It’s been approximately two years since I changed to using Ubuntu for my desktop needs. Before, I was using Mac OS, but I was getting increasingly annoyed with it and the direction it was heading for, specially since Leopard and was released.
I have learnt a lot with Ubuntu, and I think they’re doing a great work for popularising Linux as an environment anyone can use. But I am also a very picky person, and I am getting weary of the bloat that comes with each new version. I don’t consider them incompetent (far from it), but they are trying to please too many people and therefore including lots of stuff I don’t use. Probably I have got past the Linux-newbie level and should move to something a bit more advanced where I could change every thing as I pleased.
So I was investigating what my options were for moving to the ‘intermediate’ level, and I reduced them to only three: Debian, because Ubuntu is based on it and the migration shouldn’t be too hard, and Gentoo and ArchLinux, because these allow people to configure systems to their exact needs… and have PowerPC versions/support.
The PowerPC requirement is because I aim to try things first on my laptop (a Powerbook that Apple’s Leopard is slowly killing with each system update), which I use occasionally, and once I get to grips with it there, I plan to move my desktop to that new, powerful distribution.
But before doing anything on real machines, I tried on VirtualBox, which is very handy for getting a general idea of how a distribution works, way better than reading about its statements and philosophy on its website.
I first tried to install Debian using the graphical installer. It failed. It got stuck in a loop like this:
(Computer) “Do you want to install GRUB?”
(Me) “Yes”
(C) “OK, here’s it, I’ve done it”
(M) “Next”
(C) “Do you want to install GRUB2? Warning, it’s unstable blablabla”
(M) “No, NEXT”
(C) “Right. Do you want to install GRUB?” (and back to the start)
Not promising! I tried again, with the text installer this time. It went better and I managed to get a working Gnome install etc. As happens with Debian, the packages are slightly (or quite) old and so it looked extremely outdated, compared with my main Ubuntu (which I had updated recently). Since it was a virtual machine and I hadn’t data to lose, I tried to move Debian to the “testing” branch but it didn’t quite work; it had an error and didn’t complete the updates. I got bored and closed this machine to try Arch.
Arch is quite different from Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora’s and the rest in that it doesn’t have big release cycles (say, every 6 months). Instead its packages are regularly updated and there are no big updates, but regular small granularised updates. They call it a rolling release system. This idea was appealing me but what really sold me Arch was that once you install it you just get a bare system. With no X, no Gnome, no KDE, no ALSA or no Pulse Audio. Nothing more than its package manager (pacman) and few utilities such as bash so that you can install whatever you need.
So I went to their page, downloaded the basic ISO and created another virtual machine for testing it. I followed their incredible, fantastic and excellent Beginners’ Guide and things went smoothly, and best of all, I understood what I was doing in every step. Everything seemed logical, well explained and well thought.
For example, while in Ubuntu the services are started via mysterious obscure /etc/init.d scripts, in Arch everything is specified in one file (/etc/rc.conf) with a nice syntax. Therefore you can know which services are launched at boot and in which order, with a quick glance at that file.
Once the main system had been installed (including ALSA, without that nasty thing called PulseAudio), I installed X and for a change, a new lightweight window manager called Awesome. I had been wanting to try one of these for a long time but I didn’t dare to do that in my main computer just in case I broke something in Gnome. It’s funny that it’s implemented with Lua, but the fun doesn’t stop there, because the developers use very amusing class names in their API, such as “awful”, “beautiful” and etc. The appearance and behaviour of the system can be modified by editing a lua script (although I haven’t done that yet), and the manager was very, very fast. Loading time was also ridiculous, maybe 1 or 2 seconds. Compare that to Gnome!
I will probably try to use this manager in the laptop, since I use it mostly for writing and I get distracted with most of the stuff which comes with “normal” distributions nowadays. Awesome is quite bare but I may even remove more stuff from it.
Once I stopped playing with Awesome, I installed Gnome, wondering how much useless stuff would the default gnome package bring with it. To my surprise, it wasn’t that much, and I could remove the stuff I didn’t want without any dependency warning. I noticed that it installs Epiphany, and some wallpapers, for example. Apart from that, it was pretty basic, which is exactly what I wanted, and it was the latest released version, which is also what I wanted! :-)
I tried installing several other packages I normally use, and compared them to the version I have in Ubuntu. All were the same or newer version, which was great. I also rebooted the system (which completed in approximately a minute, not bad), and noticed that since I had installed the gdm daemon I got the graphical login, but it also detected that there were two installed Window Managers, and allowed me to choose between Awesome or Gnome when logging in. Everything was very neat and well integrated, with no errors at all during the process. Pacman is very fast; at this point I had no fear of not using apt! So I thought about installing one of the programs that wasn’t available in binary form. It was also super easy, and I didn’t get any error at all. Dependencies were solved automatically (or should I say automagically? because it was almost magic!) and after a while I got the built package I was after. Elegant was the only word I could think of.
