Arch Linux vs Ubuntu
November 17th, 2007
Yes! Arch is great. For more detail read on.
Arch's Appeal
The main difference between Arch and Unbuntu is that Arch is designed to be molded whereas Ubuntu is a complete desktop/server distro. Like Ubuntu, most things were configured and worked upon install. Unlike Ubuntu, Arch does not have a default desktop environment although XFCE4 could be considered well supported. Arch will appeal to users who wish to start with a minimal system and a package manager, adding bit by bit until the system is tweaked to their desire.
Ubuntu's Appeal
Ubuntu is for those who just don't want to mess with it - giving users the choice of a server, or a Gnome / KDE / XFCE desktop. There is also a minimal (alternate) Ubuntu installer for those who want more control. I wont say Ubuntu 'wins' here or anywhere because it's apples and oranges. Yes - Arch vs. Ubuntu is a stupid comparison but if you're like me and you can't help but type X vs. Y into Google before doing anything then maybe identifying some differences isn't so bad. In short, Arch maintains bleeding-edge, occasionally broken, packages with no release cycle whereas Ubuntu needs upgrading (breaking) every six months. Ubuntu is good software with target markets. Arch is good software.
Package Management
Arch uses a rolling release cycle where major releases consist of a snapshot. For a personal computer, avoiding Ubuntu's six month upgrade cycle is a definite benefit. On the other hand it could cause breakage occasionally, which is why I still prefer Ubuntu (LTS) for my server. Arch packages tend to be more bleeding-edge from what I can tell browsing the repository. For example, the packaged version of GHC in Ubuntu 7.10 is 6.6.1 while Arch will install 6.8.1.
Pacman, the Arch package manager, is similar to apt. One thing I really like is that headers are bundled with library binaries. This makes sense since headers have a tight coupling to the code they describe. They can also be used as documentation when man pages are weak. With Ubuntu I had the option of not installing headers but that proved to be sort of a PITA when compiling or building a new development system. Ruby gems also uses gcc occasionally and it's nice to avoid the search for *-dev packages. pacman -S imagemagick && gem install rmagick just worked.
Post Install
Everything is installed, configured, and working as per the normal Ubuntu setup. Arch requires a few extra steps to get a desktop environment installed. Here's a few examples.
Xorg
Unfortunately I had to configure X. I say, 'unfortunately', because I hate configuring X. Best to just install Ubuntu on another partition and copy the xorg.conf. Currently I'm using the open-source ATI drivers since I couldn't get the proprietary ones to install properly. I'll be working on that later.
Sound
Running alsaconf asked a few questions and my sound card worked. Easy.
Suspend and Resume
Suspend and resume with swap and ram work great using the pm-utils package. I had to configure the resume scripts to run alsactl restore to get sound working after a restore but other than that it was configured perfectly upon install.
CPU Frequency Scaling
Ubuntu Forums had a great post on this topic. Since it's dealing with the kernel it works on Arch too. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=248867
In Total
I'll be using Arch for the foreseeable future, maybe even contributing if I'm ever capable of fixing something. The documentation on their wiki is outstanding and the community has momentum. In general, Ubuntu is great for the automated installation and configuration of everything to include the kitchen sink. Arch is great for a lightweight and fast system with a rolling release cycle and bleeding-edge software.
on February 20th, 2008 at 02:52 PM
I totally agree. Before finding arch I was an inveterate distro hopper. Now that I’ve found arch (late december 2007) I can finally stop. Arch lets you set up your box exactly the way you want it. Why would I move? I’m sure you’ve already read the post here [why-do-ubuntu-users-become-arch-users] but I’ll include the link for other readers. One of the commenters makes some nice points about “newbie stigma” and about Ubuntu being a great distro for introducing one to linux from where one can go ahead and satisfy one’s inner geek by using distros like Arch. Actually, for power users, Arch is much much nicer. The config files are all clean. Open up even your .bashrc in Ubuntu and you’ll see all sorts of stuff there. Who put it there? Not me! Arch is serendipity. Arch is, finally, the triumph of substance over form. For those 0.01% of the PC market who can see it, but nevertheless I’m glad it exists. Nice blog. I came here looking for wireless status in wmii, but I’m going to take your advice and am off to try xmonad and haskell. Have you already tried stumpwm?
on March 2nd, 2008 at 05:04 PM
I have not tried stumpwm but I did have a wm switching obsession and briefly settled on wmii before finding XMonad. I’ll have to give stumpwm a try when I get the lisp bug again.
-Sam
on March 4th, 2008 at 07:46 PM
Nice comparison, and very fair. I too found Arch after trying my hand at dozens of distros, mostly of the graphical, newbie-type, none of which seemed to ‘fit’. Though I must acknowledge what Ubuntu has done for GNU/Linux, I was never particularly fond of it nor Debian. Arch gave me a sense of accomplishment after installing it for the first time in 2006, and I have not had to reinstall since, thanks to the rolling release. Arch is certainly not for everyone, but does its job very well in serving its target users. Highlights: Pacman, BSD-Style init scripts, a clean set of configuration files, (without the convoluted SYS V init symlinks), ABS, AUR, yaourt, the quality and quantity of packages, the level of control and customization, the excellent wiki and documentation and the community. Arch is worth giving a look if you have not already, as it is not ‘just another’ distro.
on August 31st, 2008 at 05:48 PM
I perfectly agree, that Arch is a final stop for more people who running across distro. Especially when you get use to Linux. You will love Arch like to dead. in the other hand, Ubuntu is like the beginning of most people’s Linux Journey. Not saying that ubuntu is not as great as Arch, but Arch would be a plain for people who is complete new on Linux, (Even for people who has master windows and Mac. well maybe not BSD haha) But yeah, for most part, I would tell people to start from Ubuntu, and if you want to get advance and really learn something about Linux, Then go for Arch. I don’t know, but for me I really love JUST TEXT loading interface. haha, especially when I like to my computer to super personalize.