Arch or Debian unstable?... Or something else

[disciple]

I know there are some Arch fans here... there must also be some Debian users, mustn't there?

I love Puppy, but I want a system with a proper repository, particularly for running large dependency-heavy applications. And I'd like the repository to be up to date.

So I was going to use Debian unstable and Puppyise it with all my favourite programs. But then I found out that Arch Linux also uses a rolling release (i.e. it is continuously updated, so you just update your installed packages whenever you want, instead of there being a new version of the distro every so often for you to upgrade to). After reading Arch's wiki page comparing it to other distros, and the "Arch Way" page (or whatever it is called), I'm inclined to use it instead.

I have googled the various permutations of "Arch vs Debian unstable", but I was wondering if anybody here can share their experiences of Arch and/or Debian unstable?

Also, are there any other "rolling release" distros I should consider? (binary distros, not source distros like Gentoo).

Thanks.

[nooby]

I just wonder. Have not many reported that each time there is a update with Ubuntu then their install crash.

Even in Puppy if one do an upgrade of a frugal install it can get the pupsave file in trouble. So the recommendation is to make a fresh install of that new iso instead of upgrading.

But I know too little. I trust we would get three versions of Puppy. okay four.

1. Based on Ubuntu
2. Based on Debian
3. Based on Slack
4. Based maybe on Arch.

Spup is based on Slack.
Dpup is based on Debian.
Lupu is based on Ubuntu

I have tested all of these in frugal install and Lupu in the Snowpup versions works best on my gear. But I am no repository friendly guy. I only use such if I am dragged screaming and kicking in protest.

[James C]

I also run PCLOS and it's called a partial rolling release.... a reinstall is only necessary about every 2 years and it has some well-stocked repos.
I believe LMDE... Linux Mint Debian Edition is a rolling release as well.

I've tried Arch, just can't make myself like it.
What about Aptosid?

[disciple]

Even in Puppy... So the recommendation is to make a fresh install of that new iso instead of upgrading.

Not that I heard

[disciple]

What about Aptosid?

Would there be much point if I'm not going to run KDE or anything? How would it be different to running Debian Sid?

[James C]

What about Aptosid?

Would there be much point if I'm not going to run KDE or anything? How would it be different to running Debian Sid?

Not an expert on the differences but...... Aptosid uses their own tweaked kernel and has some different scripts and packages.

[SirDuncan]

I have used both Arch and Debian as the primary OS on my newest desktop (Puppy is usually the distro of choice on my laptops and older machines). I first began hopping around to other distros because I also wanted a proper repository and a more sophisticated package manager (also, I wanted a 64bit OS and Fatdog had not been released yet).

Arch has a very nice package manager in pacman. The dependency resolution is very good I also learned a lot about configuring my system from Arch. The problem is that you have to manually configure almost everything yourself. I eventually got tired of having to do this. After all, if I wanted to always configure everything manually, I could have just stuck with Puppy and built my own packages.

I have more recently been using variants of Debian testing (LMDE, CruncBang, Debian testing proper, etc.). I prefer Debian. Although pacman may be arguably better than apt-get, I have not had any issues with apt-get. Debian packages are available for everything I have tried to install (Except for Netbeans. It seems that there was an issue with the package maintainer disappearing, but they have found a new maintainer, so it should return to the repo soon. Unstable may even have it already). If they aren't in the default repos, the program developer usually provides a package (often the program developer has a repo just for their program). Despite being the testing branch, I have found it to be very stable. I upgraded to the 2.6.38-2 kernel this past Friday (the same kernel that my flatmate has on his Arch install). I think it took a bit longer for it to hit the Debian testing repo, but Debian unstable probably got it fairly close to the same time as Arch.

I can't comment specifically on Debian unstable (I haven't used it), but if there was a Debian testing based Puppy (as opposed to a Debian binary compatible Puppy), I probably wouldn't need any other distro.

[aragon]

I'm running Arch on my IBM A22m for some month now and i have to say that i love it.

Some points:
-i've installed archbang and than stripped and configured it.
-pacman is very goot
-configuring has to be done by yourself, but normally very easy.
-my desktop runs with about 45 mb after boot (openbox)
-good wiki, good forum
-you'll need a good internet-connection for the updates, as there are plenty.

On the other hand, i've also tested Debian(stable) on this laptop and allways had problems with video and wlan, so gave up on debian.

Aragon

[Ray MK]

Hi aragon

This may be of some interest

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 328fe1287e

Have been using it for the last 2/3 days
it seems very nice and when you add
BK's new Thunar pet - it is even better.

Hope you enjoy - very best regards - Ray

[taca0]

I made a Debian Sid version with Woof with the Xorg version 1.9.5 and others unstable libs from Sid.

For me the new Xorg version works better than the other ones.

[aragon]

@ray: thanks for the link, seems interesting.

On topic: i used archbang for installation, because of the simple installation.

Aragon

[disciple]

If anyone is interested, due to life circumstances I only got maybe half way to having Arch set up with all the programs and settings I want. I will come back to it later.

I can say:

1) Arch is rather a mission to set up and configure - an "Archpup" would be great for this (providing a good set of default applications and settings, and easy install).

2) I think the biggest thing that could trip new users up is that the standard Arch install media doesn't have an easy tool for repartitioning, like Gparted.

3) I think the most annoying thing for me about running Arch is going to be that it doesn't split packages up (e.g. with separate -DEV, -DOC and -NLS packages or whatever). Most people don't need most of these things most of the time. While I sympathise with sentiments like those of Amigo, it seems rather pointless to be downloading all of this stuff for every package every time it is upgraded. I'm sure I'll still be building a lot of things from source, but there's no way even I will ever need most of it, and with a lot of larger packages it actually does make a big difference to the size. If I was on dialup I think I would definitely go with Debian unstable because of this.