Ubuntu’s Ubiquity installer is one of easiest installers out there. While Arch is interesting and powerful, Ubuntu offers (at least for me) a lot more stability and lets me focus on other things than maintaining my own OS … This means that names are not given out on a "first come first served" basis. ... for ex. Not too old, and not too new. And I'm always running the latest software. Email. reddit, Instacart, and Asanaare some of the popular companies that use Ubuntu, whereas Arch Linux is used by Decision6, IT-Partner-Berlin, and store2be GmbH. Moreover, a terminal is an alternative interface besides the desktop interface and offers advanced control on the Linux OS. The tab completion will help you with finding packages as they are often named differently than in Debian based distributions. Can someone tell me what was this guy smoking in the past, oh idk, life? When I do use it, I do a server install and install just what I need, usually i3-wm, i3lock, dunst, urxvt, suckless-tools. For the desktop I don't use Debian, because I don't really like the length of period that it takes to get a new release with updated packages. Arch Without All the Hassle Manjaro is one of the few Linux distributions that are not based on Ubuntu. Arch affords something no formal installer can – full free-form customization Ubuntu’s fully graphical installer and live DVDs make it ideal for both beginners and people who don’t want to be bothered fiddling with and configuring every aspect of their system. A tad off-topic but have you tried CentOS' external repos? I started off with Mint and Ubuntu for about 3 months, then moved to Debian. Ubuntu is a subtractive distro, for the most part you remove what you don't. PPA's are not centralized, anyone can host their own. Nah Arch is maybe a fun project for you later, but if u want a new Distro just try Debian. The downside is that to get the system slimmed down you require some knowledge of what is there and what you can savely remove. The AUR is very good, I would recommend taking a look at Manjaro, it uses pacman and has access to the AUR but is a lot easier to set up and use. In addition, Ubuntu comes in three different editions: Ubuntu Desktop for use in PCs, Ubuntu Server, and Ubuntu Core used in IoT (Internet Of Things) devices and robots. Ubuntu just does not update their software as fast as Arch will. In particular placing of third party binary applications in any place other than /opt is inappropriate. You can click your way through with full guidance at ever… Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Ubuntu mostly just throws everything you could possibly need to make sure you have what you need. Arch as a policy keeps patching of upstream software to a minimum and only does it to avoid breakage. The things that have me interested in swapping are: Rolling release so no reinstall necessary until I inevitably break something beyond my googling skills. I believe that it played an important role in Ubuntu’s popularity because when Ubuntu was just created in 2004, installing Linux itself was considered a huge task.The Ubuntu installer allows you to install Ubuntu in around 10 minutes. Unlike, for example Ubuntu where a new version is released every six months, packages are updated when they are ready. I'd also read these insightful replies by /u/viccuad. Another significant issue could be software compatibility. In practise this allows you to get the system you want more quickly I find. This means Pacman resolves dependencies slightly quicker than dpkg because the dependency system is not as complicated, conversely dpkg can handle more complex dependency logic than pacman which you almost never need. Hardened Gentoo would probably be my choice for that as it implements SELinux already. Ubuntu is another majorly famous distro, itself being based on Debian but with a few nice additions under the hood like the ability to use PPAs and it’s LTS releases. It's fairly easy to learn how to make a pacman package compared to a dpkg .deb package. God damn it. After all, Ubuntu is the only one of these distributions with a proper installer. Rolling release, this is different from bleeding edge, but Arch has no "versions", only the software in the repos. The downside is that they are not as featureful and have less options. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast, More posts from the linuxmasterrace community, A subreddit for Linux enthusiasts. But it should not be used by more advanced users since the method of installing through the terminal is much faster and easier after one is used to it. I never looked back. As for Manjaro, first released on July 10, 2011, it is derived from Arch Linux, a powerful distro that focuses on simplicity and customization. If it ain't there by default, then just install it. Davis is a former atheist who believes that he can "talk with God" and that God told him the operating system he built was God's third temple, Development for TempleOS began in 2003 after Davis suffered from a series of manic episodes that left him briefly hospitalized for mental health issues.