Arch Linux Compared to Other Distributions

7/27/2019 Arch Linux Compared to Other Distributions

1/9

Summary

A brief comparison ofArch Linux with otherpopular GNU/Linuxdistributions and BSDs.

Related

Arch Linux

The Arch Way

External links

DistroWatch.com(http://distrowatch.com/)

Arch Compared to Other Distributions

From ArchWiki

This page attempts to draw a comparison between ArchLinux and other popular GNU/Linux distributions andUNIX-like operating systems. The summaries that follow arebrief descriptions that may help a person decide if ArchLinux will suit their needs. Although reviews anddescriptions can be useful, first-hand experience isinvariably the best way to compare distributions.

Contents

1 Source-based1.1 Gentoo Linux1.2 Sorcerer/Lunar-Linux/Source Mage

2 Minimalist2.1 LFS2.2 CRUX2.3 Slackware

3 General3.1 Debian GNU/Linux3.2 Fedora3.3 Frugalware

4 Beginner-friendly4.1 Ubuntu4.2 Mandriva4.3 openSUSE4.4 PCLinuxOS

5 The *BSDs5.1 FreeBSD5.2 NetBSD5.3 OpenBSD

Source-based

Source-based distributions are highly portable, giving the advantage of controlling andcompiling the entire OS and applications for a particular machine architecture andusage scheme, with the disadvantage of the time-consuming nature of sourcecompilation. The Arch base and all packages are compiled for i686 and x86_64architectures, offering a potential performance boost over i386/i486/i586 binarydistributions, with the added advantage of expedient installation.

h Compared to Other Distributions - ArchWiki https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Compare

9 10/08/2013 05


2/9

Gentoo Linux

Both Arch Linux and Gentoo Linux are rolling release systems, making packagesavailable to the distribution a short time after they are released upstream. The Gentoopackages and base system are built directly from source code according touser-specified USE flags. Arch provides a ports-like system for building packages fromsource, though the Arch base system is designed to be installed as pre-built i686/x86_64

binary. This generally makes Arch quicker to build and update, and allows Gentoo to bemore systemically customizable. Arch supports i686 and x86_64 while Gentoo officiallysupports x86, x86_64, PPC, SPARC, Alpha, ARM, MIPS, HP/PA, S/390, sh, and Itaniumarchitectures. Because both the Gentoo and Arch installations only include a basesystem, both are considered to be highly customizable. Gentoo users will generally feelquite comfortable with most aspects of Arch.

Sorcerer/Lunar-Linux/Source Mage

Sorcerer/Lunar-Linux/Source Mage (SLS) are all source-based distributions originallyrelated to one another. SLS distributions use a rather simple set of script files to create

package descriptions, and use a global configuration file to configure the compilationprocess, much like the Arch Build System. The SLS tools do full dependency checking,including handling optional features, package tracking, removal and upgrading. Thereare no binary packages for any of the SLS family, although they all provide the ability toroll back to earlier installed packages easily.

The installation process involves configuring a simple base system from the shell andncurses menus, then optionally recompiling the base system afterward. Like Arch, thereis no default WM/DE/DM, and Xorg is not included in the base installation. Several Xserver alternatives are available (X.Org 6.8 or 7, XFree86).

SLS has a very complicated history. Perhaps the best write-up about it can be found atthe SourceMage wiki (http://wiki.sourcemage.org/SourceMage/History) .

Minimalist

The minimalist distributions are quite comparable to Arch, sharing several similarities.All are considered "simple" from a technical standpoint.

LFS

LFS, (or Linux From Scratch) exists simply as documentation. The book instructs theuser on obtaining the source code for a minimal base package set for a functionalGNU/Linux system, and how to manually compile, patch and configure it from scratch.LFS is as minimal as it gets, and offers an excellent and educational process of buildingand customizing a base system. Arch provides these very same packages, plus systemd,a few extra tools and the powerful pacman package manager as its base system, alreadycompiled for i686/x86_64. LFS provides no online repositories; sources are manuallyobtained, compiled and installed with make. (Several manual methods of packagemanagement exist, and are mentioned in LFS Hints). Along with the minimal Arch basesystem, the Arch community and developers provide and maintain many thousands of


9 10/08/2013 05


3/9

binary packages installable via pacman as well as PKGBUILD build scripts for use withthe Arch Build System. Arch also includes the makepkg tool for expediently building orcustomizing .pkg.tar.xzpackages, readily installable by pacman. Judd Vinet built Archfrom scratch, and then wrote pacman in C. Historically, Arch was sometimeshumorously described simply as "Linux, with a nice package manager."

