salix vs. arch

[rayandrews]

but it seems that Arch has taken a good idea and turned it into a liability by being so uncareful about it.

Not at all imho. They are not at all claiming to be stable. One of their main goals is to be absolutely cutting-edge and the unstability that goes with that is what you have to bear with.

Esp. did things go very bad very fast when he started trying to use the AUR.

Sorry, but that seems to be a case of pebkac. I never had such problems with AUR generally. There are one or other poorly maintained packages and stuff, but generally speaking it's up-to-date and well-maintained.

The only problem I have is that I want a stable system. And I want to achieve that without cherry-picking every update and there are just so many with Arch that you've got almost no chance to do that anyway. But still Arch has it's corners like pretty much every Linux distro. It's just that you can't use every distro for anything. But sometimes Arch can be really great and their wiki is a gigantic place.

Well, there's no doubt that they are honest about it being bleeding edge, still, how much extra trouble would it be to have a more stable repo for those who want it? As to the AUR, I can only report what I've heard, since of course I haven't used Arch myself (yet). Also, as you say, there seems to be no question that their docs are second to none, I think that's a huge point on their behalf.

[Shador]

Well, there's no doubt that they are honest about it being bleeding edge, still, how much extra trouble would it be to have a more stable repo for those who want it?

About as much work as Salix requires being based on Slackware. You're effectively almost creating a new distribution with such a repository.

Also, as you say, there seems to be no question that their docs are second to none, I think that's a huge point on their behalf.

Yes, fortunately, a lot of the stuff applies to pretty much any recent Linux distro and with some human sense - technical sense fits better probably - almost everything can be applied to Salix or other distributions. I've used that source more than once for Salix.

[rayandrews]

Well, there's no doubt that they are honest about it being bleeding edge, still, how much extra trouble would it be to have a more stable repo for those who want it?

About as much work as Salix requires being based on Slackware. You're effectively almost creating a new distribution with such a repository.

Well, if you say so. I can't contradict but I don't see why they can't do what Debian does. Just let a new package get tested for a few months before they declare it stable.

Also, as you say, there seems to be no question that their docs are second to none, I think that's a huge point on their behalf.

Yes, fortunately, a lot of the stuff applies to pretty much any recent Linux distro and with some human sense - technical sense fits better probably - almost everything can be applied to Salix or other distributions. I've used that source more than once for Salix.

Indeed. Just googling for answers to various questions, one often ends up finding the answer at Arch.

But tell me Shador, it's obvious you use Arch and know it very well, and you are obviously being fair minded and balanced. So why do you prefer Salix? Apart from being more stable as far as updates go, what are the advantages of Salix, in your view?

[Shador]

Actually I like both Salix and Arch both have their advantages and disadvantages and almost everything I want. But in the end it's pretty much just the stability Salix has which Arch doesn't have. Apart from that the development model of Salix is different. Salix is really open in regard to contributions regarding Arch I'm not so sure apart from the AUR.
It's not like Salix is perfect. The last release of Slackware is pretty old and Patrick Volkerding can be very stubborn. But whenever I'm using Arch all those tiny advantages it has in some regard in my opinion just can't way up the stability in the end.
In the end it's a matter of taste and while I like looking at Arch for the one or other thing they have I do prefer Salix. Why am I not taking that stuff I like about Arch to Salix? For the biggest part it's things which grow with a big user and especially developer base (Salix can't compete there with Arch) and apart from that philosophical/historically grown stuff that is not easy to change for social or technical reasons or just would be too much work. But it's fortunately nothing really serious to actually bother me and to make the great efforts related with it worth. The big effort related to seemingly small changes is something you tend to see better as a developer and which can make it easier to live with the one or other distraction which are always going to exist.

Salix fits me well. You for your part need to find out yourself whether Salix is your right choice.

[rayandrews]

Actually I like both Salix and Arch both have their advantages and disadvantages and almost everything I want. But in the end it's pretty much just the stability Salix has which Arch doesn't have. Apart from that the development model of Salix is different. Salix is really open in regard to contributions regarding Arch I'm not so sure apart from the AUR.
It's not like Salix is perfect. The last release of Slackware is pretty old and Patrick Volkerding can be very stubborn.

