway.
xubuntu isn't very light, couldn't tell the difference between xubuntu and ubuntu on my old 350mhz 196mb ram computer

[gn2]

just out of curiosity, have you personally used arch?

Yes.

[TheNosh]

Xubuntu isnt brown either and lightweight :)

I planning doing the same as you actually. Ive got an oldish laptop which Im going to use as a guinea pig for other lightweight distros.

Im gonna try both Xubuntu and Crunchbang. :popcorn:

i already have Xfce and Openbox (and LXDE, e17, e16, KDE, and fluxbox for that matter). btw, you don't need different hardware or even a different partition for that. however i've heard crunchbang has gone further than just replacing gnome with openbox to make it faster, so that may warrant a separate partition or computer.


xubuntu isn't very light, couldn't tell the difference between xubuntu and ubuntu on my old 350mhz 196mb ram computer
^^also this is very very true

[benj1]

i already have Xfce and Openbox. btw, you don't need different hardware or even a different partition for that. however i've heard crunchbang has gone further than just replacing gnome with openbox to make it faster, so that may warrant a separate partition or computer.

its based on an ubuntu base install (i think theres a script to install crunchbang from the ubuntu alternate install cd)
so the differences are in the apps.
it is quicker, boot time and ram are halved for me.
it does have its own repo, but its very small

[pookiebear]

You want faster than DSL fast? SLitaz. good repositories too. It is faster than puppy. Might still want to keep a puppy and ubuntu partition. 30mb download to test it. I like it on my old computers.

[Bearded-flower]

I have tried plenty of distros and time after time after time you know what happens? i come back to ubuntu, its just at this date and time they have nailed everything, its just... great.
i have tried arch, it was nice i guess...
now if your looking for a new distro check out Distro watch (http://distrowatch.com/) they have everything you could look for.
and i haven't actually tried it... YET but i have heard nice things about PCLOS (http://www.pclinuxos.com/) uum Steer away from linux mint, it is just a bloated ubuntu. thats really all i can think of right now.
- inuit-joe

[Stevie78]

xubuntu isn't very light, couldn't tell the difference between xubuntu and ubuntu on my old 350mhz 196mb ram computer

Interesting. I will try out both Xubuntu and Crunchbang separately and see how it goes. If I dont like one or the other ill wipe them and install something else. Ive got time to test it all out, I dont need the laptop for anything else.

Ill take note off all distros suggested here and have a look :)

[demosthene1]

I am currently running crunchbang on my first generation netbook, an eee pc 2g surf. It's fun and very lite - especially the lite edition! And it is Ubuntu at it's skinniest.

I don't think there is anything faster than Puppy, and I love it, but I like the Ubuntu/Debian repos.

[oxf]

Xubuntu isnt brown either and lightweight :)

I planning doing the same as you actually. Ive got an oldish laptop which Im going to use as a guinea pig for other lightweight distros.

Im gonna try both Xubuntu and Crunchbang. :popcorn:

Maybe I've missing something here? but the colour/background is easy to change. I've been quite happy with Ubuntu (need to get around to trying something else when I figure out what) but have to be honest the brown/orange theme isnt that attractive. So I imediatley changed it to a blue ish background. Problem solved. Mind you I expect the Ubuntu Police will come knocking on my door one day

[Stevie78]

I am currently running crunchbang on my first generation netbook, an eee pc 2g surf. It's fun and very lite - especially the lite edition! And it is Ubuntu at it's skinniest.


Yes I would be looking for a distro with proper repositories in place. Crunchbang is now top of my list...

[Stevie78]

Maybe I've missing something here? but the colour/background is easy to change.


I think what benj1 meant was that the all-around theme (not just the actual desktop theme) is brown (eg forums, ubuntu website, clothing etc)

First thing I did once the internet connection was up on my Ubuntu machine was get a new desktop pic :P

[benj1]

Maybe I've missing something here? but the colour/background is easy to change. I've been quite happy with Ubuntu (need to get around to trying something else when I figure out what) but have to be honest the brown/orange theme is that attractive. So I imediatley changed it to a blue ish background. Problem solved. Mind you I expect the Ubuntu Police will come knocking on my door one day

i know the colour is easy to change i was joking, although it would be nice to have a nice nonbrown theme installed be default.

but crunchbang do list it as one of their features (http://crunchbanglinux.org/wiki/about)

[TheNosh]

uum Steer away from linux mint, it is just a bloated ubuntu. thats really all i can think of right now.

by that logic shouldn't you steer away from Ubuntu? it's just bloated Debian after all.

[automaton26]

I've still got itchy fingers for a Lubuntu LiveCD, for some old machines I have - hopefully at same time as Karmic ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubuntu

[Dragonbite]

The guys at PCLinuxOS do a pretty good job with their OpenBox based TinyMe (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=tinyme).

I used it a couple years ago on a Pent.I @ 233 Mhz w/128MB Ram (max) and it ran pretty good. Better than Fluxbuntu or SuSE 9.1 on the system.

Since then I've gotten a better lappy so the Pent.I is now running Ubuntu Studio for a mobile demonstration server for the Linux SIG.

[shiva.n]

Been playing with Crunchbang on a VM. I think I like it enough to make it my main OS quite soon.
I run Jaunty as my main OS, and played a bit with GNOME, compiz and effects. It was fun for a while, but got bored pretty soon. Have been using Openbox for a while, and have been trying to reduce Gnome dependancy, but it is tedious. And lo I found Crunchbang...

[snowpine]

Arch is a great distro, so I think you'll be very happy with it.
Koshatnik's posts make me really want to try Slackware. :)

[RiceMonster]

I use Arch and Fedora and different computers. Basically, I'd say it for each of them goes like this:
1) Arch, if you want to set it up as you like, don't want to compile everything, want a good package manager, and you're impatient (like me) and hate waiting 6 months for newer versions of software.
2) Fedora is you don't feel like builiding from the ground up, but are again impatient and want the latest stuff. Also, if you like apt, you'll have no problem with yum, it's extremely similar (yum install, yum remove, etc).

Err... I like it. :)

Well, I think that its kind of respectful to give it at least a go once in your linux life. Its the oldest distro of linux still being maintained, Patrick is a top bloke, it has a massively helpful community, you can make it as skinny or as heavy as you like, and no linux distro I have used (from about 24 or so to date) has been faster or more stable than slackware.

I've yet to try Arch so can't comment. Frankly, Slackware is a great hobby OS.

Debian distro's for me though, are the way forward if you just want something to work with no dicking about. I love Ubuntu for that. But I just think you can't call yourself a true linux-head until you've a) run slackware, b) done a full Gentoo build and install

I've not done b) yet as I still have a life.

Yes, Slackware is a great distro. I really like it, but I can't live without big repos and dependancy handling. Yeah slack's got 3rd party tools, but I'd rather use what comes with the distro. It seems that Slackware's minimal form of package managing is part of the alure. Still, definitely worth giving it a go.

[shiva.n]

The first PC I owned a 386 ran Slackware... If you want to learn Linux, and want to be the absolute master and commander of your system, Slackware is great. But it involves some work to set it up the way you like it...

[C!oud]

FreeBSD, Gentoo, Arch, Slackware+pkgsrc, Crux, Slitaz

Your requirements are quite broad as so obviously I prefer more DIY OSs that take some time to set up and I don't know your skill level but head over to DistroWatch (distrowatch.com) and knock yourself out.

