Arch linux vs slackware

Slackware vs. Arch Linux

Мучаюсь в выборе. Помогите выбрать 🙂 что лучше? что оптимальнее и удобнее? у кого какие достоинства и недостатки?

Re: Slackware vs. Arch Linux

Три года сидел на слаке, надоело что всё работает — поменял на арч, сейчас по тем же самым причинам рядышком с арчем уже стоит дебиан.

При этом и слака раньше и арч сейчас ежедневно обновлялись через dist-upgrade (на слаке через swaret), арч дак из unstable ветки).

Aрч против слаки имхо удобнее тем что пакеты искать не надо — pacman -Ss . pacman -S .. и всё. При этом pacman — родное средство для арча — так же как installpkg для слаки. Тут некоторые могут сказать что для слаки тоже есть swaret и что-то там ещё, но, это всё не родное и Великий Патрег не благословлял это всё.

А так, и то и другое штуки не плохие, просто устроенные пакеты, в арче правда присутсвуют зависимости, но очень слабые так что они очень помогают нежели мешают, по крайней мере не бывает такого что какой-то .so не нашлось, при этом вроде как и нету кучи мелких пакетов.

Единственно чего скажу — дак это то что имхо арч пилить меньше надо после первоначальной установки. Вообще система запуска мне у арча больше понравилась — вписал демоны по порядку в конфиг и всё. Вообще весь конфиг локанично в одном файле очень не больших размеров, где всё очень понятно даже если убрать комментарии.

Источник

Arch Linux

You are not logged in.

#1 2007-10-13 18:03:44

Arch vs Slackware

Aloha,
This was posted on linuxquestions.org and I was wondering if it is true?
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions … ch-591460/
I would like to get a good understanding of Arch so that I can post a reply here as well. Arch works very well for me and has taught me a lot.
Mahalo,
Edward

#2 2007-10-13 18:13:51

Re: Arch vs Slackware

Yea it is possible to hear that Slackware is real Linux, and what is different from Slackware in other distros is not good because it is «distro specific» and learning that is useless. Only with thease talks and with old respect Slackware can be topdistro. But who cares? We install system for using it not for learning about useless things.

Arch is not Slackware.

#3 2007-10-13 19:13:45

Re: Arch vs Slackware

I see no reason to pit either distro against the other. They both have their pros and cons, and there’s enough room in the world of Linux for both of them.

It’s better to simply try both, then make up your own mind.

Have fun with Linux!

#4 2007-10-13 19:28:58

Re: Arch vs Slackware

Damn, and I thought this would be about a Quake3 match between Slack and Arch users.

#5 2007-10-13 19:37:07

Re: Arch vs Slackware

Aloha,
It was mostly about this statement made in the other thread on linuxQuestions..
«Some of Arch Linux’s configuration setup is a bit nonstandard»
and I wanted clarification on that.
Mahalo,
Edward

#6 2007-10-13 19:44:30

Re: Arch vs Slackware

Nonstandard is not quite the right phrase. «a different standard» might fit better. Personally, I find Arch’s system to be much easier to use than any other distro I’ve tried (but Slackware is not on that list).

#7 2007-10-13 20:30:10

Re: Arch vs Slackware

A lot of thought has been put into Arch’s configuration and setup, whereas Slack (no disrespect) has its configuration all over the place.

I like Slack and its derivatives very much, if Arch wouldn’t have been here I would run something slackish. However, the package management downright sucks. That’s one thing where Arch is lightyears ahead of Slack.

Got Leenucks? :: Arch: Power in simplicity :: Get Counted! Registered Linux User #392717 :: Blog thingy

#8 2007-10-13 21:45:46

Re: Arch vs Slackware

I like both distros very much. Slackware is very old, very cool and has the coolest name by far of any distro.
Arch is better for me, because Slack requires me to sit in front of my computer for longer than I want to. (Not as long as Gentoo requires, though.) Slack takes more time to manage packages. It is designed with a huge assortment of libs in place so that compiling source tarballs is hassle-free.
Slack repos are quite limited compared to Arch. Arch suits me better because installing binary packages is a no-brainer, whereas Slack requires me to think about something that I feel I should not have to, and it requires more steps and patience.
Both are very light and fast. By ‘light’ I mean they have very little overhead. They are responsive.
Slack is a few degrees more manual, whereas Arch is a few degrees more automated.
Try both.

#9 2007-10-14 04:02:03

Re: Arch vs Slackware

Arch was the first distro where I learned to ditch the GUI and get down to the code (or at least the config files). I haven’t used Slackware (and I probably never will) mainly because of the package management. I loved Arch’s simple pacman the first time I saw it while Slackware’s package management (or lack thereof) downright scared me. Like Misfit138, I believe that package management should be as automated as possible. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what other people say, it matters what your experience is and what you learn to love.