CRUX

Before creating Arch, Judd Vinet admired and used CRUX; a minimalist distributioncreated by Per Lidn. Originally inspired by ideas in common with CRUX and BSD, Archwas built from scratch, and pacman was then coded in C. Arch and CRUX share someguiding principles: for instance, both are architecture-optimized, minimalist andK.I.S.S.-oriented. Both ship with ports-like systems, and, like *BSD, both provide aminimal base environment to build upon. Arch features pacman, which handles binarysystem package management and works seamlessly with the Arch Build System. CRUXuses a community contributed system called prt-get, which, in combination with its ownports system, handles dependency resolution, but builds all packages from source(though the CRUX base installation is binary). Arch officially supports x86_64 and i686

only, whereas CRUX officially offers only x86_64.

Arch uses a rolling-release system and features a large array of binary packagerepositories as well as the Arch User Repository. CRUX provides a more slimmed-downofficially supported ports system in addition to a comparatively modest communityrepository.

Slackware

Slackware and Arch are quite similar in that both are simple distributions focusedon elegance and minimalism.

Slackware is famous for its lack of branding and completely vanilla packages, fromthe kernel up. Arch typically applies patching only to avoid severe breakage or toensure packages will compile cleanly.

Slackware uses BSD-style init scripts, Arch uses systemd.

Arch supplies a package management system in pacman which, unlike Slackware'sstandard tools, offers automatic dependency resolution and allows for moreautomated system upgrades. Slackware users typically prefer their method ofmanual dependency resolution, citing the level of system control it grants them, as

well as Slackware's excellent supply of pre-installed libraries and dependencies.

Arch is a rolling-release system. Slackware is seen as more conservative in itsrelease cycle, preferring proven stable packages. Arch is more bleeding-edge inthis respect.

Arch Linux provides many thousands of binary packages within its officialrepositories whereas Slackware official repositories are more modest.

Arch offers the Arch Build System, an actual ports-like system and also the AUR, avery large collection of PKGBUILDs contributed by users. Slackware offers a


9 10/08/2013 05


4/9

similar, though slimmer system at slackbuilds.org (http://www.slackbuilds.org)which is a semi-official repository of Slackbuilds, which are analogous to ArchPKGBUILDs. Slackware users will generally be quite comfortable with mostaspects of Arch.

General

These distributions offer a broad range of advantages and strengths, and can be madeto serve most operating system uses.

Debian GNU/Linux

Debian is the largest upstream Linux distribution with a bigger community andfeatures stable, testing, and unstable branches, offering over 30,000 high qualitybinary packages. The available number of Arch binary packages is more modest.However, when including the AUR, the quantities are very comparable.

Debian has a more vehement stance on free software but still includes non-free

software in its non-free repos. Arch is more lenient, and therefore inclusive,concerning non-free packages as defined by GNU, thereby leaving the choice to theusers.

Debian's design approach focuses more on stability and stringent testing and focusbased mostly on its famous "Debian social contract". Arch is focused more on thephilosophy of simplicity, minimalism, and offering bleeding edge software. Archpackages are more current than Debian Stable and Testing, being morecomparable to the Debian Unstable branch.

Both Debian and Arch offer well-regarded package management systems.

Arch is a rolling release, whereas Debian Stable is released with "frozen"packages. Debian unstable is rolling.

Debian is available for many architectures, including alpha, arm, hppa, i386,x86_64, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, and sparc, whereas Arch isofficially i686 and x86_64, with community ports for arm (for Raspberry Pi forexample) only.

Arch provides more expedient support for building custom, installable packagesfrom outside sources, with a ports-like package build system. Debian does not offer

a ports system, relying instead on its huge binary repositories.The Arch installation system only offers a minimal base, transparently exposedduring system configuration, whereas Debian's methods offer a more automaticallyconfigured approach as well as several alternative methods of installation.

Debian utilizes the SysVinit by default even though systemd and upstart areavailable for users to configure, whereas Arch uses systemd by default for overallbetter performance.

Arch keeps patching to a minimum, thus avoiding problems that upstream are


9 10/08/2013 05


5/9

unable to review, whereas Debian patches its packages more liberally for a wideraudience.

