SEARCH

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

You are not logged in.

#26 2011-03-26 05:50:37

allthosewhispers
Member
Registered: 2010-12-10
Posts: 26

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Archbang won't boot on my laptop, so I don't know there. I prefer stability over "new", so I stick with Debian-based for my daily environment. Debian is just easier to use all around. And I find very few users that actually know what they might need in "new versions", other than they just think they need them, even when the version on their PC is working just fine. (I still remember "If it ain't broke..."). That said, my home server runs Arch, so I could keep it slim and strictly relevant. Package management is hit and miss. God only knows what's actually on the servers, so you kind of have to poke and prod and wonder if packageX is on it or not, and exactly what name do you use to install, etc...

So for me, Debian for daily use, Arch for server use. I think if it comes down to a person really needing to narrow it down to cpu cycles between the two, they should probably just run antix or slitaz.

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#27 2011-03-26 07:07:20

ali
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2010-05-31
Posts: 1,035

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

i gave arch another time but it seamed to have difficulties with missing packages, which is something that stops you from moving away from .deb / .rpm
i tried installing oracle-xe and the only way you can do that in arch is by taking the rpm and converting it but it failed every time, so whatever arch, i give up

Offline

#28 2011-03-26 15:34:52

anonymous
The Mystery Member
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

allthosewhispers wrote:

So for me, Debian for daily use, Arch for server use.

Its kinda ironic. Usually Debian is preferred for servers.

@ali - What do you mean by missing packages?

As for oracle-xe, it seems the PKGBUILD is broken. Supposedly the fix is to change:

find $startdir/pkg -type d -perm 700 -print0 | xargs -0 chmod 755

to

find $startdir/pkg -type d -perm 700 -print0 | awk '{system("chmod 755 "$0)}' | awk '{system($0)}'

Offline

#29 2011-03-29 16:39:26

are_you_root
#! Member
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: 2011-03-10
Posts: 63

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

While I don't quite have any input for this thread yet, that may change here soon. Yesterday I installed a fresh dualboot of #! and Archbang.

Wow, that installer was brutal for a guy like me. Nano had me stummped for a bit. I hosed grub, and had to go in to edit a menu.lst for the first time.  When I got it all straightened out I spent a bit of time in Archbang feeling very very lost. Like I knew what to do, but not how to do it. Managed to upgrade the system, but that's all. I'll have to figure pacman out.

Seems to be a difference in customs and dialect. Challenging, yet exciting!

Offline

#30 2011-03-29 16:55:02

snowpine
#!-a-roo
Registered: 2008-11-24
Posts: 2,984

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Required reading for any Arch user:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners'_Guide


/hugged

Offline

#31 2011-03-29 19:06:06

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

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

snowpine wrote:

But that's a read only, it's best to refer to this one when installing Arch: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Of … tall_Guide

are_you_root wrote:

a bit of time in Archbang feeling very very lost.

It was the same for me the first time I installed Arch Linux (not Archbang). It took me all night to figure out how to install Xorg and Openbox and having sound with alsa was a rough ride. Now, after more than a year in Arch, I feel very comfortable. You'll learn how the system works and you'll know it in and out with relatively little effort. Just don't give up on small problems that only seem big. PM me if you're stuck.

Last edited by Awebb (2011-03-29 19:11:21)


I'm so meta, even this acronym

Offline

#32 2011-03-29 19:13:49

anonymous
The Mystery Member
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Awebb wrote:
snowpine wrote:

But that's a read only, it's best to refer to this one when installing Arch: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Of … tall_Guide

Any particular reason you prefer that guide?

Offline

#33 2011-03-29 19:45:06

are_you_root
#! Member
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: 2011-03-10
Posts: 63

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

anonymous wrote:
Awebb wrote:
snowpine wrote:

.. it's best to refer to this one when installing Arch: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Of … tall_Guide

Any particular reason you prefer that guide?

Is that not the same guide that is available during the installation? If it is, it's certainly worth looking over.

