Difference between revisions of "Arch compared to other distributions"
(→Arch vs CRUX)
(→Arch vs Slackware)
|Line 57:||Line 57:|
==Arch vs Slackware==
==Arch vs Slackware==
The mighty Slackware and Arch are quite similar in that both are simple distributions focused on elegance and minimalism. Slackware is famous for its lack of branding and completely vanilla packages, from the kernel up. Arch typically applies patching only to avoid severe breakage and preserve functionality, if absolutely necessary. Both use BSD-style init scripts. Arch supplies a package management system in pacman which, unlike Slackware's standard tools, offers automatic dependency resolution and allows for easy system upgrades. Slackware users typically prefer their method of manual dependency resolution, citing the level of system control it grants them. Arch is a rolling-release system. Slackware is seen as more conservative in its release cycle, preferring proven stable packages. Arch is more 'bleeding edge' in this respect.
The mighty Slackware and Arch are quite similar in that both are simple distributions focused on elegance and minimalism. Slackware is famous for its lack of branding and completely vanilla packages, from the kernel up. Arch typically applies patching only to avoid severe breakage and preserve functionality, if absolutely necessary. Both use BSD-style init scripts. Arch supplies a package management system in pacman which, unlike Slackware's standard tools, offers automatic dependency resolution and allows for easy system upgrades. Slackware users typically prefer their method of manual dependency resolution, citing the level of system control it grants them. Arch is a rolling-release system. Slackware is seen as more conservative in its release cycle, preferring proven stable packages. Arch is more 'bleeding edge' in this respect. Arch offers [[ABS]], an actual ports-like system. The (unofficial) Slackbuild system is very similar to Arch's [[AUR]] concept. Slack users will generally be quite comfortable with most aspects of Arch.
Revision as of 11:25, 23 May 2009
Template:I18n links start Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n entry Template:I18n links end
This page summarizes some of the similarities and differences between Arch and other GNU/Linux distributions/
UNIX-like operating systems. Please note that the best way to compare Arch to other distributions is to install it and try it yourself. Arch has a wonderful user community that is always willing to help new users. The summaries below are meant only to give you enough information to decide if Arch is really for you.
- 1 Source-Based
- 2 Minimalist
- 3 Graphical Distros
- 4 The *BSDs
- 5 Other
Source-Based distros are highly portable, giving the advantage of controlling and compiling the entire OS and packages to a particular machine architecture and usage scheme, with the disadvantage of the time-consuming nature of source-compilation. The Arch base and all packages are compiled for i686 and x86-64 architectures, offering a potential performance boost over i386/i486/i586 binary distros, with the added advantage of expedient installation.
Arch vs Gentoo
Because the Arch installation is binary, it is much less time-consuming than the source-based Gentoo installation. Both Gentoo and Arch allow binary and source-based packaging as well as makeworld functions; however, the Gentoo base system is source-based while Arch's is binary. Both are rolling-release systems. Arch PKGBUILDs are widely perceived as simpler and more expedient to create than Gentoo ebuilds. Gentoo offers support for x86, ppc, sparc, alpha, amd64, mips, hppa, and itanium, whereas Arch offers i686 and x86-64 only. The Arch design approach is more focused on simplicity and minimalism, whereas Gentoo focuses more on the ability to globally control each aspect of source compilation. Both distros allow for a very high level of customization, therefore, Gentoo users will generally feel quite comfortable with most aspects of Arch.
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 distros use a rather simple set of script files to create package descriptions, and use a global configuration file to configure the compilation process, much like Arch's ABS system. The SLS tools do full dependency checking (including handling optional features) and package tracking (and uninstalling/upgrading). There are no binary packages for any of the SLS family, although they all can roll back 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) afterwards. There is obviously no "standard" WM/DE/DM, and they do not install an X server during the base installation. But they do provide you with an easy way of installing one of several X server alternatives (X.Org 6.8 or 7, XFree86).
SLS has a very complicated history. The best write-up about it can be found here: http://wiki.sourcemage.org/SourceMage/History
Arch vs Rock
From Introduction http://www.rocklinux.org/wiki/About
ROCK Linux is a flexible Linux Distribution Build Kit, i.e. it is a toolchain/framework for making your own Linux distributions. See also our Mission Statement. If you don't want to build your own distribution but simply are interested in a good general-purpose distribution, you might want to have a look at Crystal ROCK. http://www.rocklinux.org/wiki/Crystal_ROCK
A distro based on being a build tool. VS Arch; again same issues as source based with time to compile, etc. Seems to work on many processors like SPARC, ARM, etc.
The minimalist distros are quite comparable to Arch, sharing several similarities. All are considered 'simple' from a technical standpoint.
