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.
Don't mod this down
by Rawnak on Mon 21st Mar 2005 19:21 UTC

Hi Eugenia:
It is unwise to promote GTK/GNOME based distros so unabashedly. Agreed GNOME is your choice of DE and it shows in every article, edit and review. However, it is unwise to not consider KDE based distros when every man and his dog knows that KDE runs at least 3-4 times faster than GNOME on any hardware!

How about trying Arklinux or Kubuntu for a change? Kubuntu itself runs miles ahead of Ubuntu, which is everyone blue-eyed boy anyway. This comment comes to you from a Kubuntu desktop. I am not even mentioning Xandros, although it provides much more *usable* desktop than either GNOME or XFCE.

Consider this: I don't even use firefox now. Konqueror is so quick and complete that there is no need for me to use even the so called *light* firefox.

Why is it that we are still supporting GTK bloat? Qt is much cleaner and quicker -- and fits on every platform natively (widget wise).

What you should be promoting is usability for KDE and KDE based distros rather than ignoring it entirely. Already, this area is on the top of the list for KDE 4.

I really want to know one good reason why you prefer GNOME over KDE -- other than extreme minimalism (which btw, was not a forte of Linux to start with; wher choice was supreme). We have always had (even in unix) more than one way of doing the same thing. So why blame KDE for giving more options for everything? Isn't that the basic premise we all started off with?