@ AWebb
Thank you kindly for your offer. I may take you up on it at some point since I am determined to get a grip on Arch. I don't think it's off base to say that my interest in Arch is what has led me to Debian. I thought it wise to "step" in that direction rather than jumping right in. Debian has proven to be an awesome training ground and will continue to be so. On the other hand, I need the lessons that Arch has in store for this journey through Linux.

So I'll play around with archbang for a bit and pick up some skills. We'll see... maybe there's an arch netinstall waiting around the corner!

Offline

#34 2011-03-29 22:37:39

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

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

anonymous wrote:

Any particular reason you prefer that guide?

The beginner's guide does not go into detail enough. It leaves many questions open and raises others. I had a few occasions with friends who used the beginner's guide and either made beginner's mistakes or misconfigured things. Pointing them to the "real thing" usually solved that problem. I also have the impression, that the beginner's guide is sometimes not up to date. I might be wrong about that.


I'm so meta, even this acronym

Offline

#35 2011-03-30 04:46:50

lastgreatsea
#! Member
Registered: 2010-06-08
Posts: 56

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Installed archbang on my main 3 days ago after running crunchbang on it for around a year. Things that I had to do immediately after installing it was install xscreensaver, pidgin, openoffice (sorry AbiWord doesn't cut it) and get my wireless printer connected. Other than xscreensaver and pidgin which come preinstalled in crunchbang, the post installation script would have taken care of the last two. Installing all of those were easy, the printer gave me some trouble but the arch wiki is very helpful so solving that was simple.

After setting up everything to my personal preferences I couldn't tell any real differences between crunchbang and archbang. Things I noticed about arch was that it uses more ram than crunch ever did. With only one gig of ram I feel no performance decreases, so I dont even notice the extra use unless i look at my conky.

This is my first time using Arch and so far it's been great. The Arch wiki is making it so I'm not lost on this new distro and I'm loving the latest software updates. I've used statler since its alpha to stable and just tried archbang to try something new. For what I use my computer for I cant even really tell the differences between the two while using it. Still got crunchbang installed on my netbook and it doesn't look i'll be taking it off anytime soon.

Offline

#36 2011-03-30 04:54:44

anonymous
The Mystery Member
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

lastgreatsea wrote:

After setting up everything to my personal preferences I couldn't tell any real differences between crunchbang and archbang. Things I noticed about arch was that it uses more ram than crunch ever did. With only one gig of ram I feel no performance decreases, so I dont even notice the extra use unless i look at my conky.

Is the conky the same between #! and Archbang? Im curious whether the difference in memory usage is really because of Arch or if its just because of conky's no_buffers setting.

Offline

#37 2011-03-30 05:20:35

lastgreatsea
#! Member
Registered: 2010-06-08
Posts: 56

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

anonymous wrote:
lastgreatsea wrote:

After setting up everything to my personal preferences I couldn't tell any real differences between crunchbang and archbang. Things I noticed about arch was that it uses more ram than crunch ever did. With only one gig of ram I feel no performance decreases, so I dont even notice the extra use unless i look at my conky.

Is the conky the same between #! and Archbang? Im curious whether the difference in memory usage is really because of Arch or if its just because of conky's no_buffers setting.

My debians conky is v 1.8.0-1 while my arch is running v 1.8.1-2. I'm not sure about the no_buffers setting though. I'm using my config from my debian conky on my arch machine and everything works fine.

In crunchbang I dont remember my ram ever 100%'ed if it did it wasn't for long. While arch idles higher than crunch did I still havn't seen it jump to 100% yet either.  The most heavy thing I do on my computer is watch bluray quality video files. So as long as I got free ram i'm good.

Offline

#38 2012-07-08 04:05:16

nightcap
#! Member
From: Open Source Pacific Shores
Registered: 2010-11-08
Posts: 62

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Diversity is the spice of life. Much will depend upon how adventurous you feel, and how much time and stress you can endure. Does your entire life revolve around jousting with various takes on linux OSes? Are you a coder by profession or as a serious hobby? Or do you wish to learn enough to be reasonably competent and then use your linux time productively/creatively?