Arch vs LFS
LFS, or Linux From Scratch, is just that; the minimal base package set for a functional GNU/Linux system, manually compiled and configured from scratch. LFS is as minimal as it gets, and offers an excellent and educational process of building a base system. Arch provides these very same packages, plus a BSD-style init, a few extra tools and the powerful pacman package manager as its base system, already compiled for i686/x86-64. LFS provides no online repositories; sources are manually obtained, compiled and installed with make. (Several manual methods of package management exist, and are mentioned in LFS Hints) Along with the minimal Arch base system, the Arch community and devs provide and maintain many thousands of binary packages installable via pacman as well as PKGBUILD build scripts for use with ABS- the Arch (source) Build System. Arch also includes the makepkg tool for expediently building or customizing .pkg.tar.gz packages, readily installable by pacman. Judd Vinet built Arch from scratch, and then wrote pacman in C. Arch is sometimes, therefore, humorously described simply as "Linux, with a nice package manager."
- Q: Is Arch Based on
- A: No. Arch is independently developed, was built from scratch and is not based on any other GNU/Linux distribution.
Before creating Arch, Judd Vinet admired and used
CRUX, a minimalist distro created by Per Lidén. Originally inspired by ideas in common with
CRUX, Arch was built from scratch, and pacman was then coded in C. The 2 share some guiding principles; for instance, both are architecture optimized, minimalist and K.I.S.S. Both ship with ports-like systems, use *BSD-style init systems and, (like *BSD), both provide a minimal base environment to build upon. Arch features pacman, which handles binary system package management and works seamlessly with ABS, the Arch ports-like system.
CRUX uses a community contributed system called prt-get, which, in combination with its own ports system, handles dependency resolution, but builds all packages from source, (though the
CRUX base installation is i686 binary). Arch officially supports x86-64 and i686, whereas
CRUX is i686 only.
Arch is a rolling release and also features a large array of binary package repositories as well as the AUR.
Arch vs Slackware
The mighty Slackware and Arch are quite similar in that both are simple distributions focused on elegance and minimalism. Slackware is famous for its lack of branding and completely vanilla packages, from the kernel up. Arch typically applies patching only to avoid severe breakage and preserve functionality, if absolutely necessary. Both use BSD-style init scripts. Arch supplies a package management system in pacman which, unlike Slackware's standard tools, offers automatic dependency resolution and allows for easy system upgrades. Slackware users typically prefer their method of manual dependency resolution, citing the level of system control it grants them. Arch is a rolling-release system. Slackware is seen as more conservative in its release cycle, preferring proven stable packages. Arch is more 'bleeding edge' in this respect. Arch offers ABS, an actual ports-like system. The (unofficial) Slackbuild system is very similar to Arch's AUR concept. Slack users will generally be quite comfortable with most aspects of Arch.
Sometimes called "newbie" distros, the graphical distros have a lot of similarities, though Arch is quite different from them. Arch is text-based and command-line oriented. Arch may be a better choice if you want to learn about GNU/Linux by building up from a very minimal base. Graphical distros tend to ship with GUI installers (like Fedora's Anaconda) and GUI system-configuration tools (like SuSE's YaST). Specific differences between distros are described below.
Arch vs Ubuntu
Ubuntu is an immensely popular Debian-based distro commercially sponsored by Canonical Ltd., while Arch is an indepedently developed system built from scratch. 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. Arch is presented as a much more minimalist design from the installation onward, relying on the user to customize it to their own specific needs. In general, developers and tinkerers will probably like Arch better than Ubuntu, though many Arch users claim to have started on Ubuntu and eventually migrated to Arch. Ubuntu moves between discrete releases every 6 months, whereas Arch is a rolling release. Arch offers a ports-like package build system, ABS, while Ubuntu does not.
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. As such, there is a massive community and lots of pre-built packages and support available. Fedora is RPM-based. Arch uses pacman to manage tar.gz packages. Fedora famously doesn't attempt to support the MP3 media format due to perceived patent issues. Arch is more lenient in its disposition toward MP3 and other media. Fedora uses a graphical install by default. Arch does not offer a graphical installer, but rather, uses an ncurses-based install, relying more on the user for manual configuration. Fedora has a scheduled release cycle. Arch is a rolling-release system. The Arch design approach is geared more toward lightweight elegance and minimalism rather than automation/autoconfiguration. Fedora does innovate and recently earned much community recognition for integration of SELinux and GCJ compiled packages to remove the need for Sun's JRE. Fedora does not support JFS nor ReiserFS out of the box.
Arch vs Mandriva
Mandriva Linux (formerly Mandrakelinux) was created in 1998 with the goal of making GNU/Linux easy to use for everyone. It is RPM-based and uses the urpmi package manager. Again, Arch takes a simpler approach, relying on more manual configuration and is aimed a bit more toward intermediate to advanced users.
Arch vs SUSE
SUSE is centered around its well-regarded YaST configuration tool, which is a one-stop shop for most users' configuration needs. Arch doesn't offer such a facility as it goes against TheArchWay. SUSE, therefore, is widely regarded as more appropriate for less-experienced users, or those who want a more GUI-driven environment, autoconfiguration and expected functionality out of the box.