[TheNosh]

Arch, if you want to set it up as you like, don't want to compile everything, want a good package manager, and you're impatient (like me) and hate waiting 6 months for newer versions of software.

Yes, yes, yes! That's EXACTLY what i want, and i think that makes it a lock for Arch.

one more question: how would you compare apt to pacman?

[K.Mandla]

pacman eats aptitude for breakfast.

A big +1 for Arch and another one for Slitaz.

+1 for Crux, but only if you're willing to really get your hands dirty.

[Grifulkin]

I am kind of bugged when people ask on the forums which distro to choose next and people try to talk them out of it, does it really matter what distro people use as long as they are still using linux. If someone doesn't want to stay on ubuntu they shouldn't be talked into it, everyone here knows that it is very easy to use, the easiest of the distributions but some people don't want ease, they want to do stuff themselves. So arch, or slackware is not a bad choice for them and being someone who wants to try a different distribution I don't see what is so wrong with wanting to just switch.

[TheNosh]

pacman eats aptitude for breakfast.

a nice analogy i'm sure, though if possible, i'd like some reason behind it, but if not i'll stop being lazy and google it.

[maestrobwh1]

Arch has got lots of fans, takes a bit more effort to set it up but the package manager is top class.

.

I do tend to use Arch more than Kubuntu. I actually used Chakra to install arch with the latest kde4 (they call it kdemod). http://chakra-project.org/

It is faster and lighter than Ubuntu; however, the process for some things is not automatic. If your processor has cpu scaling, it won't be enabled by default. If you have an attached printer, it won't be configured by default. There are lots of these things. Ubuntu IS BEST if you want hardware detection and for stuff to just work out of the box. I will tell you that Ubuntu has seemed somewhat slower running firefox and certain other apps BUT I am using Kubuntu Karmic Alpha 4 and it seems comparatively fast. If you are a diehard gnome user, then go over to Arch and then you will have to install it after you install the base CD. This is what Arch is: more than barebones, but not very much more but the magic is that you can make it what you want.

If you want a really fast experience, try knoppix 6.01 and install it to a USB drive (go for 2 GB min so you can make a decent home directory. It will run most of the OS out of ram and uses LDXE desktop with compiz. I have been tinkering with it a bit. I really do like it.

The reasons I list these: I like to run things that boot quickly and don't bog down the computer.

(K)ubuntu Karmic seems to be fitting this for me. I am using it right now.

I have multiple OS's: if you have the drives and the drive space, why not just keep Ubuntu and try something alongside it?

[ynnhoj]

read all about pacman here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman

or quit dithering, give an Arch install a whirl and see the difference for yourself. is this really such a major decision? :P

[ynnhoj]

not sure how i managed to double post.. could a staff member kindly delete this?

[chucky chuckaluck]

this thread is a breath of fresh air, were discussing all the possibilities of alternatives, imagine what choices youd have with Windows :D

windows is just another choice. that's like saying "imagine the choices you'd have with minix."

[RiceMonster]

a nice analogy i'm sure, though if possible, i'd like some reason behind it, but if not i'll stop being lazy and google it.

It's MUCH easier to make pacman packages with abs than it is to make a .deb, thus you get the AUR, which contains pretty much everything that's not in the repos. Furthermore, everything is put into one. On ubuntu, you install from the repos with apt-get, search with apt-cache, and install local packages with dpkg. Pacman does all of this in one. Yeah, there's apititude as well, but pacman is much cleaner (watch the output, you'll see what I mean). Lastly, pacman has the coolest name ever.

[TheNosh]

I have multiple OS's: if you have the drives and the drive space, why not just keep Ubuntu and try something alongside it?

4 primary partition limit

home + root + swap + windows 7 = 4

i could install linux on an extended partition, but i'd have to repartition anyway for that. also saying that i don't have the disk space is pretty accurate. 160 gigs, theres only about 30 gigs left and i have at least that much in CD's i wish i had on my hard drive.

[longtom]

Surprised to see nobody suggested AntiX (http://antix.mepis.org/index.php/Main_Page).

I have it in a virtual setup. I am really impressed and it is fast. Worth a shot imo.

[gn2]

You can have /, /home and swap on logical partitions.

[TheNosh]

It's MUCH easier to make pacman packages with abs than it is to make a .deb, thus you get the AUR, which contains pretty much everything that's not in the repos. Furthermore, everything is put into one. On ubuntu, you install from the repos with apt-get, search with apt-cache, and install local packages with dpkg. Pacman does all of this in one. Yeah, there's apititude as well, but pacman is much cleaner (watch the output, you'll see what I mean). Lastly, pacman has the coolest name ever.

thank you, and i completely agree with the name thing. :)

i'll probably install Arch in a couple weeks once school has started and i have time to back up everything i need.

maybe sooner... can i keep the same /home partition when switching distros or is that asking for trouble? i know it's fine for changing to a new ubuntu, and i'm pretty sure it should be fine if i switch distros, but i'd like to know for sure before try it.

[running_rabbit07]

Fedora is great and keeps up with newer programs such as FF3.5 and Thunderbird 3.2.

I was unable to get Arch to install on VirtualBox, so I can't say much for it.

Have fun testing new ****.

[Grifulkin]

Fedora is great and keeps up with newer programs such as FF3.5 and Thunderbird 3.2.

I was unable to get Arch to install on VirtualBox, so I can't say much for it.

Have fun testing new ****.

I have the same problem, does yours abort during load up or at any point, because mine aborts before it is even done loading?

[TheNosh]

You can have /, /home and swap on logical partitions.

i mentioned using an extended partition (which would have logical partitions), please read more than the first few lines if you're going to respond.

[RiceMonster]

maybe sooner... can i keep the same /home partition when switching distros or is that asking for trouble? i know it's fine for changing to a new ubuntu, and i'm pretty sure it should be fine if i switch distros, but i'd like to know for sure before try it.

You can, but I've never tried it (I always wipe everything when I install). I'd reccomend keeping your data in /home, but starting fresh with config files, because those are what's going to cause things to blow up.

[TheNosh]

You can, but I've never tried it (I always wipe everything when I install). I'd reccomend keeping your data in /home, but starting fresh with config files, because those are what's going to cause things to blow up.

Thanks, I still think I'll wait until school has started and I've settled into my classes, but I'm now pretty positive I'm going to go with arch.

[pawhtiobo]

For old PC's (64-96 Mb RAM) i sugest Vector Linux Light, i also use AntiX, but vector is much faster :), DSL is good but...it could be more complete in my opinion...i think its for even older HW.

For a full Desktop Distro....i have tried most of them present in Distro Watch....I can tell that Mandriva is great, also Slackware, Arch, Gentoo...the last two are not configured out off the box, you need some patiente to manage to get everyting working :)....well...no pain no gain ;)

see ya

[RiceMonster]

Thanks, I still think I'll wait until school has started and I've settled into my classes, but I'm now pretty positive I'm going to go with arch.

Good luck when you do. When you install, I reccomend using the beginner's guide (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide). It will walk you right through everything.