Over periods of extended use of both #! and arch! I appreciate both for what they offer. Arch! is for DIYers who enjoy continuous, all-encompassing updates and bleeding-edge adrenaline-rushes. #! remains more manageable and stable with just the right amount of tinkering IMHO. It's largely a question of degrees.


inject #! /reject M$

Offline

#39 2012-07-13 13:17:13

Knox
Member
Registered: 2012-07-13
Posts: 22

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

I've never been able to successfully boot an Arch Bang CD - Fact. Also, Arch doesen't even touch the surface of stable - most rolling release disto's tend to be unstable, the advantage is that it's bleeding edge.


The future is Linux.

Offline

#40 2012-07-13 13:23:03

snowpine
#!-a-roo
Registered: 2008-11-24
Posts: 2,984

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Knox wrote:

Also, Arch doesen't even touch the surface of stable - most rolling release disto's tend to be unstable

Well yeah, that's like saying "water is liquid at room temperature." The dictionary definition of "stable" is "not likely to change." smile

Last edited by snowpine (2012-07-13 13:24:06)


/hugged

Offline

#41 2012-07-13 21:57:38

Iranon
#! Junkie
Registered: 2012-03-10
Posts: 259

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Besides rolling release vs. (loosely) scheduled release, and different priorities between freshness and stability, there's the different take on automation and convenience features.

Debian generally does the braindead legwork for you and assumes that if you install something you want it in a working state. It doesn't try to be clever (good thing imo because clever automation can easily become obnoxious and confusing) and generally has the courtesy of telling you when it's touching your precious configuration files inappropriately.
Packages are often heavily patched, packaging infrastructure and procedure is quite complex... but things work.

Arch focuses more on keeping  things simple and transparent. There is little automation by default, patches are kept to a minimum, having to configure many things on your own isn't seen as a problem. The documentation is outstanding.
The supported repositories can't match Debian's, but the (unofficial)  Arch User Repository offers easy building from source of a large variety of software, including various tweaks of the vanilla packages in the repos. Quality... varies.

I prefer the feel of Arch even though Debian is probably more appropriate for my (rather pedestrian) usage.

Last edited by Iranon (2012-07-13 21:57:56)


LEGO won't be ready for the average user until it comes pre-assembled, in a single  unified look, and glued together so it doesn't come apart.

Offline

#42 2012-07-14 14:02:42

axel668
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-07-17
Posts: 100

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

the difference is Debian vs. Arch, otherwise it's quite the same. OK Archbang has automatic menus ... and strange wallpapers sometimes, but otherwise ... very little difference.


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

#43 2012-07-14 14:54:20

Knox
Member
Registered: 2012-07-13
Posts: 22

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

snowpine wrote:
Knox wrote:

Also, Arch doesen't even touch the surface of stable - most rolling release disto's tend to be unstable

Well yeah, that's like saying "water is liquid at room temperature." The dictionary definition of "stable" is "not likely to change." smile

True.

- Knox


The future is Linux.

Offline

#44 2012-07-14 14:58:16

snowpine
#!-a-roo
Registered: 2008-11-24
Posts: 2,984

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

By the way I do not use the word "unstable" as a negative criticism in this context:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl3Y8T_HBHs

Last edited by snowpine (2012-07-14 14:58:36)


/hugged

Offline

#45 2012-07-19 05:55:51

katsh
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2011-12-25
Posts: 153

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

I switched from #! to arch on my main computer simply because as a programmer i like the latest software.

Crunchbang is more stable and easier to use though, due to debian's nature.

So for development i use arch, on my netbook i carry around places (classes, friends house on sleepover, etc) , it's #!


regex.kat.sh --- regex library
u.kat.sh ---- url shortener
tabbit.org ---- tabbed pastebin

Offline

#46 2012-07-19 06:25:47

axel668
#! CrunchBanger
Registered: 2009-07-17
Posts: 100

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

yep, #! is much better equipped for a sleepover !!


