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
From: Arch Linux Forums
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

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

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

Offline

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

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

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

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
From: Arch Linux Forums
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

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

Offline

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

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

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison


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
From: Arch Linux Forums
Registered: 2008-11-29
Posts: 9,419

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

Offline

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

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

Re: Arch/Crunch Bang comparison

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

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

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


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

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

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 #!

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

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.

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

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#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