[TheNosh]

Good luck when you do. When you install, I reccomend using the beginner's guide (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide). It will walk you right through everything.

i will, thank you (and everyone else) for all your help.

at the moment this is my only computer so i figured i'd ask a few questions before doing anything to it (though i could always fall back on my trusty old puppy installation if anything went wrong)

i'm probably getting a newer better laptop for graduation and then i plan on trying several more Linux distros, BSDs and other OSs since i'll have a spare computer. till then though, i'd like one distro at a time that fits my needs, and Ubuntu has been that for a while, but it feels like time for a change and Arch is looking pretty damn good for fitting my needs as well as several of my wants.

[pawhtiobo]

i will, thank you (and everyone else) for all your help.

at the moment this is my only computer so i figured i'd ask a few questions before doing anything to it (though i could always fall back on my trusty old puppy installation if anything went wrong)

i'm probably getting a newer better laptop for graduation and then i plan on trying several more Linux distros, BSDs and other OSs since i'll have a spare computer. till then though, i'd like one distro at a time that fits my needs, and Ubuntu has been that for a while, but it feels like time for a change and Arch is looking pretty damn good for fitting my needs as well as several of my wants.

If you don't want to format, etc, etc... just use virtualbox, VMWare or other VM software to test the distros :)

see ya...

[gn2]

If you don't want to format, etc, etc... just use virtualbox, VMWare or other VM software to test the distros :)



Might not run too well if it's low spec hardware?

[running_rabbit07]

I have the same problem, does yours abort during load up or at any point, because mine aborts before it is even done loading?

I forgot where it aborted, but yes, it aborted both times I tried it.

Fedora doesn't like VBox either, but it looks & runs great.

[TheNosh]

If you don't want to format, etc, etc... just use virtualbox, VMWare or other VM software to test the distros :)

see ya...

i do this some, only tried to install arch in VirtualBox once and it failed, but that was a pretty half-***ed installation anyway. i may try again before installing it on the hard drive.

Might not run too well if it's low spec hardware?

it's not, it came with vista. it's just time to see if i can find a distro that suits me better.

[Dragonbite]

Lastly, pacman has the coolest name ever.

Every time I hear it I think of the 3rd party openSUSE repository "Packman"

[Arquis]

What about SIDUX (http://sidux.com/)? I use it on Virtualbox and its XFCE edition is pretty fast. It tries to be up to date with the latest and newest and is based on Debian.

The XFCE edition is very well tuned and they have a very short development cycle.

[Lavaeagle]

Get off your butt and research.

[Bachstelze]

by that logic shouldn't you steer away from Ubuntu? it's just bloated Debian after all.

No it's not. A base Ubuntu installation has exactly 5 more packages than a base Debian one. If you make your installation bloated, that's your problem, not Ubuntu's.

[HappyFeet]

Linux from scratch. But seriously, these kind of threads will yield as many answers as you would see by just going to distrowatch and reading for yourself. The choices are limitless, and the only way to find out is to get a stack of blank cd's and start burning some iso's. There is no easy way to find out what is best for you. Get burning, and get busy.

[Arquis]

If you fell the urge to really try BSD, I'd go PC-BSD. It is a very nice desktop system based on FreeBSD, but with ease of use in mind. It comes with KDE 4 though (which is not the fastest interface, but great nonetheless).

[running_rabbit07]

If I use KDE on Fedora, do I call it K-Fed ora?

[RiceMonster]

If I use KDE on Fedora, do I call it K-Fed ora?

Fedora Kore

or the Fedora ProjeKt?

[HappinessNow]

Currently I'm leaning towards Arch.Follow your lean, I hardly ever hear anything bad about Arch from happy Arch users :P

[Bachstelze]

Follow your lean, I hardly ever hear anything bad about Arch from happy Arch users :P

I hardly ever hear anything good for them either. Or rather, everything they praise Arch for, other distros can do just as well.

[SuperSonic4]

I do tend to use Arch more than Kubuntu. I actually used Chakra to install arch with the latest kde4 (they call it kdemod). http://chakra-project.org/

Ubuntu IS BEST if you want hardware detection and for stuff to just work out of the box

Mandriva's Hardware detection makes ubuntu look backward. ath5k in 2008.0 was the main one for me

My choice is arch

"I'm looking to find something relatively light and fast
running Gnome or Xfce
It also needs decent repositories
preferably it should be one with a rolling release cycle but that's not to important"

1+2. Light and fast - with arch you get a cli install. Therefore you can put any DE/WM on there including gnome and xfce. If you do go with arch pay careful attention to input hotplugging and mounting as user

3. The official repos are comparable to ubuntu and pacman > apt. It is the AUR which sets it apart. I've never had to compile a program manually with the AUR. Furthermore there are frontends such as yaourt which work like pacman yaourt -Syu --aur will update both the repos and anything in the AUR which has updates (it runs as user and asks for root when necessary)

4. It does have a rolling release. You can enable the [testing] repo for more unstable yet new packages. Their releases are a snapshot of the [core] repo so you can simply pacman -Syu and be up to date

[snowpine]

I hardly ever hear anything good for them either. Or rather, everything they praise Arch for, other distros can do just as well.

Now that's just silly. ;) Some distros have advantages in certain areas; if all distros are equally good at everything, why do so many exist? Explain to me, for example, how Ubuntu can perform rolling release updates "just as well" as Arch. But on the flip side, Arch can't run from a Live CD and easily install a working Gnome desktop with a few clicks of the mouse. Ubuntu is the best Ubuntu, and Arch is the best Arch. :)

[Bachstelze]

Explain to me, for example, how Ubuntu can perform rolling release updates "just as well" as Arch.

By using third-party repositories.

[LowSky]

By using third-party repositories.

third party repos and you can always run the alpha and betas of the next releases as soon as they become available


my suggestion is Arch Linux, its fast and as lean as you want it to be. I think I'm liking it more than Ubuntu for my desktop needs.
It really one of the best options for people looking for something a bit of a challenge. Kinda like Slackware or Gentoo with training wheels..

[snowpine]

By using third-party repositories.

But you will still have to upgrade to the new release every 6 months (intrepid->jaunty->karmic), right? And re-link to all of those 3rd party repos (since update manager will disable them when you release-upgrade).

For a user seeking true rolling release, 'pacman -Syu' is just easier. (Note: I'm not even a current Arch user, in fact I'm typing this from Hardy.)

[dragos240]

Arch. It's everything you want, nothing you don't. OR if you want everything compiled from source, (which actually has it's advantages, it will run more efficiently) then consider trying gentoo. Although..... that's if you want to spend a few months setting it up :P

[Bachstelze]

By the way, let me quote a Gentoo developer:

[18:20] < KillGuta> Could you guys rate Ubuntu and Gentoo in terms of performance on a scale of 1 to 10? :D
[18:21] <@rej> KillGuta: Generally most distributions differ performance-wise in the tenths of a percent.

[gn2]

Rolling release updates are nothing special.
It wouldn't be the first time that breakage has occurred resulting from an Arch update, or even from simply installing a single package.

[snowpine]

Rolling release updates are nothing special.

They are special if you want to use the same install for years without the hassle of re-installing every six months. ;)

They are also special in the context of this thread, because we are trying to suggest a distro that meets the OP's criteria, right? :)

[Zlatan]

When I have finally have time, I'm planning to ditch Ubuntu for another distro. I'm looking to find something relatively light and fast running Gnome or Xfce. It also needs decent repositories and preferably it should be one with a rolling release cycle but that's not to important. I'm open to all sugestions, be they Linux, BSD, or something I haven't heard of as long as they're backed up with reasons.


Currently I'm leaning towards Arch.

Debian?:) not rolling, but should be fast

[Bachstelze]

They are special if you want to use the same install for years without the hassle of re-installing every six months. ;)

Stop spreading FUD. I have an Ubuntu system that dates back from Edgy and is now running Karmic. And you know what? I didn't reinstall it even once.

[snowpine]

Stop spreading FUD. I have an Ubuntu system that dates back from Edgy and is now running Karmic. And you know what? I didn't reinstall it even once.

I am not "spreading FUD"... ;) I am glad that you've never personally had problems with a release upgrade (neither have I), but in fact I have been told in the past by Ubuntu Forums staff that the official recommendation is a fresh reinstall every six months (for example: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1177273 ).

Some people like to release-upgrade every six months, some like to do it every two years, and some people don't want to do it ever if they can help it. It is naive to think that Ubuntu is the best solution for every user... if TheNosh wants to branch out and try something different, that just seems like natural curiosity, not an attack on Ubuntu. You know what, I have tried Arch, and now I am back to Ubuntu; one does not diminish the other, and in my experience, both communities are friendly and get along very well. :)

[Stan_1936]

When I have finally have time, I'm planning to ditch Ubuntu for another distro. I'm looking to find something relatively light and fast running Gnome or Xfce....

All these people who are saying that there is no difference betweenm Ubuntu and Xubuntu must be using ancient machines, where nothing *buntu should even be considered(although Crunchbang/MoonOS/Masonux would be appropriate).

What are your system specs?

[TheNosh]

All these people who are saying that there is no difference betweenm Ubuntu and Xubuntu must be using ancient machines, where nothing *buntu should even be considered(although Crunchbang/MoonOS/Masonux would be appropriate).
not ancient at all, but Ubuntu and Xubuntu are only a little different in speed. LXDE is significantly faster though.


What are your system specs?

2 gigs ram,
1.6 GHz dual core processor

Ubuntu runs fine, i just want to try something different to see if it suits me better. and from what i've heard Arch seems like it will.

[Muppeteer]

I'd say go with Arch. I switched from Ubuntu over a year ago to Arch and haven't looked back. I've gotten so used to how everything is setup in it that going back to Ubuntu would seem like a regression to me. Aka, i wouldn't learn as much. If you enjoy a challenge, you'd enjoy arch imo :)

Edit: There seems to be a few fanboys who are offended that people want to try something different from Ubuntu. That's just silly. Linux is all about choice, and everybody should try several distro's to get a feel for whatever suits them.

[koleoptero]

I hear voices telling me you'll love Sabayon. They don't tell me the reasons though.

[Ric_NYC]

Keep Ubuntu.
It is a good OS.

[Stan_1936]

...Ubuntu runs fine, i just want to try something different to see if it suits me better....

1. Zenwalk - lighter + its Slackware...likely different from what you've seen so far. PS: I had to manually setup my network(wired) everytime I wanted to connect to the internet with Zenwalk....in comparison, Ubuntu set it up automatically.
2. Fedora - apparently more cutting edge and gets rapid software updates. But then again that in itself could just as easily be interpreted as being bleeding edge.
3. Debian - slow release cycle, because of heavy stability and security testing

Warning: Alpha Release

4. Chakra Linux - uses Arch repos and packages+altered KDE packages. I checked these guys out around 8 months ago when the website was just being set up. They were in the Alpha stage.....still are. If I do install Arch, it will be Chakra Linux(when the stable version is released), because of its easier installer.

EDIT: Chakra Linux in action - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYdpgNZ3V4U

[d1ce]

Hello everyone! New to the community. I find this disscusion relevant to what i'm looking for. I've been using ubuntu for some time now and am interested in finding a distro that is fully featured but does so with speed/responsiveness in mind. Crunchbunch and possibly Macpup look suitable. Although, I do have a few questions. Considering I have a decent rig (c2d, 4g ram), will a speed difference even be noticable when switching? Also, are there any appreciable speed/responsiveness differences between a distro that runs in ram and one that does not?

[Bachstelze]

Considering I have a decent rig (c2d, 4g ram), will a speed difference even be noticable when switching?

Let me quote again:

By the way, let me quote a Gentoo developer:

[18:20] < KillGuta> Could you guys rate Ubuntu and Gentoo in terms of performance on a scale of 1 to 10? :D
[18:21] <@rej> KillGuta: Generally most distributions differ performance-wise in the tenths of a percent.

[mikehenson]

Have you tried dual or tri booting? My current setup has worked well for me. Here is my partition table
500MB /boot
2000MB Swap
4500MB / Arch Linux
5000MB / Ubuntu Linux
5500MB / Test partition for another OS
REST /home

MSH

[Johnsie]

Try Windows 7

[Dragonbite]

ReactOS with KDE 4.3... then tell everybody it's Windows 7! :lolflag:

[d1ce]

By the way, let me quote a Gentoo developer:

[18:20] < KillGuta> Could you guys rate Ubuntu and Gentoo in terms of performance on a scale of 1 to 10? :D
[18:21] <@rej> KillGuta: Generally most distributions differ performance-wise in the tenths of a percent.

Must have overlooked that, thanks for the clarification. So from what i'm gathering, the operating system only plays a minor role in speed (relative to hardware).

[snowpine]

Must have overlooked that, thanks for the clarification. So from what i'm gathering, the operating system only plays a minor role in speed (relative to hardware).

That has not been my personal experience... certain distros are noticeably faster and more responsive (on my hardware, anyhow)... check out Ubuntu vs. SliTaz for example. Or Windows vs. Ubuntu for that matter. True, hardware speed is constant, but the efficiency with which the software uses those resources makes a big difference.

[Stan_1936]

...from what i'm gathering, the operating system only plays a minor role in speed (relative to hardware).

:lolflag::lolflag::lolflag:

ABSOLUTELY NOT! I've found that, for example, Puppy is much faster than Crunchbang on my 8 year old system. The OS plays a HUGE role in speed.......

[Bachstelze]

Must have overlooked that, thanks for the clarification. So from what i'm gathering, the operating system only plays a minor role in speed (relative to hardware).

Relative to hardware and what you install on it, yes. And of course the OSes need to be comparable feature-wise, so that would include for example Slackware, Gentoo, Ubuntu and Arch, but of course not Windows and Puppy.

[tjwoosta]

When I have finally have time, I'm planning to ditch Ubuntu for another distro. I'm looking to find something relatively light and fast running Gnome or Xfce. It also needs decent repositories and preferably it should be one with a rolling release cycle but that's not to important. I'm open to all sugestions, be they Linux, BSD, or something I haven't heard of as long as they're backed up with reasons.


arch

Its rolling release, has the perfect package management system, huge repository of applications especially with AUR, unrivaled documentation, and it can easily be configured to run whatever style environment you want from ultra light weight and simple to super heavy weight and covered in bling.

[Bearded-flower]

by that logic shouldn't you steer away from Ubuntu? it's just bloated Debian after all.

Well so by that logic mint is a bloated bloated OS.