Fedora

Fedora is community developed, yet corporately backed by Red Hat; it is oftenpresented as a bleeding edge testbed release system; Fedora packages andprojects migrate to RHEL and some eventually become adopted by otherdistributions. Arch too is generally considered bleeding edge, although it is arolling-release and does not serve as a testing branch for another distribution.

Fedora packages are RPM format, using the YUM package manager, and officialgraphical package tools are also available. Arch uses pacman to manage tar.xzpackages and does not officially support a graphical frontend.

Fedora refuses to include MP3 media support and other non-free software inofficial repositories due to its dedication to free software, though third-partyrepositories are available for such packages. Arch is more lenient in its dispositiontoward MP3 and non-free software, leaving the discernment to the user.

Fedora offers many installation options including a graphical installer as well as aminimal option. Fedora "spins" also provide alternative assortments of desktopenvironments to choose from, each with a modest assortment of default packages.Arch, on the other hand, only provides a few scripts meant to ease the process of aminimal base system install.

Fedora has a scheduled release cycle, but officially supports discrete versionupgrades with the FedUp tool. Arch is a rolling-release system.

The Arch Wayfocuses on simplicity, lightweight elegance and empowering the

user, whereas Fedora Core Values focus on free software, communitydevelopment and bleeding edge systemic innovation.

Arch features a ports system, whereas Fedora does not.

Both Arch and Fedora are targeted at experienced users and developers.Both strongly encourage their users to contribute to project development.

Fedora has earned much community recognition for integration of SELinux, GCJcompiled packages (to remove the need for Sun's JRE), and prolific upstreamcontribution; Red Hat and thus, Fedora developers by extension, contribute thehighest percentage of Linux kernel code as compared to any other project.

Arch Linux provides what is widely regarded as the most thorough andcomprehensive distribution wiki. The Fedora wiki is used in the original sense ofthe word "wiki", or a way to exchange information between developers, testers andusers rapidly. It is not meant to be an end-user knowledge base like Arch's.Fedora's wiki resembles an issue tracker or a corporate wiki.

Frugalware

Arch is command-line oriented.


9 10/08/2013 05


6/9

Frugalware does not support the JFS filesystem by default.

Both Arch and Frugalware are promoted as i686 optimized.

Arch can be installed as a minimal environment first and later expanded withpacman according to the user's choices and needs. Frugalware is installed from aDVD, with default software choices and desktop environment chosen for the useralready.

Frugalware has a scheduled release cycle. Again, Arch is more focused onsimplicity, minimalism, code-correctness and bleeding edge packages within arolling-release model.

Beginner-friendly

Sometimes called "newbie distros", the beginner-friendly distributions share a lot ofsimilarities, though Arch is quite different from them. Arch may be a better choice ifyou want to learn about GNU/Linux by building up from a very minimal base, as an

installation of Arch installs very few packages in comparison. Specifi

c diff

erencesbetween distributions are described below.

Ubuntu

Ubuntu is an immensely popular Debian-based distribution commerciallysponsored by Canonical Ltd., while Arch is an independently developed systembuilt from scratch.

Both projects have very different goals and are targeted at a different user base.Arch is designed for users who desire a do-it-yourself approach, whereas Ubuntu

provides an autoconfigured system which is meant to be more user-friendly. Arch ispresented as a much more minimalist design from the base installation onward,relying heavily on the user to customize it to their own specific needs. In general,developers and tinkerers will probably like Arch better than Ubuntu, though manyArch users have started on Ubuntu and eventually migrated to Arch.

Current Ubuntu development and promotion seem to be heavily embracing thetouch screen device market, whereas Arch development is more generally focusedon a user-centric model which empowers its community to create customizedsolutions to be developed collaboratively.

Ubuntu moves between discrete releases every 6 months, whereas Arch is arolling-release system with a new snapshot issued every month.

Arch offers a ports-like package build system, while Ubuntu does not.

The two communities differ in some ways as well. The Arch community is muchsmaller and is strongly encouraged to contribute to the distribution. In contrast,the Ubuntu community is relatively large and can therefore tolerate a much largerpercentage of users who do not actively contribute to development, packaging, orrepository maintenance.


9 10/08/2013 05


7/9

Mandriva

Mandriva Linux (formerly Mandrake Linux) was created in 1998 with the goal ofmaking GNU/Linux easy to use for everyone. It is RPM-based and uses the urpmipackage manager. Again, Arch takes a simpler approach, being text-based and relyingon more manual configuration and is aimed at intermediate to advanced users.

openSUSE

openSUSE is centered around the RPM package format and its well-regarded YaST2GUI-driven configuration tool, which is a one-stop shop for most users' systemconfiguration needs, including package management. Arch does not offer such a facilityas it goes against The Arch Way. openSUSE, therefore, is widely regarded as moreappropriate for less-experienced users, or those who want a more GUI-drivenenvironment, auto-configuration and expected functionality out of the box.

