Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arch compared to other distributions"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added a proposal to change the introduction due to partiality concerns)
 
(x86_64 or amd64: re, closing)
(33 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Suggestions ==
+
== <s>x86_64 or amd64</s> ==
 +
"Arch supports i686 and x86_64 while Gentoo officially supports x86, {...}, amd64, {...}, and itanium architectures."
 +
x86_64 is the same thing as amd64, is it not?
 +
:Yes, though Arch typically uses 'x86_64' and Gentoo typically uses 'amd64' to describe the architecture.  I'm not sure if it's more right to leave the article the way it is or to change it to use the Arch/Intel naming convention.[[User:TheCycoONE|TheCycoONE]] 14:31, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
 +
:: Should be 'x86_64' or 'x86-64'? Either way, it should be consistent accross the page...<br>-- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 17:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 +
::: Back in [http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_715.aspx 2000] AMD released its original specification (of its own design) for the 64-bit implementation of the {{ic|x86}} instruction set. {{ic|x86-64}} I would argue is ''most right'', simply because it is generic (not tied to a brand), descriptive (64 bit implementation of {{ic|x86}} instructions, easy enough), and the oldest known name for the specification. Regardless of what Gentoo calls it, I believe we should name it {{ic|x86_64}} for consistency with how we name things and all of the clarity reasons I just described. [[User:Ndt|Ndt]] ([[User talk:Ndt|talk]]) 06:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 +
:::: I've changed both "x86-64" and "amd64" into "x86_64". Closing. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 06:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  
=== Introduction Proposal ===
+
== Frugalware fundamentally different? ==
 +
''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.''
  
The introduction:
+
I am pretty sure that some time ago I installed Frugalware from a CD (250 MB or so) and got a minimal base environment that I expanded with Pacman according to my choices and needs. --[[User:Markus00000|Markus00000]] 16:23, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
  
''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 one 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.''
+
== Style consistency ==
 +
Some distro use bullet points while others do not. Make all of the bullet will make this page more consistency. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 00:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  
As something of an important topic to me, I would like to suggest an alternative. As it is currently, I believe the introduction implies partiality when stating that 'Arch has a wonderful user community...'.  Please note, that I don't disagree with this statement, but I do think that a person that is not part of the community will be led to believe that this article may be bases on that statement. I would suggest:
+
== Mandriva -> Mageia? ==
 +
Should we compare Arch to [http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mandriva Mandriva] or to [http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mageia Mageia]? The latter is more popular and is has been inclued in [http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major Top Ten Distributions] Distrowatch list in place of Mandriva. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  
''This page attempts to draw a comparison of similarities and differences between Arch Linux and other GNU/Linux distributions or UNIX-like operating systems. A good way to compare Arch Linux with other distributions is to install them and to try them for yourself. The summaries below are brief descriptions that may help a person decide if Arch Linux is something they would like to try.''
+
== The *BSDs ==
 +
''...along with a similar init framework...''
  
--[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 21:25, 3 December 2009 (EST)
+
I'm no expert on *BSDs, but weren't initscripts similar to *BSDs' init system? Now we have systemd...
  
== Comments ==
+
==i386==
 +
''[Moved from the main article. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 02:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)]''
 +
 
 +
Has not Linus deprecated i386 from the kernel now? --[[User:Gm5729|Gm5729]]

Revision as of 06:31, 11 September 2013

x86_64 or amd64

"Arch supports i686 and x86_64 while Gentoo officially supports x86, {...}, amd64, {...}, and itanium architectures." x86_64 is the same thing as amd64, is it not?

Yes, though Arch typically uses 'x86_64' and Gentoo typically uses 'amd64' to describe the architecture. I'm not sure if it's more right to leave the article the way it is or to change it to use the Arch/Intel naming convention.TheCycoONE 14:31, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
Should be 'x86_64' or 'x86-64'? Either way, it should be consistent accross the page...
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Back in 2000 AMD released its original specification (of its own design) for the 64-bit implementation of the x86 instruction set. x86-64 I would argue is most right, simply because it is generic (not tied to a brand), descriptive (64 bit implementation of x86 instructions, easy enough), and the oldest known name for the specification. Regardless of what Gentoo calls it, I believe we should name it x86_64 for consistency with how we name things and all of the clarity reasons I just described. Ndt (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I've changed both "x86-64" and "amd64" into "x86_64". Closing. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Frugalware fundamentally different?

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.

I am pretty sure that some time ago I installed Frugalware from a CD (250 MB or so) and got a minimal base environment that I expanded with Pacman according to my choices and needs. --Markus00000 16:23, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Style consistency

Some distro use bullet points while others do not. Make all of the bullet will make this page more consistency. -- Fengchao (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mandriva -> Mageia?

Should we compare Arch to Mandriva or to Mageia? The latter is more popular and is has been inclued in Top Ten Distributions Distrowatch list in place of Mandriva. -- Karol (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The *BSDs

...along with a similar init framework...

I'm no expert on *BSDs, but weren't initscripts similar to *BSDs' init system? Now we have systemd...

i386

[Moved from the main article. -- Kynikos (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)]

Has not Linus deprecated i386 from the kernel now? --Gm5729