[cusinmex]

Try Windows 7
have some pride for god's sake.
at least tell him to try some othe distro xD

[TheNosh]

have some pride for god's sake.
at least tell him to try some othe distro xD

also i already have windows 7, i dual boot

[vrkalak]

LinuxMint which has been based on Ubuntu is coming out with a new version: LinuxMint Debian

It will have a rolling release and a faster WM. Previous versions of LinuxMint, and Ubuntu, have used Gnome, KDE, Xfce and FluxBox. The new Mint will be more like Squeeze than Ubuntu.

Where as, LinuxMint has been based on Ubuntu with a fixed-release date, the new LinuxMint will be based on Debian Squeee.

I'm going to try it out, once it is released, for public use.

[Bearded-flower]

Well i just found it to be stupidly pretty and needlessly slow.

[quazi]

in oder of importance it's as follows:

1) find something lighter on resources. --if my hardware can do most of the things it does now, only faster, why shouldn't it?

2) rolling release. --the six month schedule is a tad annoying, but i like having new stuff.

3) i've gotten bored --may as well try something new then


The second point is valid if you feel it fits your style better. However, I think you might be surprised at how little speed improvement you find from "more hands on distros" such as Arch. In fact, there's a good opportunity for messing things up to the point you have more trouble than you would in Ubuntu. In my mind, the gain from Arch is not worth the hassle (to me somewhat tedious) of setting things up. I like doing things with my OS, not doing things to make my OS work.

As for the third point, I felt that way with Ubuntu at one point, which is why I tried Arch. Then I realized my OS isn't there to entertain me. If I'm bored, I should probably grab some friends and go out to a bar; not get a new linux distribution.

[TheNosh]

Then I realized my OS isn't there to entertain me.

Yours may not be there to entertain you, but mine is. i find trying out different software to be fun.

If I'm bored, I should probably grab some friends and go out to a bar; not get a new linux distribution.

you don't necessarily need to do the same thing every time you're bored, it depends where the boredom came from. if your bored in general hanging out with friends makes sense, however if you are specifically bored with your OS hanging out with friends won't really change that, also some of my friends are in to software as well, so i could easily hang out with them while installing Arch.

other times when i'm bored i'll paint, draw, sculpt, read, play video games, just sit and think, or go for a walk in the woods. my point is, what you should do when you're bored is unlikely to be any one thing, but many things, and in this particular instance i think i'll install Arch.

[cascade9]

TheNosh- Arch is a good choice. Debian testing would be the easy way out if you wanted something really different to ubuntu, but otherwise itcould be worth a look..and slackware is proably a good choice as well.

By the way, let me quote a Gentoo developer:

[18:20] < KillGuta> Could you guys rate Ubuntu and Gentoo in terms of performance on a scale of 1 to 10? :D
[18:21] <@rej> KillGuta: Generally most distributions differ performance-wise in the tenths of a percent.

Dont trust devs. They live in some dev world where things are different....

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=distro_four_way&num=1

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_aug_09&num=1

[kpkeerthi]

TheNosh,
Arch is what you probably need. Give it a spin. :)

1. Its a rolling distro and is designed as a rolling system. Many might argue that Ubuntu can also roll and haven't installed since Dapper. That is simply not true as Ubuntu is not designed for rolling release. There are certain subtle mechanisms Arch employs that helps you roll less painfully. If you pay careful attention to pacman's output you should be good. Most of the time all you need to do is # pacman -Syu.

2. The build system is simple and straightforward. If you have experiences compiling and making a deb file, you will appreciate how simple the process is on Arch.

3. It has got pacman. I have used Debian/Fedora/SuSE binary packages and their respective package managers. They are no match to pacman. (If Slackware had an official package manager that does true dependency resolution, I would have listed it here)

4. It has got AUR/ABS/PKGBUILD. Again, if you are not into compiling from source, you don't have to worry about this. But if you are, you are for a treat. Believe me.

5. With Arch, you roll your own distro with your own choice of packages. Its slim, sleek and fast.

I can't vouch that Arch is rock-solid. There could be occasional package breakages typical of any rolling release model. But those are very rare and are almost immediately fixed by the devs.

EDIT: Archlinux's home page is usually updated with alerts should any package breakage arise. You should watch this space (subscribe to the rss feed) before you do a #pacman -Syu to save yourself from the breakage. Again, this is extremely rare.

[TheNosh]

TheNosh,
Arch is what you probably need. Give it a spin. :)


thanks.

i actually decided a few pages ago that i'll install Arch in a few weeks, but it never hurts to be given more details.

[Hallvor]

in oder of importance it's as follows:

1) find something lighter on resources. --if my hardware can do most of the things it does now, only faster, why shouldn't it?

2) rolling release. --the six month schedule is a tad annoying, but i like having new stuff.

3) i've gotten bored --may as well try something new then

I read that you`ll try Arch, and I wish you good luck with that. I also think Debian testing will suit your needs. It is lighter on resources, all branches but stable is rolling release and it has huge repositories.

[TheNosh]

I also think Debian testing will suit your needs.

thats another one i was considering, but i want to check out pacman, so i'm going with Arch for now. i'll definitely try it eventually. i'm likely going to get a new laptop for graduation and this one will then become primarily a test computer for any distro i'm curious about.

here's a list of the top of my head of Linux and BSD distro's i want to try at least for a while (in no particular order)

Fedora
Debian testing (and perhaps stable but it seems less exciting)
Sidux
Slackware
Gentoo
Ark
FreeBSD
PC-BSD

and i'm sure i'll find more

[Exodist]

If I left Ubuntu, it would be for debian. I am just used to using debian style system for so long anything else I would be lost in.

[hanzomon4]

I want to try Arch but I worry that will take longer to install then I want to deal with. Will I have to install things like hal, dbus... blah blah or can I install say gnome and have all the little bits installed automagically?

[Exodist]

I want to try Arch but I worry that will take longer to install then I want to deal with. Will I have to install things like hal, dbus... blah blah or can I install say gnome and have all the little bits installed automagically?
I normally just install Ubuntu, but I really feel like a **** at times. Even tho I install Ubuntu its mainly cause I dont feel like fighting with gnome to get it compiled and Ubu normally has a the latest version of Gnome.
But after I do install Ubuntu I rip most everything out, recompile what I need to and unless the kernel is super up to date I compile my own kernel from source. Wich btw RC7 is out for 2.6.31. Soon as it hit stable I will compile it.

[HappinessNow]

If I left Ubuntu, it would be for debian. I am just used to using debian style system for so long anything else I would be lost in.Debian, Arch, and Gentoo are really not worth the extra time or effort they take.

[TheNosh]

Debian, Arch, and Gentoo are really not worth the extra time or effort they take.

thats your perspective. if this were true for everyone they wouldn't exist, they must be worth it to some people and i have a hunch that i'm one of them.

