Arch Linux vs Ubuntu
November 17th, 2007
Yes! Arch is great. For more detail read on.
Arch's Appeal
The main difference between Arch and Unbuntu is that Arch is designed to be molded whereas Ubuntu is a complete desktop/server distro. Like Ubuntu, most things were configured and worked upon install. Unlike Ubuntu, Arch does not have a default desktop environment although XFCE4 could be considered well supported. Arch will appeal to users who wish to start with a minimal system and a package manager, adding bit by bit until the system is tweaked to their desire.
Ubuntu's Appeal
Ubuntu is for those who just don't want to mess with it - giving users the choice of a server, or a Gnome / KDE / XFCE desktop. There is also a minimal (alternate) Ubuntu installer for those who want more control. I wont say Ubuntu 'wins' here or anywhere because it's apples and oranges. Yes - Arch vs. Ubuntu is a stupid comparison but if you're like me and you can't help but type X vs. Y into Google before doing anything then maybe identifying some differences isn't so bad. In short, Arch maintains bleeding-edge, occasionally broken, packages with no release cycle whereas Ubuntu needs upgrading (breaking) every six months. Ubuntu is good software with target markets. Arch is good software.
Package Management
Arch uses a rolling release cycle where major releases consist of a snapshot. For a personal computer, avoiding Ubuntu's six month upgrade cycle is a definite benefit. On the other hand it could cause breakage occasionally, which is why I still prefer Ubuntu (LTS) for my server. Arch packages tend to be more bleeding-edge from what I can tell browsing the repository. For example, the packaged version of GHC in Ubuntu 7.10 is 6.6.1 while Arch will install 6.8.1.
Pacman, the Arch package manager, is similar to apt. One thing I really like is that headers are bundled with library binaries. This makes sense since headers have a tight coupling to the code they describe. They can also be used as documentation when man pages are weak. With Ubuntu I had the option of not installing headers but that proved to be sort of a PITA when compiling or building a new development system. Ruby gems also uses gcc occasionally and it's nice to avoid the search for *-dev packages. pacman -S imagemagick && gem install rmagick just worked.
Post Install
Everything is installed, configured, and working as per the normal Ubuntu setup. Arch requires a few extra steps to get a desktop environment installed. Here's a few examples.
Xorg
Unfortunately I had to configure X. I say, 'unfortunately', because I hate configuring X. Best to just install Ubuntu on another partition and copy the xorg.conf. Currently I'm using the open-source ATI drivers since I couldn't get the proprietary ones to install properly. I'll be working on that later.
Sound
Running alsaconf asked a few questions and my sound card worked. Easy.
Suspend and Resume
Suspend and resume with swap and ram work great using the pm-utils package. I had to configure the resume scripts to run alsactl restore to get sound working after a restore but other than that it was configured perfectly upon install.
CPU Frequency Scaling
Ubuntu Forums had a great post on this topic. Since it's dealing with the kernel it works on Arch too. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=248867
In Total
I'll be using Arch for the foreseeable future, maybe even contributing if I'm ever capable of fixing something. The documentation on their wiki is outstanding and the community has momentum. In general, Ubuntu is great for the automated installation and configuration of everything to include the kitchen sink. Arch is great for a lightweight and fast system with a rolling release cycle and bleeding-edge software.
on February 20th, 2008 at 02:52 PM
I totally agree. Before finding arch I was an inveterate distro hopper. Now that I’ve found arch (late december 2007) I can finally stop. Arch lets you set up your box exactly the way you want it. Why would I move? I’m sure you’ve already read the post here [why-do-ubuntu-users-become-arch-users] but I’ll include the link for other readers. One of the commenters makes some nice points about “newbie stigma” and about Ubuntu being a great distro for introducing one to linux from where one can go ahead and satisfy one’s inner geek by using distros like Arch. Actually, for power users, Arch is much much nicer. The config files are all clean. Open up even your .bashrc in Ubuntu and you’ll see all sorts of stuff there. Who put it there? Not me! Arch is serendipity. Arch is, finally, the triumph of substance over form. For those 0.01% of the PC market who can see it, but nevertheless I’m glad it exists. Nice blog. I came here looking for wireless status in wmii, but I’m going to take your advice and am off to try xmonad and haskell. Have you already tried stumpwm?
on March 2nd, 2008 at 05:04 PM
I have not tried stumpwm but I did have a wm switching obsession and briefly settled on wmii before finding XMonad. I’ll have to give stumpwm a try when I get the lisp bug again.
