Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 21st Mar 2005 11:22 UTC
Linux 2003 was the year with Gentoo written all over it in the Linux universe. Last year was Ubuntu's & MEPIS'. I believe that Arch Linux's year is the current one. Read more for a comparison of Arch to existing distributions, and why we think it rocks and where we think it still requires some work.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: just few points
by Anonymous on Mon 21st Mar 2005 15:48 UTC

"3. Debian is slow, that's not a matter of configuration;"
So, you're saying that Arch/Slackware running lots of unneccesary services with a generic kernel is faster than Debian running only needed services with a specialized kernel?

I find it most interesting that some people believe that Arch/Slackware magically compiles faster/slimmer binaries than other distros. I find the truth to be that Slackware/Debian/Mandrake/SUSE/Fedora/etc are all almost equal in speed if configured correctly. The exceptions would be if they use different versions of packages with inherent performance differences. Also, most distros use very similar cflags, and setting -march makes things better about as often as it makes them worse from what I've seen as a programmer. If the programmer has profiled and optimized his code, you'd usually have the best luck wrt performance by compiling the software with the same compiler he/she used (and preferably the same flags). Compiler optimization isn't magically making everything better when the code is tuned for something else.

It all comes down to which is most practical. Speed-difference is usually neglible if you know how to configure the distribution. Distros doing really retarded architectural choices that impact performance greatly are very, very unusual from what I've seen.

Arch looks like it's becoming a great distro. I hope we/they get the resources to do more thorough QA too though.