So I think I’m not even going to try gentoo (or at least, not yet): I’ll stay with Arch! I never thought I could say that about a Linux distribution, but ArchLinux is incredibly exciting. You really feel like you have the control of your computer!
I’m intrigued to see how well does it work with a real computer –i.e. not a virtualised one–. Specially how does it perform in terms of battery management, wireless, keyboard configuration, suspend options… which are critical for a laptop.
We’ll see. Meanwhile, if you’re tired of having to wait until each new Ubuntu release to get the latest versions of software, and don’t want to install tons of PPA’s, ArchLinux might be your thing.

Madieta
All this sounds really good! I’ll try it :)
sole
I *knew* you would!
eyebex
It’s a pitty you didn’t try Gentoo first … as a long-term Gentoo user and fan I would have been curious whether you even tried Arch Linux then, and if so, how you compared Arch Linux to Gentoo (as I was thinking about giving Arch Linux a try myself, just out of curiosity).
PpluX
This sounds amazing! I’m about to setup a mediacenter, it can run a ubuntu with no problem, but ArchLinux sounds good to keep it to the minimum.
Thanks for sharing this!
PpluX
… and also this looks like the old good times of Gentoo.
sole
Well, I haven’t tested Arch on “real” computers yet. When I do, I’ll think about staying with Arch or trying Gentoo… so there’s still hope :P
anhelido
In my opinion, I wouldn’t take the time and effort required to install Gentoo (I did it in the past in a Powerbook G4). It spent two and a half days compiling XWindow (no kidding here). Everytime you install something it needs to be compiled. Ok, it’s clean, it’s optimized, blablabla… but IMHO, too much work for the results. And the speed difference because of the optimized code is not noticeable.
If you want a slim distro without all the bells and whistles of desktop bloatware, then you are right choosing Arch or distros alike. I’ve been using Linux since 1995, I think I’ve tested a good bunch of distros.
Just my 2 cents… :)
anhelido
Today I found an interesting article about Arch & Ubuntu. Maybe you should read it… surprise!
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_arch_faster
sole
It doesn’t surprise me — if you’re comparing raw performance with the very same set of software, I don’t think it makes much of a difference where did you source your applications from, whether it was from apt-get, with a CD/DVD distribution or using Arch Linux repositories :)
I’m not specially looking for raw speed, but for daily-use-speed. That is, not losing time *myself* because the environment doesn’t allow me to be productive ;)
anhelido
Yeah, I know what you mean… but I don’t know what’s wrong with Ubuntu. I have a complete user friendly environment working in 15-20 minutes from the start of the installation. I don’t want to spend time fiddling the system to get my wifi settings ok, Ubuntu does it for me. If you are not happy with what’s installed by default, you can even uninstall desktop (sudo aptitude remove ubuntu-desktop).
One of the things I’ve been fighting all these years is the fact that every device in my PC was recognized by a Linux installation. Knoppix started the right path years ago and this is something I’m not willing to trade for anything.
Of course, this is valid for me. Not everyone has the same priorities :D
In fact, one of the reasons I might uninstall Ubuntu and install Arch would be to improve audio so I could use Renoise in my laptop. But I read from several users that audio performance is not improved with Arch… so I’m not even trying it.
sole
plus the 6 month big upgrade release system.
Versus
- Installing only what I want/need (which requires to know what I want/need — it’s a learning experience in itself)
- Updated granularly
But I wouldn’t install Arch in my mum’s computer: she’s not a target user, she’s happy with Ubuntu and can manage most of the daily updates and etc by herself because it’s a simplified enough system :)
BTW regarding the audio thing: in my test ArchLinux system I installed only ALSA and tried a couple of audio applications (not Renoise yet). They simply and *just worked*, all without having to do the usual PulseAudio voodoo :P
And regarding the hardware detection… it generally is built into the kernel as a module, I don’t think it is “Ubuntu” who does it for you but the kernel, and it is controlled by a widget such as NetworkManager, which generally belongs to Gnome and ends up being available to every Linux user anyway… oh, the joys of Open Source! :-)
Sigflup
I started out with debian myself. I now just use openbsd as much as I can. I don’t like reinstalling stuff and the defaults on a fresh openbsd is pretty much all I need. That and the bsd manpages are A LOT more readable then the linux and gnu manpages. You should try openbsd *nudge nudge*