Arch Linux

[abhaysahai]

Has anyone tried arch linux ?
It requires a little configuration in the begining, but simply following the install guide, I was able to get a working system, adding packages is almost as simple as in kubuntu. Though adept takes package management to higher levels.

However, arch installs the minimal packages required. We install only the packages that we actually want. This and the fact that the packages are compiled on i686 ( against i386 of kubuntu) with gcc 4.0 makes arch linux super fast.
I really felt the speed difference between arch and kubuntu and its too much.
I have arch on my thinkpad (P4 1800) and kubuntu on desktop ( P4 2400) still laptop seems faster. I already have prelink and hdparam set on kubuntu.

May be kubuntu speed will increase after final release.

Abhay

[whoiam55]

Arch Linux

which version of kubuntu you using on your desktop ? breezy is lots more faster than hoary.

[Patrick]

Arch Linux

to me http://kubuntu.org looks a lot better than http://archlinux.org/ :P

Breezy is lots more faster than Hoary

I'm moving this the Distro showdown...

[abhaysahai]

Re: Arch Linux

I had hoary base ( server install) version, but I changed my sources.list to breezy, dist-upgrade and installed kubuntu-desktop. I do a dist-upgrade almost every week.
I think I have the latest breezy as of now because I did a dist-upgrade on 08-10-2005 after Kubuntu 5.10RC was released. Ofcource I always do a apt-get update before doing any upgrade.

May be my system is slow because it is upgraded from hoary. I plan to install a fresh copy of kubuntu after breezy is released. Hopefully it will be much faster.
Till then I am simply testing arch on my thinkpad and arch is simply working.
I have read the Breezy release documents that state that klaptop ( with hibernate ) works out of box in kubuntu - can't believe how simpler life kubuntu developers will make. I had to install a suspend2 supported kernel and hibernate script for arch, though it works, but out of box is something only kubuntu can offer.

Regards,
Abhay

[whoiam55]

Re: Arch Linux

I do a dist-upgrade almost every week.

I guess you means apt-get upgrade not apt-get dist-upgrade. dist-upgrade only needed when you want to upgrade to a new distro. apt-get upgrade simply upgrade your softwares (if there is any new fix/release).

[macphisto]

Re: Arch Linux

There was a time, back when I was a serial distro install fiend... ... that I was tempted to try out Arch. If I was to give something like that a go now, I think I would opt for Rubix instead of Arch, which is another derivative of Slackware that uses pacman for package management.

I often find myself wondering how Rubix is different from both Arch and Slackware. Then I remind myself why I started Rubix and it all comes clear again.

Rubix will have a regular release schedule, and puts a much higher emphasis on stability and security over bleeding edge packages. Documentation and overall development is much more organized and professional than Arch.

- Joshua Rubin
http://www.rubixlinux.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19