Sidux vs. Arch: who is faster?

[b9anders]

I am currently running Sidux, thanks to its blazing fast kde. Lately I've been looking at Arch Linux as it looks very appealing in terms of offering complete control of the system whilst still KISSing and their kde-mid looks fascinating. Both live a life on the perpetually bleeding edge and both offer a kde that is said to be blazingly fast.

Does anyone here have experience with both and can offer some comparison in terms of speed and stability?

[Antman]

I am currently running Sidux, thanks to its blazing fast kde. Lately I've been looking at Arch Linux as it looks very appealing in terms of offering complete control of the system whilst still KISSing and their kde-mid looks fascinating. Both live a life on the perpetually bleeding edge and both offer a kde that is said to be blazingly fast.

Does anyone here have experience with both and can offer some comparison in terms of speed and stability?

I have used both distros. I installed Arch and tried KDEMod. Arch takes a little while to setup and configure, but your system is tweaked just the way you like it.
I also like the pacman package manager.

But I am kinda spoiled by Sidux's SMXI script (which is awesome). Both systems are fast so that is not really a concern.

So basically, if you want a more customized system, Arch is the choice. However if you want a system that is backed by Debian sid and fortified with killer scripts to help you do various system tediums, then Sidux is the choice.

I plan on playing with Arch again sometime on a spare machine, but right now I just don't see the need yet.

[Rumor]

I've used both, though my experience is more with gnome than KDE. I've tinkered with Arch's KDEmod, which is very nice indeed, sort of a minimalist KDE that lets you add the apps you want to use.

Speed wise, I think Arch is a bit faster in the way it responds to your input, launching programs and completing tasks.

One of the big advantages Arch has is the Pacman package manager. It is much faster than apt-get / synaptic. And, as you've already noted, you get to build your system from the base install up, so it is doing exactly what you have told it to and no more.

I found both to be pretty equal in terms of stability. I think you can be as bleeding adge as you wish with either. I think Arch gives you more freedom in how you customize and make your system yours. I doubt that there are two identical Arch setups anywhere.

[b9anders]

Both systems are fast so that is not really a concern.

well, I am running 1.4ghz/512 MB RAM, so it is a concern for me, as I am one of those impossible users who requires great speed in combination with all the eye-candy I can get. So every little edge makes a difference for me.

Speed wise, I think Arch is a bit faster in the way it responds to your input, launching programs and completing tasks.

One of the big advantages Arch has is the Pacman package manager. It is much faster than apt-get / synaptic. And, as you've already noted, you get to build your system from the base install up, so it is doing exactly what you have told it to and no more.

I think that settles it in Archlinux' favour. I've always found the thought of processes running that aren't really needed on my system a little annoying, but I've so far favoured debian-based distros over the likes of Gentoo and Slackware because they are so easy to maintain once set up. I broke things running debian sid on my own, but sidux has really smoothed the process. Good to hear that Arch offers comparable ease of maintenance.

[regomodo]

arch is very good. It is fast and by comparison all other distros i've used are too slow. Saying this, finding documentation is hard for some things. Also the forums are very quiet and you'll be lucky to get a problem resolved, so you are generally on your own. I've also had the luck to have 2 installs gone a bit awry due to segmentation faults despite memtest+ finding no issues

I've kept most of my findings on archlinux on my blog (http://www.regomodoslinux.blogspot.com)

If you value your time, Debian Etch/Lenny otherwise Arch is a good choice if you are a bit Linux savvy

Plus, pacman is awesome

[b9anders]

You saying Debian is horrendously slow in comparison has tickled my curiosity as Debian is one of the fastest distros around.

I'm prepared to spend a bit of time setting things up. I don't want to spend time maintaining the system though.

[tubasoldier]

I used arch for a while. Pacman is sweet, very sweet.

But I noticed that because it was much more bleeding edge that I sometimes ran into the occasional breakage. But with that said, I ran into more severe breakage when i upgraded to gutsy.

[regomodo]

You saying Debian is horrendously slow in comparison has tickled my curiosity as Debian is one of the fastest distros around.

I'm prepared to spend a bit of time setting things up. I don't want to spend time maintaining the system though.

well, "horrendously" is an exaggeration. General use is comparable but installing packages and bootup/shutdown is a different story. Debian is my 2nd favourite distro and my lappy dualboots it with arch

[b9anders]

tbh, I am amazed you are comparing pacman to apt as apt is already ridiculously fast and powerful to my mind (at least in sid as I am running). I actually liked OpenSUSE enough to overlook its general slowness but the incredible slow speed of yast to install anything took all the joy away from the distro. Apt is blazing in comparison and certainly the fastest package manager I've tried so far except maybe Zenwalk which was about the same (slack based).

Weirdly, shutdown is sixux's weakest point. It suffers from the same as OpenSUSE in that regard. Much time has been spent on improving boot time, but shutdown still takes ages. Although I tend to just suspend to RAM now that more and more distros can get that working.

[pelle.k]

Oh, don't you just *looove* these VS threads... :/