Arch Compared To Other Distros (Italiano)
From ArchWiki
i18n |
---|
Deutsch |
English |
Español |
Français |
Nederlands |
Português do Brasil |
Slovensky |
Česky |
简体中文 |
Questa pagina raccoglie alcune delle somiglianze e delle differenze tra Arch e le altre distribuzioni. Questa è una discussione che torna periodicamente e sarebbe bello avere una risposta definitiva. Nota: il modo migliore per confrontare Arch con le altre distribuzioni è quello di installarla e provarla in prima persona. Arch ha una magnifica comunità di utenti sempre pronta ad aiutare i nuovi utenti. Le informazioni qui sotto sono intese per aiutarti a decidere se Arch è giusta per te.
Contents |
Arch vs Gentoo
Siccome Arch distribuisce pacchetti binari, richiede molto meno tempo rispetto a Gentoo. Gentoo dispone di più pacchetti e permette di scegliere l'esatta versione da installare di un software. Arch permette sia la distribuzione binaria che quella dei sorgenti. Inoltre installare un software non presente nelle repository è molto più semplice che scrivere un ebuild. I PKGBUILD sono più facili da creare che gli ebuild. Gentoo è più portabile dal momento che i pacchetti saranno compilati per la specifica architettura, mentre Arch è sviluppata per processori i686 (anche se esistono progetti gestiti da utenti per rendere disponibili versioni per i586 e x86_64). Non c'è nessuna prova documentata che Gentoo sia più veloce di Arch.
Arch vs Crux
Arch Linux deriva (impropriamente) da Crux. Judd (il creatore di Arch, N.d.T.) ha riassunto le differenze:
- "Usavo Crux prima di iniziare Arch. Arch inizio come Crux, più o meno. Poi ho scritto pacman e makepkg per sostituire i miei script bash per gestire i pacchetti (ho costruito Arch come un sistema LFS per iniziare). Dunque le due distribuzioni sono completamente separate, ma tecnicamente sono molto simili. Noi abbiamo ufficialmente il supporto alle dipendenze, ad esempio, anche se Crux ha una comunità che offre altre caratteristiche. Il prt-get di CLC esegue un rudimentale controllo logico sulle dipendenze. Crux inoltre evita molti dei problemi che abbiamo, poichè ha un set di pacchetti molto ridotto, costituito da ciò che usa Per e nient'altro."
See this this forum post for a user's impressions of both distributions.
Arch vs Sorcerer/Lunar-linux/Sourcemage
Sorcerer/Lunar-linux/Sourcemage (SLS) are all source based distros, much like Gentoo is, but are originally related to one another. SLS distro's use a rather simple set of script files to create packages descriptions, and use a global configuration file to configure the compilation process, much like Arch's ABS system. The SLS tools do full dependancy checking (including handling optional features) and package tracking (and deinstalling/upgrading). There are no binary packages for any of the SLS family, although they all can rollback earlier installed packages easily.
The install involves installing a base system (much like Arch's: i686 optimized, CLI and ncurses menus, only core tools), then recompiling the base system (optionally) afterwards. There is obviously no "standard" WM/DE/DM and they do not install an Xserver during the base installation. But they do provide you with an easy way of installing one of several Xserver alternatives (xorg 6.8 or 7, xfree86).
SLS has a very complicated history. The best write-up about it can be found here: http://wiki.sourcemage.org/Our_History
Lunar Linux: http://lunar-linux.org/ SourceMage: http://www.sourcemage.org/ Sorcerer: http://sorcerer.berlios.de/
Arch vs Rock
???
Arch vs T2
???
Arch vs Graphical Distros
The graphical distros have a lot of similarities, and Arch is very different from any of them. Arch is text based and command-line oriented. Arch is a better distro if you want to truly learn Linux. Graphical-based distros tend to ship with GUI installers (like Fedora's Anaconda) and GUI system configuration tools (like SuSE's Yast). Specific differences between distros are described below. albert frikie
Arch vs Slackware
Slackware and Arch are both 'simple' distributions. Both use BSD-style init scripts. Arch supplies a much more robust package management system in pacman which, unlike Slackware's standard tools, allows simple automatic system upgrades. Slackware is seen as more conservative in its release cycle, preferring proven stable packages. Arch is much more 'bleeding edge' in this respect. Arch is i686 only whereas Slackware can run on i486 systems. Arch is a very good system for Slack users who want more robust package management or more current packages.
Arch vs Debian
Arch is simpler than Debian. Arch has fewer packages. Arch provides better support for building your own packages than Debian does. Arch is more lenient when it comes to 'non-free' packages as defined by GNU. Arch is i686 optimized and thus faster than Debian (NO documented proof here either). Arch packages are more bleeding edge than Debian packages (Arch current is often more up-to-date than Debian unstable!)
Arch vs Ubuntu
Arch has a simpler foundation than Ubuntu. If you like to compile your own kernels, try out bleeding edge CVS-only projects, or build a program from source every once in a while, Arch is better suited. If you want to get up and running quickly and not fiddle around with the guts of the system, Ubuntu is better suited. In general, developers and tinkerers will probably like Arch better than Ubuntu.
Arch vs RPM-based Distros
RPM packages are available from many, many places, but third-party packages often have dependency issues such as requiring an old version of a library. There is also confusion between RPM packages for Red Hat and RPM packages for Mandrake. (These are issues I had as a Linux newbie with Mandrake 8.2, and may not reflect the current situation.) pacman is much more powerful and reliable than RPM.
Arch vs Fedora
Fedora is a spin-off from the Red Hat distribution and has continually been one of the most popular distributions to date. Therefore, there is a massive community and lots of pre-built packages and support available. Like all RPM-based distributions, package management is a problem. Fedora supplied Yum as a front-end to manage the acquistion of RPMs and dependency resolution. The system lacks solid yum integration. Fedora does innovate and recently earned kudos for integration of SELinux and GCJ compiled packages to remove the need for Sun's JRE. Fedora famously doesn't attempt to support the mp3 media format due to perceived patent issues.
- note: Up2Date has been removed from Fedora Core 5. More solid yum integration now.
Arch vs Mandriva
Mandriva (previously Mandrake), though famed for its installer, is a very handholding distro which can get annoying after some time. Another problem is that it is an RPM-based distro as discussed above. Arch allows much more freedom and less hand-holding. You actually learn to use Linux.
Arch vs SUSE
SUSE is centered around its well-regarded Yast configuration tool which is a one-stop shop for most users' configuration needs. Arch doesn't offer such a facility as it goes against TheArchWay. SUSE, therefore, is seen as more appropriate to less-experienced users, or those who want a simpler life with expected functionality working out of the box. SUSE doesn't offer mp3 support immediately after installation, but that can easily be added later through Yast.
Arch vs Frugalware
Arch is text based and command-line oriented (user should be willing to learn). Frugalware is a Slackware-based system. Frugalware provides better multi-lingual support. Frugalware also provides more local documentation. Frugalware claims to be faster than Arch. Both use pacman. Their packages are not really very compatible.