SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#1 2011-03-15 17:35:22

donkeyotay
#! CrunchBanger
From: Everywhere
Registered: 2011-01-28
Posts: 192

Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Hello Everybody,
For an end user, what are the differences between Arch Bang & #!. I've #! on my main computer & am playing with ArchBang in a Virtual Box with 256 MB RAM. It does seem snappier than #!, but what about stability & long term use. Forum thoughts would be interesting & appreciated.
Donkeyotay


I didn't say it was your fault... I said I was going to blame you.

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#2 2011-03-15 18:16:05

Trygil
New Member
Registered: 2010-12-22
Posts: 6

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

There are some subtle differences and some not-so-subtle differences.

The biggest difference, to me, is the rolling-release of Arch versus non-rolling-release for #!.  To be honest, I've sort of gotten too lazy to deal with the possible breakage of rolling releases.  Although, I find that the breakage issue has a habit of being overstated by some people.  I've never encountered an update that completely borked a system or even one that entailed significant fixes.  Arch is pretty good about announcing issues with their updates.

However, I love pacman and the AUR has saved me lots of time on multiple occasions.

Ultimately, for me, a fresh, default #! requires almost no tweaks to get down to business (especially with the post-install cb-welcome).  You certainly lose some control in that, but I haven't been able to find anything in #! that makes me cringe.

These are my experiences.  The standard response regarding "stability & long term use" will probably go along the lines of "#! is built on Debian which has a long and storied history of stability whereas Arch is rolling and is prone to breakage."

Offline

#3 2011-03-15 18:54:38

Unia
#! Octo-portal-pussy
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2010-07-17
Posts: 3,871

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

I think the biggest difference is indeed the rolling release versus solid releases, and thus the risk of breaking stuff versus ultimate stability.

Another big difference is that Arch has the 'do it yourself'-approach, whereas with #! things are mostly done automatically. In other words, Arch requires a little more knowledge than #! does.

For me, the choice would be Arch. I don't want to use the old software in the Debian repo's and Arch isn't that unstable either. Also I quite like the do it yourself approach and the AUR is a huge advantage to me.

In the end, remember it all comes down to personal preference. choose what works best for you.


If you can't sit by a cozy fire with your code in hand enjoying its simplicity and clarity, it needs more work. --Carlos Torres
Github

I am a #! forum moderator. Feel free to send me a PM with any question you have!

Offline

#4 2011-03-15 18:55:23

FiniteStateMachine
Part of the Machine
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: 2009-06-29
Posts: 1,489

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

The snappiness is due to a vm vs hardware install, IIRC.


just call me...
~FSM~

Offline

#5 2011-03-16 03:52:51

anonymous
The Mystery Member
From: Arch Linux Forums
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,417

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

FiniteStateMachine wrote:

The snappiness is due to a vm vs hardware install, IIRC.

Unless I read the post wrong, he said ArchBang (in a VM) is snappier. Wouldn't running a distro in VM make it less snappy?

Anyways as a few people have already stated the difference is down to the base distro used. Arch and Debian are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum. Debian (Stable) being known for stability and old software and Arch Linux for being bleeding edge and having occasional breakage.

Offline

#6 2011-03-18 06:33:07

blshvk
Member
Registered: 2011-03-18
Posts: 11

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

I'm looking for a light and snappy distro to put on my laptop. From what I gather, both distros are pretty slim. I have never used arch and am used to apt-get after 2 years on a few versions of ubuntu and it's spin-offs. Is it worth it to make the jump to arch? Is it significantly more performant? I just booted both from live cd's and was surprised to see archbang actually ran on substantially more ram than #! (194mb vs 164mb).

The reason I'm asking this is because if there's no big difference in boot times and general responsiveness of the system, I'm pretty sure I prefer sticking with the more familiar environment.

EDIT : I guess this is somewhat redundant with this thread http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … mparison/, I apologize, would've posted there but missed it when I googled for 'archbang vs crunchbang'...