-Sam
on March 4th, 2008 at 07:46 PM
Nice comparison, and very fair. I too found Arch after trying my hand at dozens of distros, mostly of the graphical, newbie-type, none of which seemed to ‘fit’. Though I must acknowledge what Ubuntu has done for GNU/Linux, I was never particularly fond of it nor Debian. Arch gave me a sense of accomplishment after installing it for the first time in 2006, and I have not had to reinstall since, thanks to the rolling release. Arch is certainly not for everyone, but does its job very well in serving its target users. Highlights: Pacman, BSD-Style init scripts, a clean set of configuration files, (without the convoluted SYS V init symlinks), ABS, AUR, yaourt, the quality and quantity of packages, the level of control and customization, the excellent wiki and documentation and the community. Arch is worth giving a look if you have not already, as it is not ‘just another’ distro.
on August 31st, 2008 at 05:48 PM
I perfectly agree, that Arch is a final stop for more people who running across distro. Especially when you get use to Linux. You will love Arch like to dead. in the other hand, Ubuntu is like the beginning of most people’s Linux Journey. Not saying that ubuntu is not as great as Arch, but Arch would be a plain for people who is complete new on Linux, (Even for people who has master windows and Mac. well maybe not BSD haha) But yeah, for most part, I would tell people to start from Ubuntu, and if you want to get advance and really learn something about Linux, Then go for Arch. I don’t know, but for me I really love JUST TEXT loading interface. haha, especially when I like to my computer to super personalize.
on September 21st, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Sadly, I too have become a frequest distro hopper. As stated above, nothing ever seemed to “fit” or “just work” – albeit I’ve been running a Dell laptop with 64megs of RAM. I’ve just acquired a new(er) laptop and stumbled across Arch and thought to myself, “EUREKA!” something I can finally customize to my little hearts content. But one little thing stood in my way – come to find out, I don’t know that much about linux :-( and flubbed up along the way. Somehow, somewhere along the line of partitioning and formatting I managed to install GRUB in the wrong location (or not at all). So I was stuck with the word GRUB_ and a solid black screen. I’ve read the installation instructions, but I’m like a deer in headlights. Anywho – installed DSL on a usb drive and booted from that becuase non of my other live cd’s would work. (antix, linux mint, archie, arch office, arch linux… 2 copies of it, both of which hang just in diff spots) Super Grub didnt even want to boot! ugh… Anyway I’m just ranting now, what I’m looking for is just a SIMPLE way to partition my HD and where to install the boot loader so i can get a base system to where i can install a WM and get my laptop running once more! Please help.
on October 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Lousy with linux, If you really suck that bad at linux that you can’t even install grub in the right location you should just drop linux altogether and just stay with windos. You say your a distro hopper, I wonder why? Nuff said.
on October 8th, 2008 at 04:13 PM
Linuxbox04, you must get all the ladies with your mad GRUB skills. It matters a whole lot in this world.
on October 15th, 2008 at 01:57 PM
@Lousy with Linux As a newbie to Linux myself, I certainly found Ubuntu to my liking. Yes, you cannot customize everthing you want to. But still, you feel in control of your pc. As a Windows user for over a decade and just been introduced to linux , I found Ubuntu easy to configure and use and certainly easy to manage. Everything is simple and ‘works’ (and I am a newbie and a simpleton) to do and help is no more than a few googles away. The ubuntu community is ready to help you whatever your problem is and I was certainly very happy with that.
If you are in a similar situation to what I was in, you should probably start with Ubuntu or Fedora or even Mandriva . All three have a pretty easy to use GUI and are built for ‘humans’, or so it would seem from the articals that I’ve read over the past few months.