[1][4]. ReddIt. There are again arguments to be made for either direction. Since they are each just dpkg repos unlike AUR which hosts build scripts they are indistinguishable from other repos in the end. Is Ubuntu starting to lose mind share? That was exactly what I did. In terms of finding what you need on CentOS you are missing: Log out and log back in. The downside is that you have to know what you need. When in doubt there is always yum provides. It comes with three editions: desktop, core, and server. Couple of reasons why one might pick Ubuntu over Arch: Lack of KISS principle, Ubuntu's solutions tend to be more engineered and cover obscure use cases more having Debian as their parent and inhaeriting most of their system tools. Just fucking use Lutris and nothing breaks ever. Discord is available in the Arch User Repositories as well. What software are you talking about? Variety: Tons of variants of Linux to choose from with different experiences, such as Debian, Ubuntu, Solus, Mint, Deepin, and Arch (There are honestly way too many to name them all) Free and open source, anyone can take a look at the code behind it and make sure its doing what its supposed to. if you want software that was updated yesterday, and are super bleeding edge, than Ubuntu isn't for you. arch gives you the literal minimum you need. Arch Linux is faster in gaming, cause it's clean => no underground rocks at installing dx11 wine patches etc. Specifically for my needs. Arch, well, is installed by the Linux Master Race people and they love to flex their Linux knowledge. You can always custom compile the latest and greatest updates on your own with Ubuntu though. In most cases, it can identify Windows installed on your system and allows you to dual boot Ubuntu and Windows in a matter of clicks.You can … I am thinking of trying rofi though instead of dmenu. And which Linux distro is gaining popularity due to Ubuntu's waning momentum? The most important reason people chose Arch Linux is: Arch's goal of simplicity means there's usually one preferred way to get things done - through organized and well documented configuration files. If you truly want a more minimal experience, install Debian minimal, or even Ubuntu minimal. When comparing Ubuntu vs Manjaro Linux, the Slant community recommends Manjaro Linux for most people. Except of course a fully enabled systemd with all the bells and whistles turned on at compile time as well as its swath of heavy dependencies like dbus. If you are one of those people who just wants to use their computer for work, stick with Ubuntu. If you learn Linux commands for professional reasons it's better to stay with Ubuntu (or Debian based distro) than Arch Linux because it's more used for servers. Bar the inevitable eventual explosion, I'd argue that running this install of Arch is EASIER than the corresponding 3 major updates of Ubuntu I would have endured in the same period. In practise this allows you to get the system you want more quickly I find. Penguins, enough said. Making system updates (like it was with 10.04 to 11.04) that screw so many things up became a routine. There are arguments to be made in either direction for this though. Arch Linux (60 points) Ubuntu (40 points) Debian, Fedora, Linux Mint (20 points) Conclusion Ubuntu … For example, Ubuntu and Linux Mint will favor beginners while Kali Linux and Arch Linux would be good choices for advanced users. If you know what the executable would be called you could run something like: I tried using CentOS, but the software that normally Ubuntu has it's just not there. Couple of reasons why one might choose Arch over Ubuntu: KISS principle. I also love the AUR. Arch being a rolling release binary distro is also more or less requiring users to always update their system at once rather than in parts to ensure it keeps working. Ubuntu is an open-source Linux distribution based on Debian. Both Arch and Ubuntu are Linux systems, but given that Ubuntu has more mainstream appeal, you might find that there’s a lot more official support for it in terms of third-party software. I'm still a linux noob, but I'm interested in becoming a competent "power user" rather than just a user and forcing it on myself seems like the best way. I will save this just so I can play with it later on. Bear in mind that Arch has no graphicall installer and you have to set up your system enirely with command line. So i'm working away, trying to get the DE to look-and-feel like G-Unity and I added the nm-applet. I f you are a person associated with Computer technology and spend most of the time in the open-source arena, you must have heard or worked with some of the popular Linux distributions we have in the market. If you learn Linux commands for professional reasons it's better to stay with Ubuntu (or Debian based distro) than Arch Linux because it's more used for servers. Ubuntu, Fedora, Pop! If you don't have time to learn installing arch, try Manjaro or Antergos. I'm still using ubuntu, but I'm planning on giving the arch install a shot tomorrow since I'm off. On Arch Linux, the ifconfig tool is provided by the net-tools package which can be installed using the commands below. Most of the beginner-friendly Linux distributions are based on Ubuntu. AUR means you need a build system around. None of the things you have bulleted have been justified with examples. Also, no built-in AUR interface, in which you need pacaur to have a sane way of using said repository. A versioned release cycle, this places certain guarantees that all packages within one version work well together. Package headers are also split into *-dev and symbols are in *-dbg. Because it is not full of Canonical bullshit. epel-release is the repository that contains Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux and will likely have what you can't find. Arch has 3 graphics drivers: mesa, amd and Nvidia. The downside is that you have to know what you need. The same is true about Ubuntu. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Ubuntu's policy is to patch upstream software to improve it. Arch Linux and its derivatives have a bad way of handling dependencies. I will bite. The downside is arch requires more maintenance because it's a rolling release and getting your system up and running will take work/time because it's not meant as an install-and-go distro. https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories. Arch Linux is ranked 4th while Fedora is ranked 12th. Some of the names that you will never miss are; Ubuntu, Arch Linux, Debian, and Mint. Which isn't a problem. [...] but besides what I need I like to use open source software. Although I do prefer apt-get/aptitude. All things Linux and GNU/Linux -- this is neither a community exclusively about the kernel Linux, nor is exclusively about the GNU operating system. Since the main advantage you listed was speed, it's worth noting that a well-configured arch will be quicker than default Ubuntu. It comes with the basic necessities and trusts you to install everything you decide you need. Some people pointed out that updating Arch is a high risk affair. ... A subreddit for Linux enthusiasts. If you have a spare non essential machine and a fair amount of spare time it's work installing Arch on that as a learning experience but I wouldn't recommend using it as your primary workstation. I did a whole week of top 10 distro testing and Arch Linux Manjaro was the only one that worked out of the box on my system without having to fix things from the console. This Arch domain dominated by two distributions: Arch Linux itself and Manjaro. Cookies help us deliver our Services. It's like the actual repository that pacman uses, but anyone can upload to it, so you end up with a ton of very useful packages that you would have to build if it didn't exist -- always a plus for me. Instead, it is built on the continually cutting edge Arch Linux. There are some arguments in favour of centralization though. So I'm just on my first install of Arch. Con. https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories, (no real advantage here over using Ubuntu though, just as it goes for Arch). I do however use it for virtual machines on my server. Ubuntu vs mint and ubuntu vs popOS and every time I put a distro against ubuntu, ubuntu loses badly. Furthermore this distro would allow you to praise god. It should be there in the repositories what ever software that CentOS is missing by Ubuntu default software. Arch likes to keep things as simple as possible, you can like it or not but that's what they do, tools that are not "overengineered" are often easier to understand and work faster and have less bugs. In the last ~ 18 months I've been running Arch, it has automatically updated the proprietary nvidia driver and kernel several times without ever skipping a beat. For your purposes, Arch wouldn't really benefit you all that much. When comparing Arch Linux vs Linux Lite, ... More like for posting screenshots on Reddit. I have been using Ubuntu quite happily, but I was thinking of using ArchLinux because so many people are talking about it.The main use of a Linux system is to learn C programming and basic to intermediate Linux commands.Will learning ArchLinux benefit me more than Ubuntu in any way, shape or form? Ubuntu and Arch Linux couldn't be more different from each other. I have an RTX Nvidia graphics card which doesn't play nicely with X-Server, let alone Wayland. It sounds like not much. Ubuntu inherits Debian's Steam and has Discord available as a Snap, though a.debpackage is distributed which works with both it and Debian. The most important reason people chose Arch Linux is: Arch's goal of simplicity means there's usually one preferred way to get things done - through organized and well documented configuration files. Arch Linux is ranked 3rd while Ubuntu is ranked 25th. Programming is not going to change whatever the distro you choose but if you're a noob most tutorials are going to be for Ubuntu. The Ubuntu Software Center offers a GUI interface for installing new apps which is extremely easy and welcoming for beginners to Linux. To handle dependencies, it installs a whole another program which contains the required dependencies. The biggest difference you will see is its comprehensive installation process, which is completely different from other Linux… If you can avoid installing all the bloat, you can get quite zippy. You'll get super stable software on Pop. Arch Linux because it's more used for servers. Lack of bloatware - arch gives you the literal minimum you need and you decide what you want to add to that. LoL on Ubuntu 13fps, on arch 44fps. I think ArchLinux is far less less security focused than other distributions and would be an inappropriate choice if you want SELinux, although that is apparently a work in progress. To learn C you should obviously use TempleOS. I think no, because every distro is good for learn programming especially C. But, if you're curious about Arch and you can install it. If you've got too much time/knowledge on your hands, go with Arch Timesink. I use ArchLinux too. I have found Ubuntu's release cycle of 6 months to be ideal. Manjaro made its debut in 2011. As Linux users gains more experience, some try their hands on the more ‘advanced distributions’, mostly in the ‘Arch domain’. In this article, we are going to discuss Arch vs Ubuntu Linux. In fact the only times it's broken is when a massive Gnome update was pushed, first with 3.16 and most recently with 3.18, both of which I fixed in under 15 minutes with some googling. ‘’The Arch wiki’’ refers to a widespread body of information comprising documents for essentially any assignment you wish to do in ‘’Arch Linux’’ and also in other derivatives. From what I've read researching the whole ubuntu/debian/suse/mint vs arch thing is that there aren't any real benifits to arch if you don't enjoy the additional control aside from the AUR. This guarantees that the system at least boots and more or less works before you start cutting into the fat. I followed the wiki to get Arch installed; it took me a few hours and I learnt some things along the