[woedend]

I want to try Arch but I worry that will take longer to install then I want to deal with. Will I have to install things like hal, dbus... blah blah or can I install say gnome and have all the little bits installed automagically?

pacman -S xorg gnome gnome-extra gets gnome going...all dependencies taken care of

here is my complete initial install since I do it so often to give you an idea of packaging:

pacman -S xorg gnome gnome-extra firefox j2re gstreamer0.10-bad-plugins gstreamer0.10-ugly-plugins gstreamer0.10-bad xf86-video-intel synaptics compiz-fusion-gtk frostwire transmission mplayer devede alsa-utils nautilus-open-terminal pidgin audacious

and yes this includes dbus and hal and all bits to make them all work perfectly.
In all honesty, removing package download time, it takes 5-10 minutes to setup arch.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Debian, Arch, and Gentoo are really not worth the extra time or effort they take.

to lump arch and gentoo together, regarding time required, in my view, is incorrect.

[TheNosh]

to lump arch and gentoo together, regarding time required, in my view, is incorrect.

i didn't mention it in my post but i completely agree with this.

[Dragonbite]

why hasn't Ubuntu Forums made an Arch sub-Forum yet? Seems almost as many Arch users as Ubuntu users these days!

[Stan_1936]

...LinuxMint Debian....once it is released, for public use.

Sometime after Mint 8.......that's such a long damn time away!

[TheNosh]

Seems almost as many Arch users as Ubuntu users these days!
(i think that was meant as irony/comedy but i'm responding anyway because i'm putting off doing work)

i think thats largely because Ubuntu sells itself as the starter distro, and it's fine for that. some people stay with Ubuntu and some switch (apparently several of them switch to Arch) but just because they've switched doesn't mean they leave the forum.

i personally started for about a year on Puppy Linux, then moved to Ubuntu Hardy, then intrepid, then jaunty, but my point remains the same, just cause i won't be Using Ubuntu doesn't mean i'm going to leave the forum.

as for why there isn't an arch section, frankly i'm not sure. the other OS talk area was a pretty neat thing. i get that Arch has it's own forums but sill, other OS talk coul've stuck around here.

[snowpine]

I installed Arch (replacing Debian testing) on my main computer last night specifically because of this thread. :)

[Dragonbite]

(i think that was meant as irony/comedy but i'm responding anyway because i'm putting of doing work)

Yes, it was not meant to be mean or nasty in any way.

[TheNosh]

Yes, it was not meant to be mean or nasty in any way.

i know, and there certainly are several Arch users here, so i see your point

[TheNosh]

I installed Arch (replacing Debian testing) on my main computer last night specifically because of this thread. :)

how'd it go?

[kpkeerthi]

In all honesty, removing package download time, it takes 5-10 minutes to setup arch.
Can't agree with you more (OK, 15 minutes for me :)). xorg.conf used to be the time consuming part of Arch setup for newbies. But with the input hotplugging introduced in recent xorg-xserver, everything is now plug & play pretty much, as there is no need for xorg.conf anymore.

[snowpine]

how'd it go?

Uneventful. It was my 3rd or 4th Arch install, so it only took me an hour or two to install a full Gnome desktop. (1st timers should probably set aside an entire evening IMHO.)

The reason I stopped using Arch the last time was due to mysterious X crashes. I was pleased to see the fix had been added to the Beginner's Guide since last time. It is cool to see how responsive the community is and how quickly the help pages/wikis get updated.

For anyone who doesn't know: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide

ps Before anyone calls me a traitor, I still have Ubuntu Karmic on my Dell Mini, Crunchbang (Ubuntu+Openbox) on my eee, and Fluxbuntu on my old laptop. :)

[kpkeerthi]

why hasn't Ubuntu Forums made an Arch sub-Forum yet? Seems almost as many Arch users as Ubuntu users these days!
There was one and it was very busy & active. I guess the mods removed it as it invited a lot of interests in Arch. :)

[VioletsPie]

Many might argue that Ubuntu can also roll and haven't installed since Dapper. That is simply not true as Ubuntu is not designed for rolling release. There are certain subtle mechanisms Arch employs that helps you roll less painfully. If you pay careful attention to pacman's output you should be good. Most of the time all you need to do is # pacman -Syu.

I do not think many are hanging on to Dapper for dear life. Here's the post people are too afraid to make I guess.

HOW TO ROLL WITH UBUNTU:

http://medibuntu.org (well, some cool proprietary apps)

http://www.getdeb.net/app/Ubuntu+Tweak -- Ubuntu Tweak is the easiest way to get the latest of all your software.

Then there's launchpad.net where you can user-contributed packages..

https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-x-swat/+archive/x-updates/
(supposedly stable x)

https://launchpad.net/~xorg-edgers/+archive/ppa
(for the real cowboys)

http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/
Kernels anyone?

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty
or just search that thing. Do enough reading and you'll find stable stuff.

and always check out http://blog.getdeb.net/ and http://www.playdeb.net.

To quote getdeb's 'about us':

A volunteer group of individuals devoting our spare time to provide an easy way to get updates as well as additional software for Ubuntu. Of course, they are not sponsored, endorsed or associated in any way with Canonical.

:guitar:

[koleoptero]

why hasn't Ubuntu Forums made an Arch sub-Forum yet? Seems almost as many Arch users as Ubuntu users these days!

i know, and there certainly are several Arch users hear, so i see your point

They're more than you think! 8-[

[dragos240]

Yep, arch users are everywhere. And I am one too, I am using archlinux right now. :). It works, and it's custom. Just the way I like it, but I still have my ubuntu installation AND I have the Fedora 11 installation on the laptop. They all are great.

[Sporkman]

I was unable to get Arch to install on VirtualBox, so I can't say much for it.


Me neither! Tried it last night, the virtual machine always crashes in the middle of installation.

[Simian Man]

Dont trust devs. They live in some dev world where things are different....

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=distro_four_way&num=1

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_aug_09&num=1

Those benchmarks are ridiculous. They compare pre-release software that are at different points of development and use different methodologies. For example Fedora rawhide uses packages compiled with debugging symbols while I doubt that Ubuntu does this. I'm sure that's the reason behind Fedora's poor performance on a few of those tests, but they don't even bother to look into that. Profiling a non-optimized binary is a big mistake.

The truth is that HymnToLife is right, performance comes much more from the applications you use than your distro. I really like Arch, but there is a fair amount of "placebo effect" in its reputation for speed.

[RiceMonster]

Those benchmarks are ridiculous. They compare pre-release software that are at different points of development and use different methodologies. For example Fedora rawhide uses packages compiled with debugging symbols while I doubt that Ubuntu does this. I'm sure that's the reason behind Fedora's poor performance on a few of those tests, but they don't even bother to look into that. Profiling a non-optimized binary is a big mistake.

The truth is that HymnToLife is right, performance comes much more from the applications you use than your distro. I really like Arch, but there is a fair amount of "placebo effect" in its reputation for speed.

Arch isn't really faster, it's just that, generally speaking, people will run more lightweight systems with less services, etc. You could get that on any distro, really. That's why I never tell anyone that Arch is faster.

[TheNosh]

They're more than you think! 8-[

i just realized in the quote of mine you used i had used "hear" instead of "here"... being up for over 24 hours is bad for my grammar.

[Simian Man]

Arch isn't really faster, it's just that, generally speaking, people will run more lightweight systems with less services, etc. You could get that on any distro, really. That's why I never tell anyone that Arch is faster.

Yeah you're right about that. Arch makes it easy to create a minimalist installation (and encourages that) whereas distros like Ubuntu make it much harder.

[snowpine]

That is a "chicken and egg" argument.

The applications define the distro.