Then if, after a while, you feel in control and ready to truly explore linux, then you may hop on to some other ‘hardcore’ linux distros like arch.
on March 21st, 2009 at 11:39 AM
“Yes – Arch vs. Ubuntu is a stupid comparison but if you’re like me and you can’t help but type X vs. Y into Google before doing anything then maybe identifying some differences isn’t so bad.” Got me! :) Thanks for the write-up though :)
on April 20th, 2009 at 02:15 AM
Thanks… :)
on June 29th, 2009 at 05:04 PM
@LinuxBox04 – That’s a horrible attitude concerning Linux. People should be pushed to learn more instead of told to simply give up. Everyone has to start somewhere, everyone is a newbie at one point. Maybe you’re the resident expert on GRUB, but as a person you’re an incredible douche… nuff said.
on August 2nd, 2009 at 08:15 AM
Alright, I even managed to mess up GRUB, when installing Linux Mint on Windows XP computer… I just never new about the hda/sda difference, and no, the automatic install did not help …
I know my share about partitions, windows XP and MAC, but Linux ist a little different.
I am quite proud of having that mess accomplished, because no master apart from @LinuxBox04 fell from heaven….
So now, after ubuntu and linux mint on my macbook, I am looking forward to try out archlinux and use btrfs… thats gonna be another mess, I guess …
on August 25th, 2009 at 09:03 AM
Thanks for the great writeup! As you say, I’m definitely one of those people who “can’t help but type X vs. Y into Google before doing anything.” ;)
Anyone have any thoughts on Arch Linux vs. Xubuntu? I’m looking for an excuse to get comfortable with Arch, and I have an absolutely ancient laptop that can barely run Windows XP.
The question is, since both Arch Linux and Xubuntu seem to preach minimalism, is Xubuntu overly bloated when compared to Arch? Or maybe, is Arch too minimalist for me to hope for good functionality with such an old machine?
As of right now, this laptop’s got a 500Mhz AMD processor and either 128 or 192MB of RAM. I should point out that internet connectivity is a bit iffy on it, too.
on September 8th, 2009 at 10:54 AM
@Conor
I don’t have much experience with older devices but ultimately I think it boils down to what packages you choose to install and run. This blog once ran on an Ubuntu server instance with 250 MB of RAM and a 10 G HD and it was still more responsive than shared hosting.
The Maemo project for Nokia Internet tablets is a Debian derivative using Apt, the 2.6 kernel, and BusyBox. My N700 had only 64 MB of RAM and ran okay.
Arch maintains packages for i686 and x86-64 so it’s not as portable as Debian. AMD Athlons, at least, are i686’s so Arch would be a fine choice. Use Xubuntu if you don’t feel like doing a lot of setup. You’ll probably have about the same results but Arch will have a more minimal boot by default so I’d put my money on it booting faster out of the box.
on October 19th, 2009 at 04:59 PM
thanks for the nice write up!
i am just curious, what have you wanted to configure in ubuntu that you were not able to? i have been using ubuntu for the past several years, and i feel that i have been able to configure all that i have needed to. i am just wondering if i am missing something.
i am definitely drawn to the rolling release of arch. as it is, i do a clean install of ubuntu at every lts release. no real reason other than it is a decent milestone.
also, is there a nightly-build package of chromium in the arch repos?
thanks again!
on November 3rd, 2009 at 02:01 AM
I’ve run a ton of distros in my past. Not too long ago, my amd 64 machine decided to take a dump while I was running ubuntu. I could not for the life of me get it to run again after numerous reinstalls and trying other distros. I really believe something is wrong with the hardware (it is old).
Before I finally gave up, I decided to try out arch linux. And.. it worked! I’ve been using this machine for over a year now past its “death” date. For some reason, arch does not trip whatever is wrong in the hardware.
on December 12th, 2009 at 06:40 AM
Arch Linux is a truly amazing distro. I used to use Slackware and never thought I’d ever switch but I wouldn’t consider changing back now. I haven’t used any of ubuntu-like distro’s as I always felt it was better to be thrown in at the deep end. I’d recommend it to anybody.
