Ubuntu vs. Arch

**d-cosner** · July 17th, 2014

I am certain this is going to be moved... I have Ubuntu Gnome and Arch with Gnome installed, they both have their good points. Ubuntu Gnome has the advantage of being very easy to maintain. Arch takes some work to maintain because of it's rolling release nature. Arch always has the current stable version of Gnome where Ubuntu Gnome does not.

On the other hand, I never have to worry about problems with my extensions on Ubuntu Gnome and updates are not likely to break anything. Both distros have something good to offer depending on what you are looking for.

**Old_Grey_Wolf** · July 17th, 2014

I use Ubuntu for my laptop and notebook because of the GUI and Apps. I use CentOS for the servers because of the stability. I don't use Arch because of the rolling release.

**ibjsb4** · July 18th, 2014

I have never ran arch, but got to say that I find arch documentation extremely helpful.

**Metallion** · July 18th, 2014

Originally Posted by d-cosner

I never have to worry about problems with my extensions on Ubuntu Gnome and updates are not likely to break anything.

To be honest my experience is kind of opposite. Since Ubuntu only really updates once every 6 months, the amount of changes is huge. For me it was always a choice between a complete reinstall, a huge upgrade that would very likely break loads of things, or sticking with the old version. Arch's rolling release has been working a lot better for me. I can just update every day and the latest packages are brought in little by little. When something does break, it's much easier to track down that way.

Full disclosure: I haven't used Ubuntu on desktop since 8.10 or something. Not sure if the upgrade process has gotten more reliable since.