Last edited by blshvk (2011-03-18 06:58:16)

Offline

#7 2011-03-18 08:17:50

Unia
#! Octo-portal-pussy
From: The Netherlands
Registered: 2010-07-17
Posts: 3,871

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

If for you there's no other benefit for running Arch than speed, and the speed in both distro's is the same, I'd stick with Crunchbang.

The rest is pretty much explained in that topic


If you can't sit by a cozy fire with your code in hand enjoying its simplicity and clarity, it needs more work. --Carlos Torres
Github

I am a #! forum moderator. Feel free to send me a PM with any question you have!

Offline

#8 2011-03-18 11:30:04

axel668
#! Member
Registered: 2009-07-17
Posts: 99

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Like always, Arch Wiki has the answer:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … NU.2FLinux

The big advantage of Arch (besides the coolness factor), is that you get a package immediately when the software is released, e.g. XFCE 4.8 is in Arch since January, while it won't hit #! / Debian for the next 2 years (or when ever the next Debian Stable comes out).

Regarding performance, boot time will definitely be longer (Arch uses a BSD- like boot script, which is easier to maintain but harder to parallelize) and my personal (Intel) 3D experience in Arch ranged from sluggish (half FPS than in Debian) to completely broken, however your mileage may vary if you're using a different graphics chipset.

Last edited by axel668 (2011-03-18 11:31:17)


A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila (Mitch Ratcliffe)

Offline

#9 2011-03-18 19:26:41

blshvk
Member
Registered: 2011-03-18
Posts: 11

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Made my decision, after test-driving both distros I will be sticking to #! for the moment. Eventually I'll probably try to build an arch set-up from scratch though, but unfortunately have little time for this right now. Archbang seemed pretty good but I ran into some trouble when setting it up, whereas #! gives me a fully operational system in 30 minutes.

Offline

#10 2011-03-19 10:15:40

rizzeh
#! Member
Registered: 2011-01-10
Posts: 54

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

I use Debian Wheezy 64x on desktop PC with 2.6.37 kernel and KDE 4.5, so software's not that old but still feels quite solid and stable.  In terms  of 3D performance I've yet to find a better distro. It is also natural step  for ex-ubuntu users with same tools like apt-get.
Download small (100Mb) net install that will give you a base build a system you'd like.  http://smxi.org/ script will make this process quick and easy wink

Offline

#11 2011-03-19 11:13:02

Awebb
The Singularity
Registered: 2009-07-23
Posts: 2,812

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Brrrrr Archbang *shakes in cramps*

Crunchbang:

  • install #!

  • run into trouble

  • come to the #! forums and post your problem

  • get a bunch of irrelevant answers

  • someone forces you to phrase your question so you can expect an answer

  • have your answer and be happy

Archbang:

  • install Archbang

  • run into trouble with the installer

  • post question in the Arch Linux forums

  • recieve link for the Archbang forums

  • post question in the Archbang forums

  • get a bunch of irrelevant answers

  • someone forces you to phrase your question so you can expect an answer

  • get a bunch of irrelevant answers

  • post your revised question in the Arch Linux forums

  • recieve link for the Archbang forums

  • Make a choice: [A]{B}

[A] Install Arch from the scratch

  • install Arch

  • read Wiki

  • do stuff by yourself

  • post link to Archbang forums in a thread (how did THIS guy get here??)

  • become Arch

  • Resistance is futile.

{B} Install Crunchbang (see above)

That is all.

Last edited by Awebb (2011-03-19 11:14:18)


I'm so meta, even this acronym

Offline

#12 2011-03-19 11:19:59

omns
#! wanderer
From: ~/
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 5,131

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Awebb wrote:

[*]someone forces you to phrase your question so you can expect an answer[/*]

I prefer 'politely encourages'  smile

Offline

#13 2011-03-19 15:16:40

bobrossw
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2011-02-08
Posts: 521

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Cool Awebb, -I tried running your script but got a few syntax errors, so I just stayed with #!

Last edited by bobrossw (2011-03-19 15:17:18)

Offline

#14 2011-03-20 00:26:35

blshvk
Member
Registered: 2011-03-18
Posts: 11

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Awebb wrote:

become Arch
Resistance is futile.