PCLinuxOS

PCLinuxOS is a popular Mandriva-based distribution providing a complete DE,designed for user-friendliness and is described as "simple", though its definition ofsimple is quite different than the Arch definition. Arch is designed as a simple basesystem to be customized from the ground up and is aimed more toward advancedusers.

PCLOS uses the apt package manager as a wrapper for RPM packages. Arch usesits own independently-developed pacman package manager with .pkg.tar.xzpackages.

PCLOS is very GUI-driven, provides GUI hardware configuration tools and the

Synaptic package management front-end, and claims to have little or no relianceon the shell. Arch is command-line oriented and designed for more simpleapproaches to system configuration, management and maintenance.

PCLOS recommends 256 MB RAM as part of its minimum system requirements.Being more lightweight, Arch can run on systems with much less system memory,requiring only 64 MB of RAM for a base i686 install, and will run flawlessly onmore modern systems.

The *BSDs

*BSDs share a common origin and descend directly from the work done at UC Berkeleyto produce a freely redistributable, free of cost, UNIX system. They are not GNU/Linuxdistributions, but rather, UNIX-like operating systems. Therefore, although Arch andthe *BSDs share the concept of a tightly-integrated base and ports system, they areabsolutely not related from a code standpoint, except for perhaps vi, as Arch's vi is theoriginal BSD vi (most *BSDs do not use the original BSD vi anymore). *BSDs werederived from the original AT&T UNIX code and have a true UNIX heritage. To learnmore about the *BSD variants, visit the vendor's site.


9 10/08/2013 05


8/9

FreeBSD

Both Arch and FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org/about.html) offer software whichcan be obtained using binaries or compiled using ports systems.

Like other *BSDs, the FreeBSD base is developed fundamentally as a systemdesigned as a whole, with each application ported over to FreeBSD and made sureto work in the process. In contrast, GNU/Linux distributions such as Arch exist as

amalgams combined from many separate sources.

The FreeBSD license is generally more protective of the coder, in contrast to theGPL, which favors protection of the code itself. Arch is released under the GPL.

In FreeBSD, like Arch, decisions are delegated to you, the power user. This may bethe most interesting comparison to Arch since it goes head-to-head in packagemodernity and has a somewhat sizable, smart, active, no-nonsense community.

Both systems share many similarities and FreeBSD users will generally feel quitecomfortable with most aspects of Arch.

NetBSD

NetBSD is a free, secure, and highly portable UNIX-like open-source operatingsystem available for over 50 platforms, from 64-bit Opteron machines and desktopsystems to hand-held and embedded devices. Its clean design and advancedfeatures make it excellent in both production and research environments, and it isuser-supported with complete source. Many applications are easily availablethrough pkgsrc, the NetBSD Packages Collection.

Arch may not operate on the vast number of devices NetBSD operates on, but for

an i686 system it may offer more applications.

NetBSD's pkgsrc provides a source based method of installation similar to Arch'sABS; however binary packages are also available using pkg_tools.

Arch does share similarities with NetBSD: both require manual configuration, theyare minimalist and lightweight, both offer ports systems as well as binaries andboth have active, no-nonsense developers and communities.

OpenBSD

The OpenBSD project produces a free, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based UNIX-likeoperating system.

OpenBSD focuses on portability, standardization, code correctness, proactivesecurity, and integrated cryptography. In contrast, Arch focuses more on simplicity,elegance, minimalism and bleeding edge software. OpenBSD is self-described as"perhaps the #1 security OS".

Both Arch and OpenBSD offer a small, elegant, base install.

Both offer a ports and packaging system to allow for easy installation and


9 10/08/2013 05


9/9

management of programs which are not part of the base operating system.

In contrast to a GNU/Linux system like Arch, but in common with most otherBSD-based operating systems, the OpenBSD kernel and userland programs, suchas the shell and common tools (like ls, cp, cat and ps), are developed together in asingle source repository.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.archlinux.org

/index.php?title=Arch_Compared_to_Other_Distributions&oldid=275013"Category: About Arch

This page was last modified on 11 September 2013, at 06:54.Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or later.


Documents

Arch Linux Compared to Other Distributions