Welcome to the Arch Linux Forum

Arch really shouldn't be compared to Gentoo, as its focus is not really on installing from source. It does have that portage-like tree corresponding to every package in the binary repository, so you could possibly get sources and compile or recompile everything with flags of your choice.... but it's not really what Arch is about, I don't think.
It is really better compared to Slackware.
As far as the size matters go, it does have fewer packages and fewer users than Gentoo. But the selection is pretty good, and smaller community is actually a bonus in some ways - you get more personal attention.
I haven't used Gentoo so I could be wrong but I think it's outgrown that stage where you can still address its creators directly with questions and comments.

You can address its creators, but why would you don't need to. The creator is just working on portage and there are dozends of developers, who are really willing to help you out on your problems. Check out the forms, you see a lot of developers answering questions of regular users. They really care, as it seems.
You do make a point with the small community. It just has different advanteges and disadvanteges.
And besides, you're right that you should rather compare it to Slackware. But again - its just a different distro. Its for sure a good distro so who cares which one is better

all I can say is that linux users are definitely spoiled for choice.

Yeah, we rock as a community don't we? Go us!

Us = Linux people.



Arch will surely be noted when discussing the top 5 distros. So I figure why argue over the order in which the top 5 should be? They are equally as good, and that's why they are known as the 'top 5' and not 'number 1, number 2...'

Cool

Originally posted by Config I just had a look at Arch Linux - I'm a passionned gentoo user, I think this needs to be said. I didn't try Arch Linux, I just read quite some info about it, the package managment system etc. -Gentoo has IMHO the Best support forum I could find. I never read the word rtfm etc. People are very nice over there. I would say, it's the best Linux Forum - after LQ of course

To be honest, both forums and irc channels are very good - I DID use both (gentoo for 6 months) and I've been on both distros' forum and irc channel -> you will be helped in a nice way in both distros. The advantage arch has is that it has a smaller community so you can actually discuss a lot with the developers

There seem to come up a lot of questions on how arch compares to other distros... My story looks a lot like rasat's

Started out with the rpm distros (redhat/mandrake/suse) -> something was always broken (mouse didn't work, horrible fonts, installer crashes,...) and it's too difficult for a n00b to fix that. RPM also sucks for people who want to run the latest software all the time and these distros are _slow_.

FreeBSD rocked, but I also wanted to learn linux so I started using gentoo. This went well for months, although the compiling time was something I really disliked - really, the developers shouldn't be so stubborn and allow BOTH binary packages and compilation from source (as with fbsd and arch linux). But at the end the whole distro was unstable and unusable, things started to crash randomly - not good - very good documentation in gentoo though, and easy to find help on the forums and irc (as opposed to the rpm distros I could actually solve my problems here).

So Debian it was. The stable distro can be very stable, but the software is waaay too old, so I used unstable. The problem is that it's actually unstable! Something was regularly broken and the problem is that the debian zealots don't understand that this is NOT normal behavior and that I am NOT gonna use stable.

So distrowatch helped me in finding archlinux! I have been using it ever since. It's faster than gentoo. Honest - compiling stuff yourself to make it a nanosecond faster is bullshit. Arch feels faster than my gentoo box ever was. I can actually type pacman -Syu and my complete system with all software will be updated in minutes, not hours as in gentoo. And it won't be broken. Updating gcc actually works! Problems will be solved by the nice community, often by the developers or even apeiro himself. Yes, there are still a lot of apps missing but actually there's prolly enough packages to do about anything you want. And new apps are added all the time. I also like the easy configuration in arch, thumbs up to the developers!

I can really advice all (open minded users from other distros with some extra time and HD space to try arch - you might never look back

Originally posted by ferrix My only objection is that somehow I ended up with ext3 system, when my preference would've been reiserfs. I don't think I ever had that option during the install.

I haven't looked at the 0.5 installer but I would imagine this was because you let it partition and create filesystems automatically. If you do this manually you can choose reiserfs, this at least was the case with the 0.4 installer.

