Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 146

Thread: Is Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b15hop View Post
    Arch feels faster because you can install only the applications you want.:
    That is complete bullsh*t!

    You can shrink every Debian/Ubuntu installation to a minimum. An Ubuntu installation does even take less harddisk space than the same installation under Arch Linux.

    Why? Because ArchLinux always installs all development headers and GCC for a package. Under Debian/Ubuntu you have the choice. You don't need GCC? Than deinstall it? Software-development? Bah! I don't need C-header-files, kick it out.

    Some weeks ago, i customized an Ubuntu installation, so it does only need 128MB RAM and less than 500MB HD-space. All that was installed was the basic system (via Alternate-CD), IceWM and Midori as a browser. No CUPS, no HAL, no whatever.

    So don't tell me only Arch allows you to install whatever you want.

    Arch does you only make feel you have more control over the system, because you have to start from scratch. "Normal" distributions are full-fledged, after installation. So first you don't have a choice but you can customize the installation afterwards.

    That is the only difference between Ubuntu and Arch.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasen View Post

    That is the only difference between Ubuntu and Arch.
    That leaves out the tons of other differences, just to name the most important: arch is a rolling distro. That implies a lot of things, good or bad, you decide. I'd use Arch anyway.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Does Arch force you to use Pulse Audio?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Does Arch force you to use Pulse Audio?
    No. It's optional. Most of us use OSS4 or ALSA

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    64

    Default

    That leaves out the tons of other differences, just to name the most important: arch is a rolling distro. That implies a lot of things, good or bad, you decide.
    Okay you're right. I forgot this point.

    Does Arch force you to use Pulse Audio?
    Even Ubuntu does not force Pulseaudio. You can always deinstall it completely and use pure ALSA or OSS.

    Ever heard of Ubuntu Studio? It uses "jackd" as audio daemon.

    The only PA-related packages you can't deinstall are "libpulse" and "libpulse-mainloop-glib0". When not using GNOME, you can even deinstall them.

    Because Pulseaudio is installed in a basic installation, it does not mean you can't get rid of it.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasen View Post
    That is complete bullsh*t!

    You can shrink every Debian/Ubuntu installation to a minimum. An Ubuntu installation does even take less harddisk space than the same installation under Arch Linux.

    Why? Because ArchLinux always installs all development headers and GCC for a package. Under Debian/Ubuntu you have the choice. You don't need GCC? Than deinstall it? Software-development? Bah! I don't need C-header-files, kick it out.

    Some weeks ago, i customized an Ubuntu installation, so it does only need 128MB RAM and less than 500MB HD-space. All that was installed was the basic system (via Alternate-CD), IceWM and Midori as a browser. No CUPS, no HAL, no whatever.

    So don't tell me only Arch allows you to install whatever you want.

    Arch does you only make feel you have more control over the system, because you have to start from scratch. "Normal" distributions are full-fledged, after installation. So first you don't have a choice but you can customize the installation afterwards.

    That is the only difference between Ubuntu and Arch.
    Ah glad you pointed the differences in header files and GCC. I tend to install GCC anyway so I need all those things regardless. I think there is an option though, not to install GCC upon install. I notice that people who like developing software have a bias towards arch for that reason.

    Though, if you read my whole response from before. You will notice that I stated both distro's, being linux, can be customized and stripped down anyway.... I'm sure people already know that. The article was focusing on base installs, not custom tweaked ones. After using Arch for so long now, ubuntu feels a bit alien to me. Thus my bias towards Arch. I never spent the time to tweak or play with Ubuntu. Having a slower i686 based athlon processor at the time didn't help. Yet now I'm accustomed to Arch anyway.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krionius View Post
    That leaves out the tons of other differences, just to name the most important: arch is a rolling distro. That implies a lot of things, good or bad, you decide. I'd use Arch anyway.
    This is partly a weakness of Arch. I remember a couple of times when a top level package was updated and it meant downloading a gigabyte of updates just because of one package. That was half the problem though, because the mirrors also need to be sync'd. When the mirrors are out of sync, big updates like that can really screw up the system. Updated packages mixed with non updated etc.... Then pacman doesn't even work ARGH. My guess that it's a problem with package managers in general though. But it was enough to scare some people away from arch and go over to ubuntu.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Whether you like rolling releases or traditional distros comes down to how much time you want to spend just maintaining your OS. I jump around distros too much, you learn a lot more with rolling releases because things break more often. I love Sidux, but have stopped using it because of the constant stream of updates and workarounds that simply take too much time - every day. I ran Gentoo for a year then one day just said enough is enough.

    With Ubuntu you can just turn off Compiz and leave it off, after all it doesn't actually do anything, it is just decoration. Also you can manually add a 2.6.34 kernel from the PPAs and have a foot in both camps.

    It all comes down to what you use your computer for, and how much time/effort/bandwidth you are willing to spend just maintaining it. This month I am using Ubuntu, but it is getting boring because nothing goes wrong. Ha

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    30

    Default Some thoughts from an Arch user.

    1. Arch shows its advantages over other distros in 32-bit environment, because Arch packages are optimized for i686 whereas the most of others are optimized for i586 or ealier architecture. In other words, Arch is a good choice for old machines (with non-64-bit capability).

    2. Memory consumption benchmarks should be included.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Arch packages are optimized by default to i686 in the 32 bit repos, ubuntu by comparison is compiled for i386, i believe (So a benchmark on a 32 bit cpu would be interesting, I suppose). On 64 bit, however, the difference of compilation between distros (even gentoo) is negligible.

    Both Arch and Ubuntu use the *same* software, Arch is just often a case of a bit newer software. Benchmarking is basically just between different versions of the same software.
    What Arch offers (outside of 32 bit performance) is a philosophy where you start from a small base, and work your way up in an organized fashion, and easily maintain a clean system for years to come. These two distros are packaged quite differently, and depending on the person, one or the other can make life a lot easier.

    Arch makes it easy for me to achieve a balance between performance, and time investment, since all I had to do was learn from the wiki the basics of the system. With this understanding now in hand, system upkeep and anything new is easy, and doesn't consume my time (like running gentoo would).

Posting Permissions

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