Dillo and jwm are in the Ubuntu repositories. But that does not mean "Ubuntu is a lightweight distro that uses jwm and dillo." :)

[tjwoosta]

as for why there isn't an arch section, frankly i'm not sure. the other OS talk area was a pretty neat thing. i get that Arch has it's own forums but sill, other OS talk coul've stuck around here.

After the other OS talk section of UF was closed a bunch of the regulars that hung around there made their own site called noost (New Other OS Talk). Long story short they eventually changed the name to OS Talk, you can find the link in my signature. Its really a great community, much like other os talk on UF once was. You should check it out.

[TheNosh]

After the other OS talk section of UF was closed a bunch of the regulars that hung around there made their own site called noost (New Other OS Talk). Long story short they eventually changed the name to OS Talk, you can find the link in my signature. Its really a great community, much like other os talk on UF once was. You should check it out.

i've been aware of that for some time, but thank you for mentioning it. i need to get around to joining eventually but right now i have enough distracting me from things i need to be doing.

thank you very much though

[zakany]

If I left Ubuntu, it would be for debian. I am just used to using debian style system for so long anything else I would be lost in.

Getting lost is what TheNosh wants to do. It's a hobby, of sorts.

[Stan_1936]

Yeah you're right about that. Arch makes it easy to create a minimalist installation (and encourages that) whereas distros like Ubuntu make it much harder.

Have you actually tried installing Ubuntu using the Mini-CD and building up a minimalist installation? I have.....and it's DAMN EASY! And the minimal Ubuntu(once everything, that you WANT to have installed, has been installed) feels DAMN FAST!

[Omnios]

New Arch linux user here and not dissapointed. The install guids are a must read and having them printed out is helpfull. Looks complicated from the begginer guide etc but most of that is fererence so the istall is easier than it sounds of looks. Laptop users be ware, you have to install and install cpufreq and put it in moduals and demons for it to run properly. The config is based on BSD with nothing hidden so config files are not a hastle with lots of reference to what file you need. You have to include deamons in rc.conf for them to run. The network set up is a little different than Ubuntu to but you can intall gnome networkmanager and network manager demon and have the same set up.

As for speed I ended up with a similar set up to Ubuntu and my system seems more responsive so the mininalist install though requiring more installing and tweeking does have advanatages. Also boot times are impressive.

As for taking a long time to istall the first time will probably take a bit of time but once you do it once and config a system doing it again would go very quicklu.

Pacman is a impressive package manager and with yaourt pancman wrapper and AUR there are a lot of packages. I like the ability to manage tarballs with pacman wich makes things easier for my needs.

I think I will be using Arch for a very long time.

[woedend]

Well, I think it's fiar to say that there are TONS of Arch Linux users. I love Arch for its simplicity, documentation, and community, but tend to stick with Ubuntu-dev releases for even newer packages, repo size, and time savings. I do install arch often to see its progress and its great...I just don't want to compile anymore...I want to boot and do my tasks and be done...although at a time I loved to tinker just to be tinkering. And yes inevitably I find a package not in the repo and have to compile. And Pacman I always thought/think is much better than apt(dodging tomatoes I know). I honestly wondered why Ubuntu or some other distro didn't use it as a base...seeing as it would most likely be MUCH easier to use due to layout and config rules, as well as much newer packages. I'd honestly love to see a polished gnome arch based distro with a live CD like installer similar to ubuntu or even anaconda...Chakra linux is attempting it but I just can't and won't do KDE at this point.

[i99]

Gentoo is the only worthy Linux distro in my opinion.
The rest (Ubuntu, Arch, etc) are too "hold-your-hand-through-everything-and-make-it-easy-so-a-five-year-old-can-do -it" for me.

[Sporkman]

Gentoo is the only worthy Linux distro in my opinion.
The rest (Ubuntu, Arch, etc) are too "hold-your-hand-through-everything-and-make-it-easy-so-a-five-year-old-can-do -it" for me.

Some people have more important things to do with their time than setting USE flags and syncing portages! :P

[Simian Man]

Have you actually tried installing Ubuntu using the Mini-CD and building up a minimalist installation? I have.....and it's DAMN EASY! And the minimal Ubuntu(once everything, that you WANT to have installed, has been installed) feels DAMN FAST!

I have done it, and it you're right, it isn't that bad. The dependencies are a little crazy sometimes though. Eg when a program has an optional feature using some libraries, installing it will usually pull in all of those libraries even when most people do not want or need that feature. I don't remember any concrete examples and have no Ubuntu install to find one with.

[Stan_1936]

Some people have more important things to do with their time than setting USE flags and syncing portages! :P

Haha! Well said good sir, well said!

[C!oud]

Some people have more important things to do with their time than setting USE flags and syncing portages! :P

Some people have better things to do than attempt to fix their computer after every update/upgrade ;)

[Skripka]

Me neither! Tried it last night, the virtual machine always crashes in the middle of installation.

Arch is known not to VM very well.

[cascade9]

Those benchmarks are ridiculous. They compare pre-release software that are at different points of development and use different methodologies. For example Fedora rawhide uses packages compiled with debugging symbols while I doubt that Ubuntu does this. I'm sure that's the reason behind Fedora's poor performance on a few of those tests, but they don't even bother to look into that. Profiling a non-optimized binary is a big mistake.

The truth is that HymnToLife is right, performance comes much more from the applications you use than your distro. I really like Arch, but there is a fair amount of "placebo effect" in its reputation for speed.

From everything I've seen, pre-release builds give you a good idea of what the release will be like, but you have a point on pre-release software.Prefer a comparison between stable relases?

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora11_ubuntu904_perf&num=2

Ubuntu 9.04 vs Fedora 11. Both 'release' versions. only a couple of months between them. Seems pretty fair? You can argue about how 1 distro does things one way, another a different way, but thats what distros do. Its not just some "10ths of a percent' difference".

By the way, let me quote a Gentoo developer:

[18:20] < KillGuta> Could you guys rate Ubuntu and Gentoo in terms of performance on a scale of 1 to 10? :D
[18:21] <@rej> KillGuta: Generally most distributions differ performance-wise in the tenths of a percent.

That is a "chicken and egg" argument.

The applications define the distro.

Dillo and jwm are in the Ubuntu repositories. But that does not mean "Ubuntu is a lightweight distro that uses jwm and dillo." :)

Exactly.

[Simian Man]

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora11_ubuntu904_perf&num=2

Ubuntu 9.04 vs Fedora 11. Both 'release' versions. only a couple of months between them. Seems pretty fair? You can argue about how 1 distro does things one way, another a different way, but thats what distros do. Its not just some "10ths of a percent' difference".

OK well the fact that those benchmarks used the ext4 filesystem for Fedora and the ext3 filesystem for Ubuntu kind of casts doubt on the results. Most of the times when the benchmark really tested disk access (thread I/O, Postmark, Dbench...) Fedora won by a very significant amount. Is that supposed to be surprising or even meaningful?

The distros were also tested with different versions of GCC and the kernel which will obviously have different performance strengths and weaknesses, but the rest of the benchmarks that did not test disk access (Ray tracing, multimedia...) did not have significant differences.

Like I said before it is the *software* you use that causes performance differences - not the distribution. If you had used ext3 on Fedora and ext4 on Ubuntu, you would have seen a flip in those disk benchmarks.