My way to Arch runs close to those of rasat and =X¥®µ§=. First RedHat and a little Mandrake, beeing a noob I couldn't figure out dependencies and hadn't heard of apt-for-rpm. Then I went sourcebased with Crux. The compiletimes were a hassle and few programs vere availabe, programs outside the base system tended to be unstable. Tried gentoo, the CDs wouldn't boot and I lacked the patience to figure it out. Took a quick tour into debianland (woody) but weird bugs plagued the system, also programs vere too old. Tried debian-by-knoppix and found it a real hassle to unisnstall software. Heard of Arch via osnews.com and installed. Been running it since then and now I'm here preaching

//Edited for spelling//

I thought I'd post my two bits as well.

Config summed up the differences between Arch and Gentoo pretty well. But as ferrix said, Arch is probably closer in style to Slackware than it is to Gentoo.

First: I've never ran Gentoo before, so everything I know is second-hand. People rave about their friendly community and excellent documentation. Gentoo sets the bar here, and we're working hard to do the same at Arch. Dennis Herbrich has finally taken documentation duties away from me, which is a boon to the users out there who may actually need it (I'm the type that ends up writing documentation for myself, so it really doesn't help others).

Outside of that, Arch and Gentoo don't really have a lot in common.

One interesting trend I've noticed lately is that many newbie-ish users come to Arch from Gentoo, after using their excellent documentation and community to bootstrap their knowledge to the point where they can hold their own in Arch. This wasn't in our master plan, but nevertheless, it seems to be happening on a small scale.

Originally posted by Config [B]I just had a look at Arch Linux - I'm a passionned gentoo user, I think this needs to be said. I didn't try Arch Linux, I just read quite some info about it, the package managment system etc. How does it compare to gentoo?

it is a cross between ports and apt i would say. no better or worse than portage though some would claim otherwise (usually without reasons/proof)

[quote]-Gentoo requires more HD-space - since You download every source, and (One thing I don't like), there is no automated way to remove them. So eventually, you end up having kde3.0 source packages on your system, even if you're never ever going to need them again - which uses a lot of diskspace.[quote]

gentoo also forces alot of extra things on you in the way of build time depends some of which will never be used again. i have yet to see a ebuild that removes such unecessary build time depends.

-ArchLinux is i686 optimized, which is nice, but Gentoo is Architecture optimized, so if you compare a binary one by one, Gentoo would turn out to be faster (though I doubt you would note it)

sometimes true sometimes not. but i can also tell you that if you use the -O3 cflag then you may not have faster binaries and will likely not have smaller binaries or even functioning binaries. this is such a weak claim. it is like the arguements between which is better AMD or pentium, etc. if you think milliseconds make alot of difference to a general user then by all means use a bunch of ridiculous cflags.

-Arch Linux installs faster - since it uses binary packages (Tell me whether I'm wrong). There is no need to compile everything.

yes it does but which makes it much faster to fix if you make a stupid error and have to reinstall your root partition. not a big thing but if you need your computer in an hour or so then gentoo will drive you nuts. the down time drives many nuts.

-Gentoo Linux has far more packages available. Look through portage and tell me what you CANNOT find

and debian has more than gentoo. whats your point? when i installed gentoo it did not have many packages and many were masked because they did not work.

-Gentoo has IMHO the Best support forum I could find. I never read the word rtfm etc. People are very nice over there. I would say, it's the best Linux Forum - after LQ of course

generalization/inexperieince. there are LOTS of very helpful linux communities. this is a completely subjective thing. it is also annoying. i help alot of people besides arch linux folks and this downplays my efforts and others like me (and other BBS's as well)

-Gentoo seems to be a bit more Geeky

again inexperience. gentoo forces one to learn a bit more but i did not learn much over what i had learned in debian libranet and nowhere near as much as i have in arch.

