Ubuntu vs Arch Linux



Comparing Ubuntu to Arch Linux. Focus is entirely on the underlying system, as Arch donРІР‚в„ўt offer a specific interface to compare with UbuntuРІР‚в„ўs Unity desktop.

2:59 Ease of Installation
4:00 Help
4:46 Packaging
7:52 Resource Usage
8:51 Kernel Choice
10:17 Package Updates
12:08 Conclusion

Please donate and help support my work:
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/quidsup
Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/quidsup

Google+ https://google.com/+quidsup
Twitter: https://twitter.com/quidsup

source

37 thoughts on “Ubuntu vs Arch Linux

  1. This got recommended to me

    I tried out Arch. It was actually a really fun experience to install it. The wiki turned out to be basically a more complicated version of Ubuntu forums. I had installed the system with no issues. Then I tried installing legacy nvidia drivers. In the wiki it said it would just work by installing it. It did not. I spent 5 hours tryna figure out why. Eventually I just gave up and reinstalled Ubuntu

    It's a good distribution. But don't install it if you have a legacy nvidia graphics card. It's painful. It was already difficult in Fedora but Arch gets it to a level I can't reach

  2. Ubuntu is very instable. Arch faster and better, but not for Audacious, who's is bugged. Error messages that Arch Linux Admins don't want to correct. So this two kind of distribs are good, it's only human being factor whose is very bad, in each OS. Both of this communauties are very insulting and bad with begginners. They aren't mature, and they are agressive.
    So, as a conclusion, let's go to Linux, but don't ask to anyone in any forum, or you'll be agressed like a savage animal.

  3. Excellent comparison.
    ROFL at 08:3908:49, you'll need teen years usage to recoup the learning time. Although somewhat true, installing and running Arch taught me so much more about Linux in general than I ever picked up in a Debian based release.

    I know there are hard core supporters for a plethora of distros; however, one YouTube'r phrased it best, pick one and stick with it until you're comfortable with Linux. Which I finally did.

    For me, I started out with Ubuntu and quickly left Linux for years. I came back to Mint Cinnamon, but I want learning anything. So I made the jump to Manjaro. It didn't take long to see the appeal of Arch, and I finally left VirtualBox and my first bare metal install of Arch based distro was Arch itself. I learned so much about Linux! That install has been my core system for close to two years now, and still running strong.

    Back to your comment, the time I spent learning Arch has had an invaluable return on investment. Because I'm a system admin, I work with all technology platforms. Installing Arch "the Arch Way" actually helped me understand a lot of the processes in Windows Server Core, VMWare, Hyper-V, enterprise SAN… Things glossed over in classes or manuals because there's something already created to do steps XYZ for you whether it's a script or GUI.

  4. Thanks! This was very helpful. I've tried Linux a couple of times and Cinnamon was a nightmare to use, and I didn't like kubuntu much either. Considering trying Arch as it will be completely different from windows and then might not confuse me as much. But then again I am a tech moron. To try or not to try…

  5. The two distros respective forums also reflect what +Quidsup succeeded in summarizing here. To do so in just minutes is for me proof he really knows what he's talking about. A useful detail's missing though: Package management on Arch is about 3 to 5 times faster than Ubuntu's, whether on a rotational or SSD drive. Being also more resource efficient makes Arch updates a breeze even on (then) not so shitty 2nd generation monocore Atom (or other low-pro) machine 🙂
    Fu*ing nice job you achieved here Quidsup, really! Please go on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.