It does break sometimes though! Just google from your linux powered smartphone and you’ll be sorted in minutes :D
viva la revolution!
on March 2nd, 2010 at 06:07 PM
Most people try Arch because they think they’re being clever. All this stuff about Arch being difficult to install is just rubbish, it’s time consuming, not difficult. And after all that setting up you’ve got a system that’s no better than Ubuntu that installs in less than half an hour. I actually found Ubuntu 9.04 to boot and run quicker than Arch + Xfce4.
One other thing, about the Arch forums…it’s a boring place….lots of people slapping themselves on the back and thinking that they’re clever because they’re using a system that needs constant repairing thanks to ‘pacman -Syu’.
Arch is for people with more time than sense.
Arch fanboys are worse than mac fanboys. Not only do they think that everything else is wrong and bad, but they try to convert everyone to their cause.
on March 4th, 2010 at 06:49 AM
@polly….
Why bash Arch, nothing ‘Bad’ was ever said of ‘ubuntu’. If you take offence to the fact that ubuntu is designed to be easy, without the need to wory about all setup options.
Arch is designed to be a base, of which you can work your way up, without having to change or ‘un-install’ needless stuff.
The comparison is fair, some people find it fun to tinker and gain a sense of accomplishment from doing so.
I have justy installed Arch. i have the system set up MY way with only apps I want, these apps are all cutting edge.
on March 5th, 2010 at 08:08 AM
funny videos fun downloads download.
on March 18th, 2010 at 08:56 PM
I got into using arch because no other system has felt like i owned it. I still recommend Ubuntu to new users, Musix to people who want music software and puppylinux for when when you want to repair your main OS. Using arch I feel empowered rather than clever. With Ubuntu if something goes wrong it can be very difficult to fix, with arch it is much easier and the forums are frequented by some very knowledgable people. Currently I am considering using musix for my music PC and not updating anything unless it is absolutelly necesary (want/should to be creating music not configuring). Pacman -Syu does not go wrong very often and when something does get messed up you can often fix it, as opposed to Ubuntu where you just get fed up and re-install. Ubuntu is excellent and Arch is excellent in their own ways. Arch is for people who want to learn about linux, Ubuntu is for people who just want stuff to work. Arch is a large format camera and Ubuntu is a high end “prosumer” point and shoot. Sometimes you want to just press a button and sometimes you want fine grained control and dont mind taking your time. Horses for courses.
on April 14th, 2010 at 05:54 PM
I too was one of the Linux unfaithful. In over 10 years, I’ve tried (in this order):
Mandrake (when linux was only for the true geeks of geeks, I chose what I thought was the least linux) RedHat (which totally messed me up, don’t ask why) Ubuntu (stupidly simple, I love it) OpenSUSE (funky bugs and inconsistencies that just wouldn’t go away) Slackware (see opensuse) Arch
I have to admit that I have never seen a distro as easy to use as Ubuntu. It just plain works. Seriously. No terminal. No flopping around in .conf files and typing away in various terminals while your friends wait for you to finally turn on the damned movie player.
Arch was a completely different experience. It truly showed me things about the insides and guts of a Linux system, with a wiki and community that guided me through it better than anything I have ever seen from Slackware. Amazing.
I now have Arch and Ubuntu 8.04 on my laptop/living room media player. I feel like I now have the best of both worlds: 1) a system to tinker with, to help me understand why the hardcore of linuxers use terminals all the time 2) a system to fall back on when I just want to watch a movie with the family or turn on some music.
I really don’t have anything against one distro or another. Sooner or later you’ll get to know what you’re using. But for me, these two have definitely become milestones in my Linux experience, and I’ll hold them in high regard.
The next one I’ll try is probably Gentoo, but that’s not the topic of this discussion, is it?
TO POLLY: I see you’ve got a problem with an entire community (maybe two) of users. Just out of curiosity, what do you prefer?