The Bytebaker — Computer science is not a science and it’s not about computers
Check out my open source software at Github

#10 2007-10-14 05:00:35

Re: Arch vs Slackware

conclusion: ARCHLINUX WINS hands down!

Are u listening?

#11 2007-10-14 05:34:55

Re: Arch vs Slackware

just my two cents.
In my still short Linux experience I have tried quite a few distros (in order redhat, debian, slackware, vectorlinux, yoper, gentoo and arch).
There is no doubt in my mind that arch is by far the best distro.
First off, it is very easy to install, upgrade an maintain.
You’ll find just about any package between the official repos and AUR.
It is very flexible and versatile, allowing you to set up your system as you like.
It’s lightweight, meaning it takes less space on disk than other distros.
Its very fast and i686 optimized.
There are several arch specific packaged (my favorite being kdemod) which make my life alot easier.
Last but not least, it’s very well documented, great wiki, great forum and you can see every detail has been taken into account and laid out rationally.
Using arch I have been learning and improving my Linux understanding.
I must say using arch its quite exciting and I can’t foresee changing distro in the near or far future.

#12 2007-10-15 11:31:21

Re: Arch vs Slackware

I first cut my teeth on Linux with Redhat and Slackware. At the time (

1999), all commercial books used Slack as ‘the’ Linux distro. Once I learned a lot, Slack was great. It was so simple, and I came to dislike RH/Fedora quite intensely.

Time passed.
The 2.2 and 2.4 kernels never supported all my laptop hardware, despite hundreds of kernel recompiles. 2.4 was still being used in the Slack 11 release. Slack dropped Gnome support and other projects were slow to fill the void. It was irritating only being able to find rpms of applications and converting them to the .tgz Slack package format. For the i486 platform, no less. In 2004. Too much DIY for me. I stayed away from Gentoo and LFS for a reason

I love command line and simple configuration files. GUI has its place, but I wanted something that would squeeze every last CPU cycle out of my machines — not waste it on fancy UI elements.

I tried Arch on a whim. It took me (sadly) almost a year to learn how easy it could be, because I kept trying to make it into Slackware. Once I caught on to «The Arch Way», I never looked back. Almost everything I can think of is in the pacman repositories and it’s all compiled for i686. No manual resolution of dependencies, and a full system upgrade without a re-install. Arch is now my distro, and I’ll never go back to Slack.

#13 2007-11-15 01:28:48

Re: Arch vs Slackware

hello every body. i new in Archlinux and i think Arch is the BEST SO.
i was used Ubuntu 5.10/ 6.20 , Debian Sarget/Etch/Lenny/Sid , Suse:rolleyes:, Gem 1.0 , DreamLinux and Archlinux.
the first time were i installed Arch i was thinking what i learn from this SO ?
for my surprise all is so easy to configure, are many tutorials and help in the web and so simple, fast and stable;
but my wireless card was the only thing not configured. but yesterday i installed and all is configured and running perfectly
I never do that so simple, easy and faster. Archlinux is more what i was thinking . is the best SO that i was installed in my desktop

Sorry for my expressions, i’m from Chile —> Southamerica, next to Argentina

Archlinux rules

que buena, aguante chile

the best that you can do, is try Arch/slackware/debian/etc and then, you can have a better idea of wich distro is a good choice for yours tasks, etc.

sorry for my english.

#14 2007-11-15 02:57:02

Re: Arch vs Slackware

I came from Slack. The last version I used was Slackware 10.
I think that both, Arch and Slackware, are good and have their own strength and weaknesses.
Using a distro, or Linux for that matter, is about choice and a choice that best fits the way we work. In that regard I switched to Arch because it works in a way that best suits my working style and **not** because I was unhappy about Slack.

Both distros expect a lot from the end user and both have same peculiarities that make them unique. Slack has the «honorable distinction» of being the «most Unix like» of the Linux variants but that is not to say that it is «better» than any other distribution because it also have some «trends» that it took from BSD.

If Arch did not exit I would be a Slacker . but then again Arch **does** exit!

Thanks to all (developers, users, community) for a great distribution.

#15 2007-11-15 06:58:40

Re: Arch vs Slackware

You’ll benefit from either Slackware or Arch. You’ll be up and running a little faster with Arch, probably, but you’ll learn the inner workings of the system more with Slack. If you’re a patient person highly motivated to learn about Linux, I would start with Slack for at least six months, then, when you’ve got your sea legs, try Arch.

From reading these forums for several years, it looks as if everyone who has spent time with Slackware testifies to the great benefits of using it, but many people eventually prefer to move to a more convenient, but still hands-on distro like Arch.