These kind of benchmarks are interesting because you can see things like how much ext4 owns ext3, but don't lead to the conclusion that "distro A is faster than distro B!!11" because such a thing is meaningless.

[cascade9]

OK well the fact that those benchmarks used the ext4 filesystem for Fedora and the ext3 filesystem for Ubuntu kind of casts doubt on the results. Most of the times when the benchmark really tested disk access (thread I/O, Postmark, Dbench...) Fedora won by a very significant amount. Is that supposed to be surprising or even meaningful?

The distros were also tested with different versions of GCC and the kernel which will obviously have different performance strengths and weaknesses, but the rest of the benchmarks that did not test disk access (Ray tracing, multimedia...) did not have significant differences.

Like I said before it is the *software* you use that causes performance differences - not the distribution. If you had used ext3 on Fedora and ext4 on Ubuntu, you would have seen a flip in those disk benchmarks.

These kind of benchmarks are interesting because you can see things like how much ext4 owns ext3, but don't lead to the conclusion that "distro A is faster than distro B!!11" because such a thing is meaningless.

The ext4 file system has been an experimentally supported option since Fedora 9, and is now the default file system for Fedora 11 Alpha.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Alpha_release_notes#Ext4_File_System

ext3 will remain the default filesystem for Jaunty

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyJackalope/TechnicalOverview

They used the default filesystems, not random choice. 100% agree about the filesystem issue, and it does affect a lot of the results. Its not exactly meaningful in a lot of ways because of that (since a having a different filesystem from install is pretty easy).

I also agree 100% "distro A is faster than distro B!!11" concolusions, espically from looking at a bunch of benchmarks (those ones in particular because of the EXT3/4 issue).

But kernel and GCC diferences are far more meaningful (if smaller in effect). Sure, you can build a different kernel and GCC in, change whatever software you want, its linux. Thats one of the beauties of it. But since distros do come with different standard software its quite fair to compare them in the standard install setup IMO.

[Simian Man]

They used the default filesystems, not random choice. 100% agree about the filesystem issue, and it does affect a lot of the results. Its not exactly meaningful in a lot of ways because of that (since a having a different filesystem from install is pretty easy).

But kernel and GCC diferences are far more meaningful (if smaller in effect). Sure, you can build a different kernel and GCC in, change whatever software you want, its linux. Thats one of the beauties of it. But since distros do come with different standard software its quite fair to compare them in the standard install setup IMO.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know they used the default setup for each distro. But switching from Ubuntu to Fedora for improved disk speeds alone would be madness. It is easy to setup whatever filesystem you like with any distro I have ever tried.

I agree that it is fair and interesting to compare the default software each distro provides, but if you really need the most performance out of your distro, doing things like compiling a custom kernel and turning off services and things like SELinux (on Fedora) will make a much bigger difference.

So I wouldn't really recommend performance as a primary metric for choosing a distro, because you can get good performance out of any of them.

[d1ce]

I'm having some trouble understanding repositories and package formats. What's the difference between repositories in distros? Is it not irrelevant if the distro uses the same package format (deb, rpm, ect)?

[cascade9]

I agree that it is fair and interesting to compare the default software each distro provides, but if you really need the most performance out of your distro, doing things like compiling a custom kernel and turning off services and things like SELinux (on Fedora) will make a much bigger difference.

Agree, again. The only time that really doesnt apply is if you dont have foggiest idea of what your doing, and its probably a better idea to figure out what your using than to change distros. Unless your pickign a distro to start on, in which case package management is probably way more impotrant.

So I wouldn't really recommend performance as a primary metric for choosing a distro, because you can get good performance out of any of them.

Pretty much agree, except in a few instances. Low spec computer, or if your building a box for 1 major reason (e.g. I've heard that java performance on OpenSolaris is beter than any linux distro)

I'm having some trouble understanding repositories and package formats. What's the difference between repositories in distros? Is it not irrelevant if the distro uses the same package format (deb, rpm, ect)?

The difference is (I know ,this sounds stupid) what the distro have packed into the repos. A good example of this is Ubuntu/Debian. They both have the same package manager (aptitude, apt-get) and both use .deb packages. But ubuntu has different software versions to the debians (stable, testing or unstable).

[tjwoosta]

Debian package management systems handle dependencies poorly. It usually pulls lots of unnecessary dependencies.

One example would be for instance if you install debian lenny with gnome it comes with swfdec (shockwave flash). Now if swfdec doesnt work on your computer and you try to remove it, it will remove all of gnome with it. That is because of the way debian based package management handles dependencies.

Another example would be how installing WINE on Ubuntu also brings other things like avahi for no apparent reason, and it won't let you remove it without first removing WINE. Avahi is not a direct dependency of wine and wine works perfectly on other distros without avahi, its the way debian handles its dependencies that causes these issues.


Things like this never happen with for example pacman (arch's package management)


Every package management system does things a little bit differently, which is why some people might prefer one system over another.

[Hallvor]

I think what you are describing is the effect of metapackages. If I do a full Gnome metapackage install with aptitude from a base CLI system, it will pull in all Gnome including some applications. Try to delete a single one of those packages and the package manager will say, “OK, let`s delete Gnome.” On the other hand, if you want to remove Gnome and install KDE, you can remove Gnome with all its dependencies with a single command.

There still is one way to avoid getting all Gnome deleted even if you just installed one huge metapackage, and that is with the keep-all command where you remove just the part you want and keep everything else:

apt-get remove <package>
aptitude keep-all

You can also completely turn off autoremove if you want to.

If you want a lean system and don`t want to waste a single kilobyte of diskspace, you probably want to install X and whatever you need from a CLI environment anyway. And then, of course, it is no problem to uninstall single files. If you don`t like the effect of metapackages, don`t install them in the first place.

[tjwoosta]

post removed, i was wrong sry

[jeffus_il]

Is this true from the Pacman wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacman_(package_manager))?

Pacman experiences the problem of dependency hell. Some of its proponents have even pointed out that it requires usage by more expert and dedicated users who are willing to police the dependencies of the programs they wish to install, rather than leaving it up to the package manager itself.[2]

I have been in "dependency hell" using Rock Linux and maybe a smaller version of the so-called hell using Gentoo. It's not a place to be for the impatient who want to get up and running...

[zolookas]

Is this true from the Pacman wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacman_%28package_manager%29)?



I have been in "dependency hell" using Rock Linux and maybe a smaller version of the so-called hell using Gentoo. It's not a place to be for the impatient who want to get up and running...

Dependency issues using pacman are very rare. I can't remember when was the last time I have had any.

[keiichidono]

Is this true from the Pacman wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacman_(package_manager))?



I have been in "dependency hell" using Rock Linux and maybe a smaller version of the so-called hell using Gentoo. It's not a place to be for the impatient who want to get up and running...

Lies. Wikipedia is full of lies.

[Exodist]

debian

[Grifulkin]

crunchbang (http://crunchbanglinux.org/)

based on ubuntu so got all the repos.
based on open box so lightweight.
isn't brown :)

just started using it myself, and really like it

not rolling release, but you cant have everything

+1 Also, I am using it on my laptop and netbook.

[Bigtime_Scrub]

Debian?:) not rolling, but should be fast


Debian testing or Debian sid is rolling release.