Thank you sir, that cracked me up. And It's the feeling I got from visiting the arch forums tongue

Offline

#15 2011-03-20 00:39:26

hardran3
#! Junkie
From: forest town, lake land
Registered: 2011-02-26
Posts: 360

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

One important advantage of any Debian based distro over an Arch based distro is package signing. Arch does not use package signing for its repositories, which is a glaring security hole. I was planning on trying Arch until I noticed this. I can wait until it is implemented.

Offline

#16 2011-03-20 01:03:35

machu
Member
Registered: 2011-02-05
Posts: 12

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

^ Neither can I, but until then I'm plenty content to keep playing with Arch in VirtualBox. smile

Offline

#17 2011-03-20 01:12:37

omns
#! wanderer
From: ~/
Registered: 2008-11-25
Posts: 5,131

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Trygil wrote:

I've never encountered an update that completely borked a system or even one that entailed significant fixes.

I had some monumental fails when an Arch user. One costing me significant data (my fault) and at a time when I needed my system to be working to meet a deadline. From memory I had to resort to the dreadful option of a quick ubuntu install to get the job done yikes

In the end I couldn't justify using Arch anymore just because of the hassle of the recovery process.  I have to admit though that I never really understood the inner workings of Linux properly until I used Arch. It's probably worth it for that alone smile

The other message from those experiences was don't be lazy with your data backups lol Thank goodness for Dropbox smile

Offline

#18 2011-03-20 03:00:39

polarb
Member
Registered: 2008-12-22
Posts: 21

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Not a major  problem but if you use the keycombinations  ie alt +left  for back key  in browser,  it is not working  in archbang. So is some key combinations  for some linux  games

Offline

#19 2011-03-20 03:18:33

anonymous
The Mystery Member
From: Arch Linux Forums
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,417

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

blshvk wrote:

EDIT : I guess this is somewhat redundant with this thread http://crunchbanglinux.org/forums/topic … mparison/, I apologize, would've posted there but missed it when I googled for 'archbang vs crunchbang'...

I should've done this earlier but I merged the two threads.

Offline

#20 2011-03-20 08:25:06

Awebb
The Singularity
Registered: 2009-07-23
Posts: 2,812

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

hardran3 wrote:

One important advantage of any Debian based distro over an Arch based distro is package signing. Arch does not use package signing for its repositories, which is a glaring security hole. I was planning on trying Arch until I noticed this. I can wait until it is implemented.

Make sure you don't bring this up anywhere too many Arch users are around. It's some sort of hot topic. It usually goes like this:

  • user creates thread ranting about the lack of package signing

  • other users agrees in a one line Twitter style lack of brain

  • third user who knows his way around explains why this is so difficult

  • one oldfag points out that we already have about a million threads about this

  • other oldfags are drawn into the thread ("Why has THIS thread 10 posts already?")

  • OP makes a mistake by taking his thread and the replies personal

  • OP rants what a shitty community Arch has

  • a mod shows up, telling OP that this has been discussed so many times, oldfags are tired of this topic

  • Allan shows up, saying that it's done when it's done

  • OP trips over his ego, starts to insult the Distro, it's devs and the whole community

  • OP observes his ban screen carefully

  • OP writes blogposts, stuff on reddit and carves it on his girlfriends left buttcheek (she's cheating on him) so everyone can see it.

  • Awebb shows up, pointing out that there are so many rants, but no patches written by the ranters

  • users read blogposts about missing package signature and mention it in other distro's bbqs

  • users usually fail to understand the relevance of package signing

Seriously, I talked to a few of this ranters. Most of them have a long history of adding Ubuntu PPA's to their system... If anyone of them had tried to submit a patch or simply observed the developing branch of pacman, they'd know that they actually work on it.

polarb wrote:

Not a major  problem but if you use the keycombinations  ie alt +left  for back key  in browser,  it is not working  in archbang. So is some key combinations  for some linux  games

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Locale

Last edited by Awebb (2011-03-20 08:26:02)


I'm so meta, even this acronym

Offline

#21 2011-03-20 11:11:38

gutterslob
#! Resident Bum
Registered: 2009-11-03
Posts: 2,981

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

hardran3 wrote:

One important advantage of any Debian based distro over an Arch based distro is package signing. Arch does not use package signing for its repositories, which is a glaring security hole. I was planning on trying Arch until I noticed this. I can wait until it is implemented.

