An interesting comment on Distrowatch 19.11.2012

**Chdslv** · November 19th, 2012

There was 2 interesting comments on Distrowatch of 19.11.2012, so I thought before they'd delete them, I'd better take screenshot and post it here.

These comments are about mini.iso installation. Everyone talks so much about Arch being a distribution, but its installation gives just the same type of bare operating system, just as the mini.iso installation gives. The, we go on adding X and apps, so we can use it with a GUI.

So, no one can say that Arch or Gentoo is a better rolling distribution than the installation of mini.iso, as we both start from the basic installation, which is just a basic operating system.

**mikewhatever** · November 19th, 2012

An Ubuntu mini ISO installation is not a rolling distribution, and isn't really the same as Arch.

**deadflowr** · November 19th, 2012

Originally Posted by mikewhatever

An Ubuntu mini ISO installation is not a rolling distribution, and isn't really the same as Arch.

Agreed.
If you install Arch, in three years, if you keep it updated, you'll be running the latest system, but if use Ubuntu mini.iso, in three years you'll be using the same release you installed.(unless you upgrade)
The closest to an Ubuntu rolling release would be running the development branches, and even that would require upgrading the repos every six months.Not exactly rolling if you have to manipulate the system every so often.

**Aaron Christianson** · November 19th, 2012

mini.iso is a great choice for a minimal base distro with which to do your own thing, but it's still all Ubuntu packages, and it's definitely not a rolling release (aka: gets new packages as upstream releases come out). Ubuntu gets very few new packages after release except for security updates and Firefox, 'cause Mozilla twisted their arm.

So, I'm going to say it: Arch and Gentoo are better rolling releases than Ubuntu mini, which is in no sense a rolling release.

First thing I thought of when I read this was that Billy Madison thing.

There are other differences: Packages also come with most of the config files done for you and some are heavily patched. Arch and Gentoo are quite different in this regard. You get the normal config files from upstream, but many times they are not automatically installed. You have to copy and edit them yourself. This doesn't make your system any better, since you can usually achieve the same level of customization on Ubuntu, but going through the extra step does mean that you have a deeper understanding of what your own system is doing and how to manipulate it.

Some ubuntu packages are heavily patched as well, whereas Arch and Gentoo prefer vanilla upstream packages. On Gentoo, there are no pre-packaged binaries. Everything is compiled on the system so you can make a lot of compile-time customizations to programs with flags. Ubuntu (and even Arch, for repo packages) do not give you this kind of direct control over how your programs are complied, and therefor you miss out on the ability optimize performance for your setup. The core of Arch and many important packages are distributed in binary format, but you also build a lot of your own packages from with scripts. You don't do this so much on Ubuntu. Compiling software from source is often quite painful on Ubuntu, and creating packages so you can install them properly is even worse. Gentoo and Arch simplify this process because it's a given that many of their users are going to want to compile their own bins and create their own packages.

That isn't to say that mini.iso isn't a great launchpad for doing your own thing, it's just not really the same as Arch or Gentoo in a lot of important ways. It's still Ubuntu (which is great, by the way).