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 … The other positive feature of debian/ubuntu is the future possibility of reproducible builds which will be impossible in ArchLinux. Based on the user experience and behavior, the battle of Cinnamon Vs GNOME is always a hot topic in the Linux community. Since the main advantage you listed was speed, it's worth noting that a well-configured arch will be quicker than default Ubuntu. 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. If you don't have time to learn installing arch, try Manjaro or Antergos. Just fucking use Lutris and nothing breaks ever. It should be there in the repositories what ever software that CentOS is missing by Ubuntu default software. Arch is so minimal that it lets me do that. 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. They are benefits to using Arch but it's not going to make you a better programmer. Print. Arch Linux (60 points) Ubuntu (40 points) Debian, Fedora, Linux Mint (20 points) Conclusion Ubuntu … In this article, we are going to discuss Arch vs Ubuntu Linux. Arch Without All the Hassle Manjaro is one of the few Linux distributions that are not based on Ubuntu. https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories. 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 … 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? [...] but besides what I need I like to use open source software. I will bite. If you truly want a more minimal experience, install Debian minimal, or even Ubuntu minimal. This means that names are not given out on a "first come first served" basis. It sounds like not much. The same is true about Ubuntu. 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. Ubuntu’s Ubiquity installer is one of easiest installers out there. Instead, it is built on the continually cutting edge Arch Linux. 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. The downside is that they are not as featureful and have less options. I'd also read these insightful replies by /u/viccuad. ReddIt. 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. As a versioned binary distro Ubuntu does not have this problem. 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. PPA's are not centralized, anyone can host their own. For your purposes, Arch wouldn't really benefit you all that much. When in doubt there is always yum provides. 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. Arch Linux and its derivatives have a bad way of handling dependencies. 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. Even LTS releases should not … What software are you talking about? System processes are not obfuscated behind a user interface. 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. I have an RTX Nvidia graphics card which doesn't play nicely with X-Server, let alone Wayland. Manjaro is an open-source Linux distro based on Arch Linux. 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. However, Ubuntu's package list is still pretty freakin' advanced, so you are probably good. AUR means you need a build system around. You'll get super stable software on Pop. Manjaro made its debut in 2011. It might seem like there’s a clear winner here. All things Linux and GNU/Linux -- this is neither a community exclusively about the kernel Linux, nor is exclusively about the GNU operating system. For example, Ubuntu and Linux Mint will favor beginners while Kali Linux and Arch Linux would be good choices for advanced users. 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. 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. Arch Linux because it's more used for servers. The downside is that you have to know what you need. Arch Linux is one of the cutting-edge Linux distros that lets you thrive on customization and minimalism. Lost its way. 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. Ubuntu is a subtractive distro, for the most part you remove what you don't. Furthermore this distro would allow you to praise god. If it ain't there by default, then just install it. Rolling release, this is different from bleeding edge, but Arch has no "versions", only the software in the repos. Ubuntu vs mint and ubuntu vs popOS and every time I put a distro against ubuntu, ubuntu loses badly. 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. None of the things you have bulleted have been justified with examples. Arch Linux is ranked 3rd while Ubuntu is ranked 25th. This guarantees that the system at least boots and more or less works before you start cutting into the fat. Ubuntu and Arch Linux couldn't be more different from each other. Another significant issue could be software compatibility. Specifically for my needs. Press J to jump to the feed. 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. Arch is a great distro, but unfortunately, if you want to install it you have to do a lot of work. To learn C you should obviously use TempleOS. Most Linux software developers provide their apps in both .deb and .rpm file formats.. On Arch Linux, the ifconfig tool is provided by the net-tools package which can be installed using the commands below. There are some arguments in favour of centralization though. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. 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'd also argue Debian is more minimalistic. https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories, (no real advantage here over using Ubuntu though, just as it goes for Arch). I have found Ubuntu's release cycle of 6 months to be ideal. 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. Other then the whole bleeding edge thing what reasons would you choose arch over Ubuntu? 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. Most of the beginner-friendly Linux distributions are based on Ubuntu. Arch Linux is ranked 4th while Fedora is ranked 12th. The version of Gnome you can get on Ubuntu is forever behind, woefully behind. I will save this just so I can play with it later on. As Linux users gains more experience, some try their hands on the more ‘advanced distributions’, mostly in the ‘Arch domain’. It comes with three editions: desktop, core, and server. I started off with Mint and Ubuntu for about 3 months, then moved to Debian. ... Arch uses a rolling release model for updates. ‘’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. $ dnf install firefox #5. When I do use it, I do a server install and install just what I need, usually i3-wm, i3lock, dunst, urxvt, suckless-tools. Arch is an additive distro, rather than removing what you don't need you add what you do to a minimal base. There are again arguments to be made for either direction. The Ubuntu Software Center offers a GUI interface for installing new apps which is extremely easy and welcoming for beginners to Linux. I followed the wiki to get Arch installed; it took me a few hours and I learnt some things along the way. Package headers are also split into *-dev and symbols are in *-dbg. 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. Couple of reasons why one might choose Arch over Ubuntu: KISS principle. The downside is that you have to know what you need. I am thinking of trying rofi though instead of dmenu. Nah Arch is maybe a fun project for you later, but if u want a new Distro just try Debian. They have started doing that as of 3 years ago, and that's about the time I revisited ArchLinux. 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. 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. 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].