I think this doesn't turn out which distro is better, it turns out what you like more. I'm more the Gentoo kind of guy

if this is the case then why compare? why bother coming into the arch forum and downplaying it? i know you mean no harm but it gets annoying when zealots run wild.

people claim i am a arch zealot but in reality i just try and defend its right to exist. most of my "zealotry" is in defence of arch. in reality though i could not care less what you use just don't downplay what i use unless you have the proof to back it up. ok?

i never try and tell people what to use or even what distro i use unless they ask. and i will be honest. arch is not perfect....but then again no distro is. no OS is.

I thought I wouldn't mind people yelling at me what it wasn't fun. It's fine anyway I was asking for it. It should be pointed out that I don't run all three distributions. I only keep it there as a reminder of how many different distros/version I've used.

Because I like to argue: Sarah31:

Stable? Most of all Linux distros are stable unless your the type to type rm -rf to fix problems.

Fast? Maybe but I bet not too much faster.

New Packages? Who doesn't offer new packages? Besides dead distros.


--tarballedtux

"Arch is fast.
Arch is stable.
Arch is secure.
Arch is free.
Arch has the best package management out there."


I can tell you all:

Debian is fast.
Debian is stable.
Debian is secure.
Debian is free.
Debian has the best package management out there.

Just my humble opinion.

Why come to the Arch forum just to talk about how great Debian is? Leave that in the Debian forum, we won't bother you.

Really? Can APT download and compile source automatically ala PORTS?

I agree. While discussion/debate is good, remember that choice is one of the many things that makes Linux great.

--jeremy

I just wanted to say thanks to jeremy for creating a forum for my favorite distro. I have been using Arch for 6 months now, and it is the only one I boot. I tried gentoo as well, but really, who wants to wait 30 hours just for a basic desktop install?

Also, welcome to LQ to Apiero and Sarah31, I am sure your knowledge and expertise in Arch will help many here at LQ as well as at the Arch forum.

Cheers

Originally posted by sarah31 sometimes true sometimes not. but i can also tell you that if you use the -O3 cflag then you may not have faster binaries and will likely not have smaller binaries or even functioning binaries. this is such a weak claim. it is like the arguements between which is better AMD or pentium, etc. if you think milliseconds make alot of difference to a general user then by all means use a bunch of ridiculous cflags. [/B]

That's what I'm trying to say The difference is so small, so why would one want to care? There are a few cases in which it helps a lot, but not in general.

Originally posted by sarah31 generalization/inexperieince. there are LOTS of very helpful linux communities. this is a completely subjective thing. it is also annoying. i help alot of people besides arch linux folks and this downplays my efforts and others like me (and other BBS's as well) [/B]

Sorry, I can't agree - I have seen many very friendly places, but I was overwhelmed by the Gentoo guys. Never saw anything like it. I'm not saying this, because its distro-specific, no, its just the people. Of course, very subjective (Trying to stop a flamewar

Originally posted by sarah31 if this is the case then why compare? why bother coming into the arch forum and downplaying it? i know you mean no harm but it gets annoying when zealots run wild. people claim i am a arch zealot but in reality i just try and defend its right to exist. most of my "zealotry" is in defence of arch. in reality though i could not care less what you use just don't downplay what i use unless you have the proof to back it up. ok? i never try and tell people what to use or even what distro i use unless they ask. and i will be honest. arch is not perfect....but then again no distro is. no OS is. [/B]

Did I downgrade it? I did not intend to do so! If I did, sorry. Somebody asked for a comparison between Gentoo and Arch Linux, so I took some spare time to create one - and you're saying, I shouldn't have done so
I just tried to say that they are different not better or worse. You don't need to defent arch, because I don't offend Arch - as simple as that. And I'll be watching this forum - and if I can be helpful somewhere, I'll help, whether its Arch, Slack, Gentoo, Debian or whatsoever

Originally posted by contrasutra (unless of course we find out where you live)

Lol... I like Arch a lot... Thats all I have to say about it.