< Famously so!

But whenever I'm using Arch all those tiny advantages it has in some regard in my opinion just can't way up the stability in the end.

< That's a very good answer and very honest because everyone is up-front that Arch is not focused on stability.

In the end it's a matter of taste and while I like looking at Arch for the one or other thing they have I do prefer Salix. Why am I not taking that stuff I like about Arch to Salix? For the biggest part it's things which grow with a big user and especially developer base (Salix can't compete there with Arch) and apart from that philosophical/historically grown stuff that is not easy to change for social or technical reasons or just would be too much work.

< Every distro develops its traditions which will never change.

But it's fortunately nothing really serious to actually bother me and to make the great efforts related with it worth. The big effort related to seemingly small changes is something you tend to see better as a developer and which can make it easier to live with the one or other distraction which are always going to exist.

Salix fits me well. You for your part need to find out yourself whether Salix is your right choice.

Yes. I will try it when I get the time, I'm busy over the Summer. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Tim CowChip]

Thanks for the replies all:

Several of you mentioned the rolling release model Arch uses, and the trouble it can cause. RR sounds like a great idea, and my LMDE uses that. It seems cool to hit the updater and have a few packages come down the wire and install OTOH, it has trashed the distro more than once, so maybe it's not quite as cool as people like to think. And one does read of Arch, in particular, melting down a bit too often. Me, I've always thought that there could be a middle way there, something like Debian's 'Stable' vs. 'Testing' -- you'd be able to RR, but still be able to do so from a well tested repo or from the less tested one, as you choose.

Slackel current rolling release (32 και 64 bit)

[SoleSoul]

Hi.
I used Ubuntu, Zenwalk, Salix for a short time, and then Arch.
First of all let me say that I think the three distros you mentioned are great. The question is, in my opinion, what you expect from your distribution.

I started my way in Linux with Slackware. It was very easy to install, but I had no clue what I could do with the system so I quickly figured that it would be better for me to start with a more starter-oriented distribution.

-Mint-
I went to Ubuntu, which I think is somewhat equivalent to your experience with Linux Mint. It was great in letting me know what a Linux box can do, what are the options regarding applications for various tasks and the general difference between Windows and Linux. Then I got bored and a bit angry.
The reason for getting bored is that everything worked. It worked, but I had no idea how, and I felt that I miss something because it's like being in Linux without feeling it. It's like the system is using Linux without me getting involved.
And why a bit angry? because as long as I liked the default behavior of the system everything was good, but when I wanted to change anything it started to feel like fighting the automated tools. I had to figure out the complex automatic configuration of certain packages in order to change something instead of simply changing a config file.

-Salix-
For these reasons I went to Zenwalk. It was something in the middle. It still worked out of the box, but it didn't have a complex configuration system that I had to fight with and it felt right. From the time I had with Salix, the experience in this regard is similar.
A strong point of Salix over Ubuntu is the small and friendly community. Here I feel like we are all learning together, and a rare gem here is that you have the top developers of Salix available in the forums. You won't find it in large distros.
Why I left Salix then? Simply because I got bored again... Everything was perfect for me but not interesting enough. I am a programmer, a system admin, a gamer, I want to feel the system I use. It's like a car enthusiast who won't drive a Corolla because he wants to feel the bare metal.

-Arch-
In Arch I found what I was looking for. After the installation process which is an (enjoyable) lesson on its own, you are left with the command line. Unlike Salix, it doesn't have an alternative install media for installing a pre-configured GUI environment. For me, it was exactly what I was looking for at the time. Since you *must* configure everything yourself, it is quite easy to do so and documented in details. This way you learn the most. I love it.
There is an obvious disadvantage though. To succeed you have to know at least what you want from your system, otherwise you feel like you are being left in the dark. For example, when you install a new service in Arch, it would never work right after you install it or reboot. You have to take a look at the default config file and see if it fits your needs, and then manually add the name of the service to the services list to be loaded on startup. Nothing is being done for you.
Another point which wasn't mentioned before is the Arch community. Most of the people there know their way in the system so instead of seeing mostly simple questions like in the Ubuntu forum you see people advertising their new software projects or solutions for common problems. I want to be a part of it.

