|
This time we will face two great distros of the GNU / Linux world: Arch Linux y Debian. We will see some of the pros and cons of each distro and we will make a brief comparison.
And you, Which one do you prefer? |
1: ArchLinux
Arch Linux is a distro originally inspired by the distro Crux although it currently has no basis. The distro slogan says A simple lightweight distribution, which translated means a simple and light distribution.
Arch Linux seeks to keep a system as less loaded as possible by following the KISS principle (Keep It Ssimple, Sbushy, in Spanish keep it simple stupid) avoiding having pre-installed applications and other parts that we do not use to achieve higher performance.
It is rolling release, this means that it exempts us from reinstalling the system since versions of it are not released; updating the system we will have the latest stable.
But it is not all gold that glitters, installation can become somewhat complicated thus intimidating inexperienced users and prolonging installation time.
What are the pros of Arch Linux?
- KISS principle: We assemble the system as we want, installing only what we need.
- Rolling release character: We avoid reinstalling the distribution as new versions are not frozen.
- Pacman package manager: The Pacman package manager is a fairly fast manager.
- Yogurt: This tool allows us to use the AUR repository, sometimes avoiding having to install .tar.gz files.
- ABS: ABS allows us to package and build programs from their source code.
- Wiki: The Arch Linux Wiki is quite extensive, but it is not translated into all languages.
What are the cons of Arch Linux?
- Installation: The installation can scare people new to Linux.
- Rolling release character: Being a rolling release can cause problems with some packages, although Arch Linux is one of the more stable distros.
- Peripherals: Installing peripherals like printers can be tedious in some cases.
2:Debian
Debian is a well known distro for its stability, it does not use any bases and also uses .deb packages. It is a distro that uses 100% free packages serial, thus avoiding the use of applications like Firefox, which are not 100% free. It has 3 branches: Stable, Unstable (Sid) and Testing.
As I was saying Debian seeks stability, which is why its versions take time to release and we do not have the latest.
Contrary to what many people think, Debian is quite a friendly distro, comparable to Fedora in this sense, but without being a Mageia-style distro (for example) as soon as it is installed.
Debian is cycling release, this means that versions are frozen.
Without being KISS, Debian is a less loaded system than, say, Linux Mint.
What are the pros of Debian?
- Stability: This makes it an excellent alternative in places where we need high security conditions.
- Parcel .deb: It allows us to install applications with a double click.
- Synaptic: Allows us to install applications without using the terminal.
- Friendly: The installation does not cause any fear to anyone, it is a typical next-next-next installation.
- Little charged: This translates into better performance compared to other distros.
What are the cons of Debian?
- 100% Free: Those who are not very purists will surely find some extra problems when installing certain applications since they are not activated as standard. non-free y contrib.
- Cycling Release: It forces us to suddenly update or reinstall the system with each release.
- Update: We do not have the newest.
Which is better? Bass mi point of view the following:
- Servers: debian
- Households: ArchLinux.
- Business: Either one could work and it all also depends on the data to be stored and in which positions in the company the computers will be.
… [#########] 100% file!
Yaourt? Do you really use yaourt? It's crap. There are thousands of better solutions, like 'packer'.
The truth is I prefer Arch, as you say how difficult it is because it is text mode but if you even take the trouble to read, in a while you will have your distro up and running, and also the jewel that is Aur that you can install almost any package is free or not, it is something incredible in arch.
But I have a question regarding which servers will be better, debian or centos?
and why arch is not better on servers?
Regards,
Each Distribution has its pros and cons, there is no one that is completely perfect.
Let's define the end user with a textual quote from an entry by my friend Jesús Lara:
End user is the person who uses the computer as a tool, helps him in his «chores and allows him to surf the Internet, connect to social networks and, why not, play farm.
An end user uses the computer as someone who uses a cell phone, a microwave or a vehicle, 80% of the people who drive do not have to know mechanics to drive ... some will tell you that "it is necessary to know at least the basics" , but we all know that it is not ...
Well, sure, you will be stranded waiting for a crane if you do not even know the basics, but let's understand that this will not be most of the time ...
On the contrary, we live from this (at least I) and it is logical that we need to know a lot more than the rest of the users. "
Now ... I am a Debianite and we must understand the why of things, Debian stable, contrary to what many believe is the distribution for the end user where periodic updates are few and do not affect the OS as happens with many Rolling Releases ( RR), it is a stable operating system, this means that, (beyond never or very seldom crashes) its Software packages work 100% percent without "breaking" anything, that is, you install and uninstall without problems and you also have update support (of the existing packages in stable) for almost 5 years.
Old packages on Debian stable? Yes, but not all. With backports you have LibreOffice 3.4.3 and Kernel 2.6.39 (soon they will have 3.1) and Iceweasel 7.0.1 those packages to name a few and in Flash Multimedia in their latest versions.
Any user who demands more than one OS (functionalities, aesthetics, etc.) is no longer considered an end user because he knows and knows how to "defend himself" in some way or another.
A rolling release for a company? Imagine 200 computers updating 600 or up to 1GB at a time.
RR distros are good for advanced users who know and understand updates who are aware that the system may crash from an update.
I use Debian Sid no longer to "have the latest" but to help with distribution development.
For those who want the latest, they can use Linux Mint. Debian Based is quite stable and always with good new features.
With regard to Arch I think it is excellent and its installation is not entirely complicated and with pacman everything is easier, its documentation is excellent (it must be because of its minimalist condition) and it is VERY light. It's a great old school distro.
This answer is the most consistent and clear, in a company using an RR distro is a fatal mistake, since stability and consistency is a priority.
As an end user, there is a driatriva, he needs the last thing, he needs the last thing, but he does not know anything about the system, therefore here the roles are complicated and merged, here winbuntu comes out above debian, but arch I doubt it ...
Debian Sick Marry me 😮
I use debian domestically ...
and I'm not complaining, because I'm 110% free 😀
Since when in Debian is it not recommended to update? In case you haven't noticed it is the first distro that does it in a stable way, this when it comes to the stable version, when some user has problems it is to create mixed systems otherwise it is a piece of cake.
Go to Debian Sid, and you will know what a rolling release is.
Rolling and KISS are all good for me.
Although it has rained since this comment ...
Good….
Clarify that in Debian, being Cycling Release or rolling is configurable.
If the repositories point to a version (by default), like whezzy or jessie it will be cycling.
On the other hand, if we leave them pointing to a branch, stable or testing for example, we will be in rolling release.
Stable is recommended for servers and desktop testing.