Once you know Linux, Arch will free you from some of the more tedious chores but still allow you tremendous control over your system. That’s the right balance for me.

A lot of people who are interested in Linux spend some time with Gentoo along the way, and most people give LFS a shot, as well. I don’t recommend LFS as a way for a beginner to learn about Linux, however. I got more out of working through the LFS book after I was fairly familiar with Linux. When I first tried LFS as a relative newby, I managed to complete the exercise, but I was mainly typing instructions at my keyboard without much understanding of what I was doing. When I went through LFS after 18 months or so with Linux, it made a whole lot more sense and was far more beneficial.

Slack and Arch both have good docs and good communities. Both are essential to learning your way.

Last edited by dhave (2007-11-15 06:59:31)

Tired? There’s a nap for that. —anonymous

Источник

Beej’s Bit Bucket

вљЎ Tech and Programming Fun

Arch vs. Slackware, a friendly comparison

As you might know, there are about a hundred thousand million billion Linux distributions. (For those who don’t know, the «Linux» core is an operating system kernel, and people take it and build collections of software around it called «distributions», and people install these distributions, and then, in casual conversation, call the distribution «Linux». В All this adds up to confusion for people who don’t already know it all.)

Which distro you choose depends a lot on what type of user you are, and how dirty you want your hands to get. For many people, this is, «I’m a normal user, and I don’t want to get my hands dirty.» (I recommend the Ubuntu distribution for these folks.) В Some people might want to run a server; in that case Red Hat (or CentOS) is a good one. Of course, there are many, many good ones (I’ll put a nod here in for BSD.)

But that’s not what this post is about.

If you’re a user who does want dirty hands, you might consider the following two comparable distros. Both support 32 and 64-bit, and both adhere to the KISS principle. They are the relative newcomerВ Arch Linux (created in 2002) and venerable battle-testedВ Slackware Linux (created in 1993 and currently the oldest actively-maintained Linux distro—kids who were born when Slackware was released are driving cars today). By «getting your hands dirty», I mean there’s a lot of manual configuration file editing, not a lot of GUI friendliness, and lots of terminals. В Eventually you’ll get the system set up with a nice GUI; both Slack and Arch officially support KDE—Arch also officially supports GNOME which is easily available for Slack via third parties.

Why would you subject yourself to this? Answer: because you’ll learn a lot about how the system works, and when it breaks, you’ll be much better-prepared to fix it.

The irony of the user-friendly systems is that the layers of user-friendliness are by necessity layers of complexity. The systems are offloading the tasks of system management from the relatively smart super-powerful human brains and moving it onto a relatively stupid piece of complex and fragile system management software. (I’d argue that the reason these pieces of management software are fragile and complex is that historically Unix systems were administered by humans, and they weren’t built with «fire-and-forget» machine administration in mind, but that’s a story for another time.)

So we get rid of the layers of complexity, and put humans back in charge, and you end up with a simpler system at the expense of the human needing to know more about how to configure and maintain it.

(If you really wanted to get a feel for how a Linux distro works, you can build your own with Linux From Scratch, but I won’t take you that far today.)

So back to the two distros in question: Arch and Slackware. Both install in text mode (with text-based GUI widgets) and don’t fire up X until you tell them to. В Slackware’s installer will handhold you through the configuration process, while Arch’s actually puts you into an editor to hand-edit /etc/rc.conf (which is a pretty simple file).

Arch’s install is a little bit different in that it doesn’t actually come with X—you have to install it with the package manager (which downloads it) before you can use it.

With both, once the install is done, you’ll get a login prompt and can go from there.

Both systems include package management software, and both use a tarball-based format. Arch’s custom tool called «pacman» is faster than Slack’s, but I never found that to be a practical concern. One major difference is that Arch uses a package dependency system, while Slack does not. Slackers don’t care for dependencies, which they feel lead to «dependency hell». Can a system be stable without explicit dependencies? Yes, it can, as Slackware shows in practice. Users just upgrade packages as needed. В On the flipside of dependency hell is dependency heaven, where everything works properly and you upgrade and it pulls in the necessary packages and that’s that!—Arch pulls this off quite well.

Speaking of stability, Slackware is known for it. Packages are well-tested tried-and-true versions of the software and non-security updates between major releases are rare. You set up a system and it «just works» forever.

Arch doesn’t make a stability claim, mostly due to the fact that all the software on the system is basically cutting-edge (generally it’s the non-development versions of the software, though). В As new software is released, it comes out for Arch very very soon thereafter. В (There is often a delay while the packages move through Arch’s «testing» repository, which users don’t normally access, but can access if they want to help test.) Arch users upgrade their systems early and often by running «pacman -Syu» to upgrade all packages. В Usually several packages get updates each day as new versions are released. Arch packages them all, whether they are security-related updates or not.