-Source based-
There is another step further which I didn't take. I am talking about source based distributions. I have installed Gentoo and SMGL but it was too much for me so I am not using them.

-Rolling Release-
Regarding the claims about instability caused by the bleeding edge rolling release cycle I believe it's true but I didn't have these problems. I have a laptop, a destop and a small private server (there is a consensus that Arch is not recommended as a server OS) all running Arch with joy.
The only times when I have to reconfigure anything major is when a real functionality upgrade hits the repos and old software solutions leave their place for new and better ones. This way you must know the latest software solutions. You can look at it as a curse or a bless. I like it.

tl;dr:
It is like a spectrum. Mint in the left, Salix in the middle, Arch in the right. To the left is ease of use, to the right is better control and understanding. The question is how far to the right you want or ready to go.

For me the right route was Mint -> Salix -> Arch.

[JWJones]

I think a better comparison would be Slackware vs. Arch, and that comparison boils down to stable vs. bleeding edge. To me, when I just need to get up and running quickly with a Slackware or Arch installation, I choose Salix or Archbang. If you want to get a feel for either Slackware or Arch, before/instead (of) diving headlong into the base, I think these are a great way to do so. Archbang will give you a nice Arch + Openbox environment with a good selection of apps, without all the by-hand configuration, much like Salix . I pretty much stick with the base distros of Debian, Slackware, and Arch, but use both Salix and Archbang to get up and running quickly. I don't really use a derivitive when it comes to Debian, because I cut my teeth on Debian, and find it the easiest to set up of the three... "We don't need no stinkin' Ubuntu or Mint!" I'm tempted by Gentoo, but I just don't know that I have the time or patience these days.

[rayandrews]

SoleSoul,

Thanks for a very intelligent post. A few thoughts:

Hi.

-Mint-
And why a bit angry? because as long as I liked the default behavior of the system everything was good, but when I wanted to change anything it started to feel like fighting the automated tools. I had to figure out the complex automatic configuration of certain packages in order to change something instead of simply changing a config file.

< Right! With Mint, when I go into the settings menu to do something, I am constantly asking myself: "What is *really* happening here? Mint of course tries hard to hide things from me. I want a distro that will teach me.

-Salix-
A strong point of Salix over Ubuntu is the small and friendly community. Here I feel like we are all learning together, and a rare gem here is that you have the top developers of Salix available in the forums. You won't find it in large distros.

< Indeed. Over at Mint, it is now almost unheard of to talk with Clem, but here I see that developers will take the time for you.

Why I left Salix then? Simply because I got bored again... Everything was perfect for me but not interesting enough. I am a programmer, a system admin, a gamer, I want to feel the system I use. It's like a car enthusiast who won't drive a Corolla because he wants to feel the bare metal.

< My vision for the ultimate distro is one that gives you both at the same time -- I am absolutely sure that these two values 'friendliness' and 'bare metal' can co-exist with not even a small conflict between them.

-Arch-
In Arch I found what I was looking for. After the installation process which is an (enjoyable) lesson on its own, you are left with the command line. Unlike Salix, it doesn't have an alternative install media for installing a pre-configured GUI environment. For me, it was exactly what I was looking for at the time. Since you *must* configure everything yourself, it is quite easy to do so and documented in details. This way you learn the most. I love it.

< Let's have it both ways -- something that works out of the box, maybe has some friendly GUI tools, but at the same time **encourages** you to look directly at config files, helps you to understand how to edit them and gives you every help learning how to do so.

[SoleSoul]

Thanks for a very intelligent post.

Np, and thank you.

My vision for the ultimate distro is one that gives you both at the same time -- I am absolutely sure that these two values 'friendliness' and 'bare metal' can co-exist with not even a small conflict between them.

Just let me add one thing. I don't say that Salix takes away the access to the config files from you, it actually does a quite good job here. I just say that most of the time I didn't have to touch the config files so I didn't even know what I'm missing, or in other words, where stuff is really configured.

I find my 'friendliness' in Arch, you can find your 'bare metal' in Salix. It is possible