Arch compared to other distributions (Nederlands)

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 17:17, 27 May 2006 by Golradir (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:I18n links start Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n links end

Deze pagina vat de overeenkomsten en de verschillen samen tussen Arch en andere distributies. De vraag komt vaak voor en daarom is het aardig om een standaard antwoord te hebben. Nota bene: de beste manier om Arch te vergelijken met andere distributies is om het te installeren en zelf uit te proberen. Arch heeft een geweldige gebruikersgemeenschap die altijd bereid is om nieuwe gebruikers te helpen. De samenvattingen hieronder zijn alleen bedoeld om je genoeg informatie te geven om te beslissen of Arch echt voor jou is.

Arch vs Gentoo

Because Arch distributes binary, it is much less time consuming than Gentoo. Gentoo has more packages. Arch allows both binary and source based distribution. PKGBUILDs are easier to create than ebuilds. Gentoo is more portable out of the box as packages will get compiled to your specific architecture, whereas as Arch is i686 only (although i586 and x64 user-based spinoff projects are underway). There is no documented proof that Gentoo is any faster than Arch.

Arch vs Crux

Arch Linux is descended from Crux. Judd once summarized the differences:

"I used Crux before starting Arch. Arch started out as Crux, pretty much. Then I wrote pacman and makepkg to replace my bash pseudo packaging scripts (I built Arch as an LFS system to begin). So the two are completely separate distros, but technically, they're almost the same. We have dependency support (officially) for example, although Crux has a community that provides other features. CLC's prt-get will do rudimentary dependency logic. Crux gets to ignore lots of problems we have too, since it's a very minimalistic package set, basically what Per uses and nothing else."

See this this forum post for a user's impressions of both distributions.

Arch vs Sorcerer/Lunar-linux/Sourcemage

Sorcerer/Lunar-linux/Sourcemage (SLS) are all source based distros, much like Gentoo is, but are originally related to one another. SLS distro's use a rather simple set of script files to create packages descriptions, and use a global configuration file to configure the compilation process, much like Arch's ABS system. The SLS tools does full dependancy checking (including handling optional features) and package tracking (and deinstalling/upgrading). There are no binary packages for any of the SLS family, allthough they all can rollback earlier installed packages easily.

The install involves installing a base system (much like Arch's: i686 optimized, CLI and ncurses menus, only core tools), then recompiling the base system (optionally) after. There is obviously no "standard" WM/DE/DM and they do not install an Xserver during the base installation. However, they do provide you with an easy way of installing one of several Xserver alternatives (xorg 6.8 or 7, xfree86).

SLS has a very complicated history. The best write up about it can be found here:

Lunar Linux: SourceMage: Sorcerer:

Arch vs Onebase


Arch vs Rock


Arch vs T2


Arch vs grafische distributies

De grafische distributies hebben veel overeenkomsten en Arch verschilt veel met ze. Arch is gebaseerd op tekst en georienteerd op de commandolijn. Arch is een betere distributie als je echt Linux wilt leren. Grafisch gebaseerde distributies komen meestal met GUI installaties (zoals Fedora's Anacaonda) en GUI systeem configuratiegereedschap (zoals SuSe's Yast). De specifieke verschillen tussen de distributies worden hieronder beschreven.

Arch vs Slackware

Slackware en Arch zijn allebei "eenvoudige" distributies. Ze gebruiken allebei BSD-achtige initscripts. Arch komt met een veel robuster package beheersysteem dan Slackware. Met pacman is het mogelijk eenvoudig automatische systeemupgrades uit te voeren. Slackware wordt gezien als wat meer conservatief in de manier waarop nieuwe versie's worden uitgebracht, er wordt gekozen voor packages waarvan bewezen is dat ze stabiel zijn. Arch is veel meer "bleeding edge" in dit opzicht. Arch is er alleen voor de i686 terwijl Slackware ook draait op i486 systemen. Arch is een goed systeem voor Slackware gebruikers die een robuster package beheersystem willen of meer huidige packages.

Arch vs Debian

Arch is simpler than Debian. Arch has fewer packages. Arch provides better support for building your own packages than Debian does. Arch is more lenient when it comes to 'non-free' packages as defined by GNU. Arch is i686 optimized and thus faster than Debian (NO documented proof here either). Arch packages are more bleeding edge than Debian packages (Arch current is often more up to date than Debian unstable!)

Arch vs Ubuntu

Arch has a simpler foundation than Ubuntu. If you like to compile your own kernels, try out bleeding edge CVS-only projects, or build a program from source every once in a while, Arch is better suited. If you want to get up and running quickly and not fiddle around with the guts of the system, Ubuntu is better suited. In general, developers and tinkerers will probably like Arch better than Ubuntu.

Arch vs RPM-gebaseerde distributies

RPM-packages zijn op veel plaatsen verkrijgbaar, maar packages van een derde hebben vaak problemen met dependency's, zals het vereisen van een oude versie van een bibliotheek. Er is ook verwarring tussen RPM-packages voor Redhat vs. RPM-packages voor Mandrake. Pacman is veel krachtiger en betrouwbaarder dan RPM.

Arch vs Fedora

Fedora is a spin-off from the Red Hat distribution and has continually been one of the most popular distributions to date. Therefore, there is a massive community and lots of pre-built packages and support available. Like all RPM-based distributions, package management is a problem. Fedora supplied Yum as a front-end to manage the acquistion of RPMs and dependency resolution. The system lacks solid yum intergration. Fedora does innovate and recently earned kudos for integration of SELinux and GCJ compiled packages to remove the need for Sun's JRE. Fedora famously doesn't attempt to support the mp3 media format due to perceived patent issues.

  • note: Up2Date has been removed from Fedora Core 5. More solid yum integration now.

Arch vs Mandriva

Mandriva (previously Mandrake), though famed for its installer is a very handholding distro which can get annoying after some time. Another problem is that it is a RPM based distro as discussed above. Arch allows much more freedom and less hand-holding. You actually learn.

Arch vs SuSE

Suse is centered around its well regarded Yast configuration tool. This is a one-stop shop for most users' configuration needs. Arch doesn't offer such a facility as it goes against the TheArchWay. Suse, therefore, is seen as more appropriate to less experienced users, or those who want a simpler life with expected functionality working out of the box. Suse doesn't offer mp3 support immediately, post-install. However, it can be easily added through Yast at a later date.

Arch vs Frugalware

Arch is text based and command-line oriented (user should be willing to learn). Frugalware is a Slackware-based system. Frugalware provides better multi-lingual support. Frugalware also provides more local documentation. Frugalware claims to be faster then Arch. Both use pacman. Their packages are not really very compatible.