While that sounds like some kind of stability nightmare which would result in a broken system more often than not, in practice the upgrades work without a hitch virtually all the time. I had one breakage where an Arch maintainer forgot to push a KDE package out that was part of a major update, but that was soon fixed. Another breakage occurred when nVidia moved my video card’s driver into another package and the old package wasn’t compatible with the latest Xorg server—installing the proper Arch driver package fixed it. В These were the only two upgrade failures I’d seen in eight months of near-daily upgrades, and I can’t really blame the second one on anything fundamental to Arch’s system.

If you want to push Slackware a bit and get access to more up-to-date packages, you can update against Slackware’s «-current» repository. This stuff isn’t well-tested (because its users are the testers!), but eventually -current will be blessed into the next official version when it’s rock-solid.

Speaking of updates, what of security updates? Slackware is good with security updates, and provides them for the current release, plus several back-releases. You can be assured of security support for a long time, and I never once had a security update break the system. В Arch, by comparison, does not have «security» updates, per se; their security updates just happen as a matter of course when you update the whole system to the latest. Arch doesn’t provide separate security issue tracking.

One place where that makes a real difference is if you want to run a server. With Slack, you know that updates you make are going to be for security purposes, so that’s OK. But you might not want to update to the latest version of postfix «just because», since it might be a disruption to the users. As such, I’d not recommend Arch as a server, though there are people who run it as one. (One concession Arch has made in this regard is the «stable longtime supported kernel», a kernel package that is not frequently updated and is thus more suitable for long-uptime machines.)

You might be thinking, «If Arch constantly updates to the latest, why would you ever get ‘latest release’ DVD?» You wouldn’t! Once you install it, you’ll never do a reinstall or big upgrade every six-months or so. You just keep updating to the latest over the net. Arch calls this the «rolling release» model. Slackware uses a standard version number-based release model.

Which distro comes with more packages? The answer, to be short, is Arch. Quite a few more. Let’s not beat around the bush: it’s a lot more. В Slack 13.0 has about 1000 packages, while Arch has about 4000. What this means is that things like Inkscape will be in Arch’s official distro, but not in Slack’s. Don’t get me wrong—1000 is a lot, but you might find that something you want isn’t there. (You can always build and package things yourself, of course.)

When you want some software that’s not in the repo for either distro, you can step outside the official channels. For Slackware, this often means going to slackbuilds.org (SBo). SBo has about 1700 user-submitted «build scripts» (which are sh scripts you just run) that will build Slack packages for you that you can install. For instance, there is an Inkscape Slackbuild script there so you can install the latest Inkscape without figuring out how to build it yourself. Also provided is usually a README file that describes which dependencies you also need to install. В In the spirit of Slackware’s legendary stability, all the SBo scripts are examined and tested by (and, to a certain extent, vouched for by) the site admins.

By comparison, Arch has the «Arch User Repository» (AUR), which contains some 18,000 (!) user-submitted build scripts. Arch makes no warranty for or vouches for these build scripts in any way, stating, «п»їп»їUnsupported packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk.» AUR users ruthlessly flag PKGBUILD scripts out of date the moment a new version of the software is released, and the volunteer package maintainer is expected to either update the build script, or «orphan» the package so someone else can maintain it. The system runs itself and AUR admins don’t tend to interfere with, vet, or verify uploaded build scripts. Though the build scripts could absolutely be malicious, I haven’t seen this happen, and such a script would be removed by the admins.

Compared to Slack’s standalone build scripts, Arch build scripts are bash-based, and are executed by Arch’s makepkg program. These build scripts are cleaner than Slack’s, since much of the grunt work is moved into the makepkg software, and the scripts can take advantage of bash-isms, like arrays. The loss is that an Arch package build is dependent on both bash and makepkg, whereas with Slack, the only dependency is sh. But the user process is the same on both: run the script and then install the resultant package.

In summary, the similar aspects are:

Slack and Arch: KISS principle, 32 and 64-bit, tarball-based package management, text install, config file editing is expected in administration, KDE.

Notable points to help decide between the two:

Slackware: total stability, good for servers and not-bad for desktops, relatively small (but reasonable) amount of well-tested stable software, security updates provided, GNOME from a third-party, standard release schedule, i486 build officially distributed, admin tools depend on sh.

Arch: good (but not guaranteed) stability, huge amount of cutting-edge software, good for desktops but not-as-good for servers, update everything continuously, GNOME officially supported, «rolling release» schedule, i686 build officially distributed, admin tools depend on bash.

Which one is truly better? That’s up to you!

Источник