Results 1 to 8 of 8
ok I'm looking for a new distro any thoughts crux or arch pros and cons please....
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 07-30-2006 #1
arch or crux
- 07-30-2006 #2
- Join Date
- May 2004
- arch linux
I've used and like both. They are quite a bit alike in many ways, but with CRUX, you get the slow source compile times like those you when using Gentoo. In actual use CRUX feels really fast, but keep in mind that both are geared more for intermediate to advanced users. If you don't like using the command line, it's best to steer clear of CRUX and Arch.
In my opinion, CRUX is slightly more difficult to work with than Arch. However, if you like having lots of control and working in the command line environment, it's best to try them both and make up your own mind.oz
- 07-31-2006 #3
Crux is not for the faint of heart... It takes time to get things configured, and I never did get Gnome or KDE working as they should with Crux. It works well with IceWM though, and is very fun and rewarding. Crux is kind of like the hot rod you tinker with in your garage on weekends. It's very fast but there are better choices to take the family out in.
Slackware might be a consideration for you too.
- 07-31-2006 #4
advanced or intermediate
well I use gentoo as of now just got it all done and I installed crux on a seperate partion and I really like gentoo best. Afraid of cammand line?, haven't ever been afraid of the command line grewup on slackware and plan to stay withit until it dies sorry I'll just stick with slax and gentoo. I just needed to try a new distro see what all the hipe was about but fedora sucked and crashed my b110 junkbox, I'll think about arch I guess but after my experience with crux I doubt I will
- 07-31-2006 #5
Arch is not the worst distro to try, but I usually suggest to stick to what you are familiar with. Using your knowledge on a distro to your and the distros greatest advantage is worth a lot more than switching over and over again and learning things from scratch once more. Speed improvemtents are usually so minimal between todays distros that a switch is not worth the amount of time invested into a new system imho.Windows free since 2002 | computing since 1984
- 10-10-2006 #6
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
Heh, I've made a lot of distro hops recetly. Mainly because I haven't found "The Distro". Every distro seems to have some aspects I like but nothing has them all
I'd suggest you try distros until you find one you're most comfortably with and then stick with it.
So far I've been using Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Arch and turning my eye on FreeBSD.
Slackware's been the closest but the lack of automated package management is big minus for me as I'd like to be with the latest software. Gentoo's nice but I'm impatient to wait all the time and it feels quite beta as it has a lot of broken packages in 'stable' set. Debian is nice but perhaps too automated and Arch is just too 'young' distro but felt pretty promising one.
Just got Qemu to work so I'll start to test distro's more with it.
- 11-01-2006 #7
Originally Posted by wordballoon
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
The install for arch takes about five minutes and then once you've logged into your system go
(1) pacman -Syu
(2) update grub because your kernel just changed
(4) install whatever else you want for example I do
pacman -S xorg
pacman -S xfce4
And you're go to go, it's just that easy. It is the fastest and easiest distro that I have ever used. But my main complaint is that there really is no stable branch. And sometimes you have to manually pick a better mirror (unless there's a utility I don't know about, which there can very well be) to get high download rate.
- 06-14-2007 #8
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Ontario, Canada
Arch is GREAT as a workstation OS. I do all my work (web developer and sys admin) on ArchLinux systems. pacman makes it so quick and easy to stay updated. Yes, it takes a bit of command line know-how, but not that much. Crux on the other hand...