Arch vs PCLinuxOS
PCLinuxOS is a popular Mandriva-based distro providing a complete DE, designed for user-friendliness and is self-described as simple, though its definition of simple is quite different than the Arch definition. Arch is designed as a simple base system to be customized from the ground up and is aimed more toward advanced users. PCLOS uses the apt package manager as a wrapper for RPM packages. Arch uses its own independently developed pacman package manager with .tar.gz packages. PCLOS is very GUI-driven, provides GUI hardware configuration tools and the Synaptic package management front end, and claims to have little or no reliance on the shell. Arch is command line oriented and designed for more simple approaches to system configuration, management and maintenance. PCLOS recommends 256MB RAM as part of its minimum system requirements. Being more lightweight, Arch can run on systems with much less system memory, requiring only 64MB of RAM for a base i686 install, and will run flawlessly on more modern systems.
Arch is perhaps more similar to the *BSD's, from a design overview, than most other GNU/Linux distros. Both Arch and *BSD offer a tightly integrated base and ports system combined with available binary packages. The BSDs derive from Berkeley
UNIX. Therefore, *BSDs are not GNU/Linux distros, but rather,
Arch vs FreeBSD
Both Arch and FreeBSD offer software which can be obtained using binaries or compiled using 'ports' systems. Both share a very similar init system. FreeBSD boasts that it is more of a system designed as a whole, compared to GNU/Linux distros, with each app 'ported' over to FreeBSD and made sure to work in the process. Both use /etc/rc.conf as a main configuration file. The FreeBSD license is generally more protective of the coder, vs the GPL which in contrast favors protection of the code. Arch is released under the GPL. In FreeBSD, like Arch, decisions are delegated to you, the power user. This may be the most interesting comparison to Arch since it goes head-to-head in package modernity and has a somewhat sizable, smart, active, no-nonsense community. Both systems share many similarities and FreeBSD users will generally feel quite comfortable with most aspects of Arch.
Arch vs NetBSD
NetBSD is a free, secure, and highly portable
UNIX-like open-source operating system available for over 50 platforms, from 64-bit Opteron machines and desktop systems to handheld and embedded devices. Its clean design and advanced features make it excellent in both production and research environments, and it is user-supported with complete source. Many applications are easily available through pkgsrc, the NetBSD Packages Collection. Arch may not operate on the vast number of devices NetBSD operates on, but for an i686 system it may offer more apps. Also, the default installation method in pkgsrc is to pull and compile sources whereas Arch offers binary packages. Arch does share many similarities with NetBSD; both use /etc/rc.conf as the main conf file, they are very minimalist and lightweight, they both offer ports systems as well as binaries and both have active, no-nonsense devs and communities. Arch also borrows from *BSD for its init system concepts.
Arch vs OpenBSD
The OpenBSD project produces a free, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based
UNIX-like operating system. Efforts focus on portability, standardization, code correctness, proactive security, and integrated cryptography. In contrast, Arch focuses more on simplicity, elegance, minimalism and bleeding edge software. OpenBSD supports binary emulation of most programs from SVR4 (Solaris), FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, BSD/OS, SunOS and HP-UX. OpenBSD is self-described as 'perhaps the #1 security OS'.
In common with Arch, OpenBSD offers a small, elegant, base install and uses a ports system and packaging systems to allow for easy installation and management of programs which are not part of the base operating system. In contrast to a GNU/Linux system like Arch, but in common with most other BSD-based operating systems, the OpenBSD kernel and userland programs, such as the shell and common tools (like ls, cp, cat and ps), are developed together in a single source repository.
These OS's fall into the 'other' category.
Arch vs Debian GNU/Linux
Debian is a much larger project and community and features stable, testing, and unstable branches, offering over 20,000 binary packages. Arch does not 'split' their packages into -dev and -common as Debian does, therefore, Arch repositories will seem much smaller. Debian has a more vehement stance on free software. Arch is more lenient when it comes to 'non-free' packages as defined by GNU. Debian's design approach focuses more on stability and stringent testing. Arch is focused more on the philosophy of simplicity, minimalism, and offering bleeding edge software. Arch packages are more current than Debian Stable and Testing, typically being about equal with Debian unstable. Both Debian and Arch offer well-regarded package management systems. Arch is a rolling release, whereas Debian Stable is released with "frozen" packages. Debian is available for many architectures, including alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, and sparc, whereas Arch is i686 and x86_64 only. Arch provides more expedient support for building custom, installable packages from outside sources, with a ports-like package build system. Debian does not offer a ports system, relying instead on its huge binary repositories. The Arch installation system only offers a minimal base, transparently exposed during system configuration, whereas Debian's methods offer a more automatically configured approach as well as several alternative methods of installation. Debian utilizes the SysVinit, whereas Arch uses a simpler *BSD-style init.
Arch vs Frugalware
Arch is text-based and command-line oriented. Frugalware has adopted Arch's pacman as its package manager, but uses bzipped-tarballs. In contrast, Arch uses gzipped tarballs, for the purpose of expedience of installation. Frugalware doesn't support the JFS file-system by default. Frugalware is no longer based on Slackware but is rather a distro of its own, and is promoted as an i686 distro. Arch is a fundamentally different system, being installed as a minimal base environment and expanded with pacman according to the user's choices and needs. Frugalware is installed from a DVD, with default software choices and desktop environment chosen for the user already. Frugalware has a scheduled release cycle. Again, Arch is more focused on simplicity, minimalism, code-correctness and bleeding edge packages within a rolling release model.