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

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(response)
(x86_64 or amd64: re, closing)
(27 intermediate revisions by 13 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)
  
=== Gentoo build comparision ===
+
== 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.''
  
Discussion of comparing Gentoo's build system.
+
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)
  
Current:
+
== 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)
  
''The build system for Gentoo '''is more global''' and offers '''its famous USE flags to configure system-wide packages''', while Arch's ABS is designed to be a more simple system extension.''
+
== 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)
  
My edit:
+
== The *BSDs ==
 +
''...along with a similar init framework...''
  
''The build system for Gentoo is '''effective globally''' that offers '''compile options that effect a range of''' packages, while Arch's ABS is designed to be a more simple system extension.''
+
I'm no expert on *BSDs, but weren't initscripts similar to *BSDs' init system? Now we have systemd...
  
Pointone, when you discuss grammatically correct, I figure you refer to this statement: 'The build system for Gentoo is effective globally'.  Is this correct?  Grammatically this sentence is fine so from here, I'm going to assume you mean 'comparatively' correct. Technically the statement itself isn't false, however if you are referring to 'comparatively', referring to it's component does have to be considered.  '''more global''' comes across to me as a bit awkward to me, but it's context seems correct.  Hmm.
+
==i386==
 +
''[Moved from the main article. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 02:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)]''
  
I believe that ''its famous USE flags to configure system-wide'' needs amendment.  The adjective '''famous'''  doesn't seem required, and it's context of ''well-known'' (even in the Linux sphere) is probably debatable.
+
Has not Linus deprecated i386 from the kernel now? --[[User:Gm5729|Gm5729]]
 
+
My proposal:
+
 
+
''The build system for Gentoo is more global by offeing compile options that effect system-wide packages..., while Arch's ABS is designed to be a more simple system extension.''
+
 
+
Gentoo offers other options in it's {{Filename|/etc/make.conf}} like specifying video cards, and other devices.  There are other options too, but they are minor.
+
 
+
: Sorry for being unclear. The edit summary length tends to be restrictive... ;)
+
 
+
: My complaint was with regards to the use of the word "that" -- ''The build system is effective globally '''that''' offers compile options...'' is grammatically incorrect. Additionally, I think USE flags must be mentioned; they are arguably one of Gentoo's most useful features.
+
 
+
: Your second proposal is certainly better. Might I suggest:
+
 
+
: ''The build system for Gentoo is "global"; offering compile options that affect packages system-wide via USE flags. In comparison, the [[Arch Build System]] is targeted at building individual packages.''
+
 
+
: -- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 20:38, 5 December 2009 (EST)
+
 
+
== Comments ==
+

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