way. The most important reason people chose Arch Linux is: Arch's goal of simplicity means there's usually one preferred way to get things done - through organized and well documented configuration files. Print. It might seem like there’s a clear winner here. Thanks for the heads up. I'd also argue Debian is more minimalistic. Personally for desktop I only consider rolling release distros (mostly Arch and derivatives), but would never use one on a server (usually just pure Debian). Ubuntu mostly just throws everything you could possibly need to make sure you have what you need. I have been using Ubuntu for a while now(about 3 months in a VM) and I use it regularly to learn C. I tried using CentOS, but the software that normally Ubuntu has it's just not there. Arch is an additive distro, rather than removing what you don't need you add what you do to a minimal base. I had used Archlinux early on but dropped it because of this. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Ubuntu has a broader approval, being mentioned in 1870company stacks & 1757developers stacks; compared to Arch Linux, which is listed in 5company stacks and 32developer stacks. For a long while ArchLinux did not gpg sign their packages. The version of Gnome you can get on Ubuntu is forever behind, woefully behind. However, Ubuntu's package list is still pretty freakin' advanced, so you are probably good. The two main ones that stuck out to me was the quality of some packages in AUR. No, any distro is fine for learning programming, and unix commands. They have started doing that as of 3 years ago, and that's about the time I revisited ArchLinux. And they moving towards mesa for everything. Arch is a great distro, but unfortunately, if you want to install it you have to do a lot of work. TL;DR: It probably won't really help you, but if you want to change for ideological reasons, like I did, then go for it. AUR is centralized opposed to PPA's, meaning that there's one place to look rather than many so it's easier to find what you want, there are some arguments against centralization though. Debian and Arch have Steam packaged, where Fedora does not. Ubuntu (100 points) Arch Linux (70 points) Debian (40 points) Reddit Surveys. To confirm that the tool is installed, just issue the command ifconfig on the terminal. System processes are not obfuscated behind a user interface. It appears to be the case. Most Linux software developers provide their apps in both .deb and .rpm file formats.. Arch Linux is one of the cutting-edge Linux distros that lets you thrive on customization and minimalism. And one should carefully read forums before doing it. OS and other mainstream Linux distributions use the GNOME desktop environment. Even LTS releases should not … Using Arch won't give you any advantages in achieving your stated goals. The learning experience that comes with the previous two. How much have you install? As a versioned binary distro Ubuntu does not have this problem. $ dnf install firefox #5. Lost its way. However, due to Ubuntu’s massive popularity and larger userbase, some software vendors only provide DEB packages or choose to release their apps in .deb format first. Arch more or less requires you to perform an update of all your stuff before you install a new package to ensure it all works well as a rolling binary distro. It was developed and is maintained by Manjaro GmbH & Co. KG. The other positive feature of debian/ubuntu is the future possibility of reproducible builds which will be impossible in ArchLinux. Programming is not going to change whatever the distro you choose but if you're a noob most tutorials are going to be for Ubuntu. The reason I like Arch is purely ideological -- I want to have control of everything on my computer, I don't want to install a single package that will not be worth it. Arch Linux is ranked 5th while Linux Mint is ranked 13th. ... Manjaro is based on Arch Linux. On the other hand, Cinnamon DE can also be installed and used on Ubuntu, Debian, OpenSUSE, Arch Linux, and Fedora distributions. Manjaro is an open-source Linux distro based on Arch Linux. ... Arch uses a rolling release model for updates. "apt-get autoremove" has never failed me yet, while "pacman -Qdtq | pacman -Rs" seems to be a lot more of a dirty hack to remove unused dependencies, and certainly not "KISS". New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. That should make your life a little simpler. What is Ubuntu? Arch is an additive distro, rather than removing what you don't need you add what you do to a minimal base. Press J to jump to the feed. They are benefits to using Arch but it's not going to make you a better programmer. Having a lean system with just what I want on it. Don't listen to him, install antergos (arch). Repositories. Other then the whole bleeding edge thing what reasons would you choose arch over Ubuntu? Based on the user experience and behavior, the battle of Cinnamon Vs GNOME is always a hot topic in the Linux community. Yet no split packages, and doesn't support any method besides pacstrap. If you are a beginner, then Arch Linux is not for you. I've seen the memes and semi-reluctanlty jumped after my 3rd attempt of Ubuntu 20.20 failed (it needed the latest kernel apparently for my new GPU). Arch is so minimal that it lets me do that. I'd say anyone who chooses between Arch and Ubuntu specifically has no idea what they want and should try out a few distros to figure it out. Nu-Reddit Mobile Users: https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace, Press J to jump to the feed. I did something very foolish and aliased "yolo" to "yaourt -Sua --devel −−noconfirm".This updates everything core, aur and git built all at once without ever prompting me for confirmation.