Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Arch vs Ubuntu

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Xubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Arch vs Ubuntu

    Apparently some people give Arch Linux less credit than it is due. It does not break all the time, 4 times a year, or whatever...

    I've been using it since 2015 and never have I had one problem that kept me from using it for whatever I need.

    It is my main Linux distro now and it is indeed on the cutting edge. The kernel is at 4.15.2-2-ARCH already.

    It is not necessary but, if one wants an LTS kernel, one can be installed. It is currently at 4.14.18-1-lts.
    It does not come installed, the same as any other optional package but, must be explicitly installed.

    There is also a fallback kernel for both the regular and the LTS kernel.

    My friend, the conky weather programmer, uses Arch Linux exclusively without the LTS kernel. He has never had a problem that he could not get by.

    I have Windows 10, Arch Linux, Xenial 16.04 LTS, Artful Aardvark and the current Xubuntu developmental version Bionic 18.04 on my one and only 9 year old PC.

    If I get a laptop, I would format the hard drive and install Arch Linux.

    You have the choice of updating your system or waiting until you need to as there is no automatic updating on Arch.
    Many things like Compiz, the Fusion Icon, etc. are on the AUR (Arch User Repository) and can be left for as long as you want before updating.

    There is also a couple of websites to look at before updating to see if there is anything to prepare for, one is https://www.archlinux.org

    So, ye of little faith, there is not one reason that Arch Linux can be used exclusively, of course you need to know what you are doing but, it's not as bad as some would have you believe.

    I just prefer having some different operating systems to boot into is the reason I don't use Arch Linux exclusively.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Xubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Arch vs Ubuntu

    Quote Originally Posted by ClickXT View Post
    I am thinking about giving Arch a serious look after some things that I have been reading.

    For people that use Arch and Ubuntu -- any advice or words of caution?
    I use my Dell XPS13 (i7, 16GB RAM, SSD) for home office use but also to learn Linux while I am at home. (IT, System Admin - in 95% Windows environment otherwise)

    Is Arch more "serious business" as I have seen it worded somewhere else or is that just elitist speak?

    I realize that the typical answer is "try it for yourself and see if it's for you." But any information or input from those who are using or have I'd love to hear it from your perspectives.

    Thanks-
    CXT
    Did you ever try Arch? If you did, you want to have Arch control your Grub because there is no way to disable it. If it ever updates, the Grub will be on Arch.
    But, for Ubuntu and any other Debian distro you can just install that Grub to the PBR like this here.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Left Coast of the USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Arch vs Ubuntu

    All the foregoing notwithstanding, Arch has arguably the best documentation out there. Thorough instructions with detailed explanations.
    Please read The Forum Rules and The Forum Posting Guidelines
    My Blog
    A thing discovered and kept to oneself must be discovered time and again by others. A thing discovered and shared with others need be discovered only the once.
    This universe is crazy. I'm going back to my own.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    albuquerque
    Beans
    575
    Distro
    Kubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Arch vs Ubuntu

    I've been running Arch for a little over four years. I've also used some Arch derivatives, and I currently have an Antergos installation, along with Arch and my other Linux installations.

    Arch is surprisingly stable. I check the news (https://www.archlinux.org/news/) before I do updates, and I try not to go too long between updates. I haven't encountered any serious breakage with Arch, or with any of the Arch derivatives I've tried. The updates can be kinda massive compared to anything in the Debian world but I run stuff like Xfce, LXDE, and Openbox in Arch so I don't have as much in the way of package updates as I'd have if I were running KDE or GNOME.

    Antergos is good; I basically run it just like I run Arch. I haven't tried Manjaro. I'd like to take a look at ArchLabs sometime, maybe. But in the end, I prefer Arch over any of its derivatives because I end up with a better, lighter, cleaner system with "straight" Arch. My two favorite distros right now are Debian Stable and Arch.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Xubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver

    Re: Arch vs Ubuntu

    I went a couple of days between updates. (From VinDSL's conky thread, Paramvir has conky checking pacman for updates every 3 hours) but, mine wasn't working. I looked at an error log and seen some ^M characters.

    So, I edited that file with VIM and there was a Windows line feed (^M) on every line. I got rid of those and conky showed I had 45 updates. But, a kernel is only ~60MB and an Nvidia driver is >10MB. Every time a kernel comes out there is a corresponding Nvidia driver to go with it.

    I use Xfce exclusively and boot to terminal, if it's TTY1, it will login and it starts X and Xfce; no DM at all. Many of the things that used to work on other distros like Ubuntu, the Fusion Icon for example, work perfectly in Arch Linux. I can right click on the Icon in the top panel and switch WM from Compiz to Xfwm4 or Metacity and switch back when needed. It also has a lot of the old Compiz stuff like the fishtank and several other cool things. There are 2 versions of Compiz too. Like QIII said, everything for Arch is well documented.

    Regular updates are not bad but, some updates from the AUR can take a long time as it compiles right before your eyes. I use Vivaldi most of the time now and I installed it from a tar.xz file but, it get's updated via the AUR. It doesn't take long but vivaldi-ffmpeg-codecs, which is an optional dependency takes quite a while.

    But, Arch Linux is a beast! I've tried Mint, Debian and can't think of others right now but, I've never tried any version of Arch except Arch Linux.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Beans
    3

    Re: Arch vs Ubuntu

    'ClickXT' was my old account (I wish I could've gotten them merged?) but anyway - yes I used Manjaro and Arch Linux for a good while.
    Although I found both to be overall positive experiences I ended up coming back to Ubuntu.

    I did enjoy the AUR but Ubuntu's availability when it comes to official proprietary software/third party software is what I end up missing the most.

    I enjoy having OPTIONS (especially as a SysAdmin) and for me Ubuntu provides that and stability while enjoying Linux more than any other distro I have used for any considerable length of time. (Arch, Manjaro, Fedora, OpenSUSE)

    Having said that - I will be giving Solus a spin next.
    Last edited by Clickster; February 24th, 2018 at 04:31 AM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •