Is Antergos Arch Linux Really Faster Than Ubuntu, Fedora?

[DeepDayze]

Arch with Awesome launchs at less than 48MB of RAM.
And compare:
apt-get install
vs
pacman -S
it is just faster out of the box by 4 letters - about 1 sec of speed gain, at least for me. =)
Pacman always works right, apt-get may turn your system into a mess.
No graphical installation is nice bydef - no overhead, just couple of setup cmds, and when something go wrong, you can fix it. I don't only like everything about ****ing systemd, but that was necessary adoption.
In general, arch leave you control over system, while ubuntu can't offer that. It is proprietary after all.

I used Gentoo before, but it is not optimal because in Gentoo you need to compile every package, as i know.

If you use a Gentoo derivative such as Sabayon they have a repo of already built packages

Debian has another tool called aptitude that has better dependency resolution but not everyone uses it

[teeedubb]

Bah, _if_ arch is indeed faster, surely any speed gains are negated by the fact that package upgrades break the system so often... And before any fan boys get their knickers in a knot, here's a arch wiki article to prove my point:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/pacman#An_update_to_package_XYZ_broke_my_system.21

[erm67]

Archlinux 64bit is just as any other 64bit distro :-) It doesn't have any performance advantage, it is i686 Archlinux that indeed was really "faster" because all programs were optimized for the i686 architecture; until a few years ago big distro shipped binaries compiled for i486 class CPUs. Now at least some libraries and the kernel are compiled for i686 on most distro and the speed difference narrowed ...

Archlinux 64bit has no particular reason for being faster than any other 64bit distro, since all use the same CPU instruction set.
Comparing i686 Arch with another i386 distro could show the real Archlinux speed advantage, probably in the 5-10% range anyway :-)

[alaviss]

Bah, _if_ arch is indeed faster, surely any speed gains are negated by the fact that package upgrades break the system so often... And before any fan boys get their knickers in a knot, here's a arch wiki article to prove my point:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...e_my_system.21

I've testing repo enabled on my Arch installation, haven't got a single error when updating, and I only get an error on the /usr move which required user intervention but thanks to arch devs for putting an guide to update which is extremely simple to follow and that's helped my system to keep running stable

And the wiki link above doesn't prove anything, the devs have to made sure the wiki cover any situations that may occurs. So just because it's in there, the it doesn't mean Arch broke a lot. Except for update which required user intervention, not thing break at all (from my experiences)

[Hamish Wilson]

I have had breakages with updates on Arch, but I have also had them on Fedora. One does need to be more ready for them on Arch, as it is more likely to expose them in certain regards, but if you keep good housekeeping, check the website often, and generally be smart about what you do then you should be able to get around them.

[doom_Oo7]

Arch with Awesome launchs at less than 48MB of RAM.
And compare:
apt-get install
vs
pacman -S
it is just faster out of the box by 4 letters - about 1 sec of speed gain, at least for me. =)

I used Gentoo before, but it is not optimal because in Gentoo you need to compile every package, as i know.

Nowadays you can just type apt install

Now if they could make one letter shortcuts like

apt i

...

[Vim_User]

And compare:
apt-get install
vs
pacman -S
it is just faster out of the box by 4 letters - about 1 sec of speed gain, at least for me. =)

Seriously?

alias agi="apt-get install"

Problem solved.

Pacman always works right, apt-get may turn your system into a mess.

Apt-get is very mature. The only way to turn your system into a mess with it is when you either don't understand what you are doing (most likely cause nowadays: ignorance about meta-packages and their implications) or if you do something stupid in your sources.list.

[asdfblah]

Seriously?

alias agi="apt-get install"

Problem solved.

Or even:

apt-g<tab> i<tab>

[Alejandro Nova]

Yes, but can the tweaks to Arch be applied to any other distro's, and will they perform similarly. Truly reproducible, or is Arch doing some 'magic faerie dust' things to their binaries before comilation that is opening up feature's for more tweaking?

Yes, they are truly reproducible, save for two or three distro-specific tweaks. I've applied those tweaks in Fedora to good effect.

The only distro I know about that does the 'magic faerie dust' thing to their binaries is Gentoo, and they can do that only because you compile those binaries for your machine, those are not generic binaries.

[stiiixy]

Yes, they are truly reproducible, save for two or three distro-specific tweaks. I've applied those tweaks in Fedora to good effect.

The only distro I know about that does the 'magic faerie dust' thing to their binaries is Gentoo, and they can do that only because you compile those binaries for your machine, those are not generic binaries.

Yeah, so the Gentoo stuff is right down in the code tinkering, which is the whole point of Gentoo from what I gathered and the distro thing mostly boils down to A) Major vendors trying to get people to use their product for paid support contracts or on to devices or B) Hobbyist's who just want Feature-set XYZ and share their pre-built environment with people, like Archbang, or Xubuntu. And Gentoo has it's own niche with portage.

What was the point of Gentoo though, if all distro's provide source, anyway? Did they really need their own distro?