And that's one of the reasons why I only use Arch on my old laptops or netbook, and refrain from running it on my main work rig (which is currently Debian Testing based). I can't recall a single case where people found malicious code in Arch packages, not even those from AUR, though (I could be wrong)

Last edited by gutterslob (2011-03-20 11:12:14)


Point & Squirt

Offline

#22 2011-03-20 22:57:18

pablokal
#! CrunchBanger
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2009-12-11
Posts: 232
Website

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Seriously, I talked to a few of this ranters. Most of them have a long history of adding Ubuntu PPA's to their system... If anyone of them had tried to submit a patch or simply observed the developing branch of pacman, they'd know that they actually work on it.

Yes, work on it since 2006!!

I think your whole post is quite an unfair way of dealing with this.
Here you can read my experience with this: http://bbs.archbang.org/viewtopic.php?id=421
What you forget to mention is that IgnorantGuru has written a program to check packages that is  a first step to a more safe policy, paccheck. http://igurublog.wordpress.com/download … -paccheck/
That he is treated as kind of thug because he raises his issues in a way that are a bit difficult to put down, and is at the moment banned from the Arch forum so he can't help users with the use and further development of paccheck.
http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2011/03/ … n-subject/
The way critical users are treated on the Arch forum is a shame on the whole Arch community.
The way you portray this conflicts of views leaves out the nasty way the dissenters are ostracised out of  and banned from the Arch community.

Although I love Arch as a OS I hate the way users are treated at the Arch forum: http://bbs.archbang.org/viewtopic.php?id=451
In this proposal you can find what I think is wrong at the Arch forms: http://bbs.archbang.org/viewtopic.php?id=458


GNu/Linux: Nu nog schoner: http://linuxnogschoner.blogspot.com/  Dutch

Offline

#23 2011-03-20 23:10:30

hardran3
#! Junkie
From: forest town, lake land
Registered: 2011-02-26
Posts: 360

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Make sure you don't bring this up anywhere too many Arch users are around. It's some sort of hot topic. It usually goes like this:

As it should be.

Seriously, I talked to a few of this ranters. Most of them have a long history of adding Ubuntu PPA's to their system...

Just because some people use questionable repositories doesn't make the Arch situation any better. That is a user choice, not a limitation of the software.

Offline

#24 2011-03-20 23:14:16

Nascentes
New Member
From: Utah
Registered: 2011-03-20
Posts: 8

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Awebb wrote:
  • user creates thread ranting about the lack of package signing

  • other users agrees in a one line Twitter style lack of brain

  • third user who knows his way around explains why this is so difficult

  • one oldfag points out that we already have about a million threads about this

  • other oldfags are drawn into the thread ("Why has THIS thread 10 posts already?")

  • OP makes a mistake by taking his thread and the replies personal

  • OP rants what a shitty community Arch has

  • a mod shows up, telling OP that this has been discussed so many times, oldfags are tired of this topic

  • Allan shows up, saying that it's done when it's done

  • OP trips over his ego, starts to insult the Distro, it's devs and the whole community

  • OP observes his ban screen carefully

  • OP writes blogposts, stuff on reddit and carves it on his girlfriends left buttcheek (she's cheating on him) so everyone can see it.

  • Awebb shows up, pointing out that there are so many rants, but no patches written by the ranters

  • users read blogposts about missing package signature and mention it in other distro's bbqs

  • users usually fail to understand the relevance of package signing

I LOL'd.

Definitely true

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#25 2011-03-26 03:19:19

foxh0und
Member
From: Willow, Alaska
Registered: 2009-02-22
Posts: 32

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

For laptop users-#! has a text installer with the option to encrypt the LVM. ArchBang does not. Keep your data secure...


Listen to me! When you die in Alaska you die in real life!

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Debian Logo