Linked by Shahar Weiss on Thu 1st Mar 2007 18:58 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu I've been an Arch user for roughly 3 years. I'm pretty much familiar with it all - The way it boots, its configuration and its package management. I've also heard a lot of good things about Ubuntu, and wanted to try it for a long time. So, two weeks ago, I took the plunge. These are my findings.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 72 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 217648
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ubuntu vs. Arch
by Adam S on Thu 1st Mar 2007 19:15 UTC
Adam S
Member since:

I'm really kinda of surprised to hear you say Arch is easier to use than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is aimed at new Linux users and tries, when it can, to do the most sensible thing it can.

Now, nothing against Arch, but Arch's own wiki says "Arch is targeted at more advanced Linux users." In general, most people's experience is that Ubuntu is the best place to start. I wonder, if you didn't know anything about Linux, if you would still think certain things in Arch are "easier" than they are in Ubuntu.

Remember, what's easier to a long-time user isn't always apparent to a new user.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by Daniel Grimm on Thu 1st Mar 2007 19:24 in reply to "Ubuntu vs. Arch"
Daniel Grimm Member since:

Actually he didn't say that Arch was easier to use than Ubuntu. Just that it's much simpler (in the sense of not being complex), which is absolutely correct, IMHO.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by Eugenia on Thu 1st Mar 2007 19:58 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
Eugenia Member since:

Indeed. Arch is simpler down below. What this means is that if you ever need to change something in a script or something, you will have a better luck with Arch's clean design rather than Ubuntu's 15 year old Debian craft.

But when you see it from the higher level, as an end user who would never need to fix anything, then Ubuntu is a better solution for that user.

I am using Arch for 2+ years now and it's my main distro. However, many things don't progress as fast as I would like in the higher level part, and so I am also thinking of using Ubuntu in the future. But you see, in order for me to use Ubuntu, I mist never have to delve in its under the hood scripts like I do for Arch to fix something -- because I know that if I do, it won't be a clean design as Arch's and it will piss me off.

So basically, personally I am looking forward to leave Arch for Ubuntu, but this won't happen before Ubuntu becomes near perfect in its user experience. Until that day comes, I prefer to fight with Arch's command line to fix things rather than Ubuntu's.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by wowtip on Thu 1st Mar 2007 19:54 in reply to "Ubuntu vs. Arch"
wowtip Member since:

I think this falls into the "userfriendliness depends on the user using it" category.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by devnet on Thu 1st Mar 2007 21:13 in reply to "Ubuntu vs. Arch"
devnet Member since:

"Ubuntu is aimed at new Linux users and tries, when it can, to do the most sensible thing it can."

Um...NO. It's not aimed at new Linux users. It's aimed at DESKTOP Linux users...Ubuntu isn't easy as pie for new users..

Out of the gate:
1. They can't play music, they can't play video
2. No flash, no Java
3. Gnome isn't an easy transfer from Windows...which is what most are accustomed to.

SimplyMEPIS is a better solution to this...or PCLinuxOS. But Ubuntu is NEVER about NEW users. You need to get your thinking cap on.

Forcing a user to install something like Easy Ubuntu or Automatix is lame and means that the distro isn't "aimed at new users"

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by butters on Thu 1st Mar 2007 21:57 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
butters Member since:

I agree that Ubuntu isn't easy enough for new users, but I don't buy your explanation that Ubuntu is for "desktop Linux users." After all, most desktop users need items 1 and 2 on your list. I also don't buy item 3. GNOME isn't really any more different than Windows than KDE is. I scoff at the suggestion that just because KDE has the K Menu at the bottom left and GNOME has its Application Menu on the top left (by default on some but not all distros), that KDE is more "Windows-like." They're both significantly different from Windows and will require some amount of adjustment. I'm not going to dwell on this in the interest of avoiding the usual flamewar.

My explanation is that Ubuntu's direct markets are the enthusiast and power-user crowds. The ones that love Linux and don't mind a little tinkering here and there, but not the hobbyists that are willing to really get their hands dirty to achieve the most optimal system. Ubuntu is also positioned as a superior project infrastructure for supporting derivatives with different target markets in mind. In essence, Ubuntu is taking everything that made Debian such a great mother distribution and repackaging these qualities with an emphasis on timely releases and a focus on Intel platforms (plus SPARC servers).

My theory is that all of the Debian-based distros that want the "easy as pie" market will be deriving from Ubuntu within 18 months. MEPIS/SimplyMEPIS and Linspire/Freespire are already onboard, PCLinuxOS and Xandros can't be far behind, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Mandriva might even kick its RPM habit if things keep progressing as they are.

We have a three-horse race shaping up in mainstream Linux land, and this consolidation is what Linux needs to become even more compelling for proprietary ISVs.

Edited 2007-03-01 21:58

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by SEJeff on Thu 1st Mar 2007 23:21 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
SEJeff Member since:

You might try Ubuntu again when Feisty is released. By default, when Feisty attempts to play an audio file it doesn't have codecs for, it searches for and displays the package needed for the proper codec. Not only that, after the package is installed, it restarts the media.

The magic part is that is works and works well. Here is a few pictures of the process:

When you install windows, it does not come with flash or java. As a matter of fact (unless your OEM pre-installs them), you have to install them after the fact.

In Ubuntu, firefox will prompt if you want to install java or flash and it seems to work fine. Also, you can install both from the repositories using synaptic or apt (the command line) very easily.

My computer ignorant parents seemed to have 0 problems switching from Windows XP to gnome. The only real issue is that my father needed to be taught how to resize images in the gimp.

So there, everything you said has been debunked by someone who actually uses the system.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by Ford Prefect on Thu 1st Mar 2007 22:06 in reply to "Ubuntu vs. Arch"
Ford Prefect Member since:

Well, it depends.

If you can tell a user, if you want to change your IP address, change this line in that file and do "/etc/rc.d/network restart". This is something rather easy and the user can write it down.

Arch is so "KISS" that most operations needed by a desktop user basically aren't going anywhere beyond.

I don't think an Ubuntu user without advice would survive a really critical long time. If he would, he is not the "new user" we are talking about. So if he gets some advice, arch _can_ be easier to learn, as it is more straight forward ("here is your editor, that are the 3 files you need to know")...

Reply Parent Score: 2