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

#47 2012-07-19 08:20:18

mynis01
#! Die Hard
From: 127.0.0.1
Registered: 2010-07-02
Posts: 2,005

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

snowpine wrote:

By the way I do not use the word "unstable" as a negative criticism in this context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl3Y8T_HBHs

It's funny to me how some people use the word "unstable" to describe something that changes regularly, and some use it to describe something that is prone to breakage. To me, a regularly updated arch is the most stable desktop system in terms of reliability, because bugs are constantly being patched out. Things like the leap second bug don't require a patch to be back ported to an older kernel. I like using debian on machines that are going to be used only for a small specific set of applications for an extended period of time with out being updated, since that reduces the maintenance a bit. I'm considering putting #! back on my laptop if it runs bitwig well when that project goes live.

But on my desktop, where I'm constantly trying out new programs and configurations and stuff, I've found that there's piece of mind in being up to date too. If I use a machine on a daily basis, then opening up a terminal once a day and telling it to update doesn't really seem like "maintinence." And installing things from outside the debian/arch repos is way easier in arch thanks to the AUR. But when all is said and done, there are still some rare situations where stale and stable has worked out for me. CUDA 4.2 apps for example don't seem to run well on my GTX 670 with the newest nvidia drivers, so I have a seperate partition with waldorf on it for running those apps, since wheezy still has (and hopefully keeps) nvidia 295.59 in the repos.

Last edited by mynis01 (2012-07-19 08:22:08)

Offline

#48 2012-07-19 08:44:12

skbierm
#! Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2012-07-17
Posts: 89

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

I read all the posts here and see, that you only look at the technical aspect, but there is another one. From 7 billion people on this little ball of dust, we are living on, not even 2 billion are understanding the English language, so noone of those 5 billion ever could use the installer of Arch Linux or ArchBang.
But on the other hand, Crunchbang and all the other Debian/Ubuntu based Distros do have installers in lots of languages.

Stability isn't an issue  on Archlinux, as long as you don't use the testing repos. If you do, you'll run in lots of breakages even you're system could lock up in total. If there are problems to be coming up, because of a huge change in the system, the Arch Linux website informs aboutn this fact just in time (sometimes that's to late, because it's so easy to fire up pacman -Syu without having a look first on the homepage).

Also package signing is solved, Arch does have it, since more then one year for testing branch users - and since some months for all the others.

A difference between both distros in my eyes is the Python support. Arch Linux switched to Python 3 - dunno, two years (?) ago, while Debian and Ubuntu are just at that point, where they switch.

So the only missing package on #! for me was a Python 3 compatible pygame, but that's easily done by compiling it yourself.


Running #! on
* Lenovo ThinkPad Edge e420s, Intel Core i5-2430M, 8 GB Ram, 320 GB HD, 1366x768, Intel GMA HD 3000 + AMD Radeon HD 6630M 2GB
* ASUS F55A-091D, Intel Pentium B980, 4 GB Ram, 500 GB HD, Intel HD Graphics, 1366x768
* Panasonic ToughBook CF-19, Intel Core Duo U7500, 4 GB Ram, 500 GB HD, Intel GMA 950, 1024x768 Touchdisplay

Offline

#49 2012-07-19 13:59:35

pvsage
Internal Affairs
From: North Carolina
Registered: 2009-10-18
Posts: 13,970

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

mynis01 wrote:

It's funny to me how some people use the word "unstable" to describe something that changes regularly, and some use it to describe something that is prone to breakage.

Outside the World of Linux, I use the word "unstable" to describe something that's likely to fall over. tongue

Offline

Help fund CrunchBang, donate to the project!

#50 2012-07-25 16:02:17

c3@53r
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 13

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Arch is also part binary unlike Chrunchbang (to my knowledge at least) making upgrading easier because you don't have to download another .iso and upgrade.  Its just download the new packages needed and boom your done.

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.
Server: acrobat

Debian Logo