Arch linux or Fedora?

[Xi0N83]

I did a search and there is a thread about this that is dated 5 years ago, so, i hope i'm not doing anything wrong.

I currently use Arch LINUX in most of my computers for personal use, but lately, i have been trying fedora and,... hell, i like it... so much that im considering dropping arch and coming to fedora, but before i do anything reckless, i want to ask you people.
First, anytime i suggested using arch as server, i got a big NO because of the problems sometimes (not always) you could have because of the rolling release philosophy....
I see fedora is quite well updated (something i always looked for and i only found in arch until now) and i want to ask if this distro is more suitable and recommended for server use, in comparison to arch (Well, its red-hat's playground so must be)
And for desktop usage, i love arch BUT, and here is the big but... sometimes, i miss a bit more some GUI's.... something that fedora seems to have pretty well covered....
I think i will start with my laptop, install fedora there and see how it does behave.

I have a couple more questions though...
First: Are the lxde and xfce spins as well supported and updated as the gnome-kde ones?
Second: When updating from fedora 16 to (a future) fedora 17.... i suppose you can change from one to the other without any problem, can't you?

Thanks for the help and lets see if this clears my thoughts a bit and makes me take a decision soon...

Thanks!!

[smr54]

No, you did right. When people post to ancient threads, the thread is usually closed and the poster told to start a new thread.

I can't answer the spins questions about support, but once you install one, it will be updated as frequently as anything else--they all use the same repos. (I try to make my Fedora more like Arch).

Fedora is also not the best choice for a server. It hits EOL in a relatively short time. It's also used for testing new ideas, and those who use it sometimes find this out the hard way.

Updating can still be problematic. It's getting better, but there will often be major changes between releases, making it difficult. You'll see in the common bugs for this release, which had several major changes, some things about problems with updating.

As there will often be some major system changes between updates, many people choose to back up and reinstall. However, the folks working on the upgrade process are hard at work, and it seems to be getting better, generally speaking.

Hope this helps a bit. But note well that Fedora is not a rolling release. Each release is frequently updated with improvements (and sometimes regressions--shucks, folks make mistakes). But there are releases, rather than a rolling update system.

[JohnVV]

it depends on what you want
i was using arch and fedora on an old computer
the boot time for a slim Arch install was something like 15 sec. from "push the power button" to reading my email

fedora - More like 2 to 3 Min.

Arch would be better for slightly older hardware
fedora DOSE NEED 4 gig of ram for 32 bit and 4+ for 64 bit

Arch will run fine on 1 gig .

the only thing with VERY old hardware would be is the 3d card still supported by Xorg

10 year old graphics cards are NOT

and i want to ask if this distro is more suitable and recommended for server use

NO .Fedora is NOT good for a server
RHEL6 , CentOS6, & ScientificLinux6 are good

Second: When updating from fedora 16 to (a future) fedora 17.... i suppose you can change from one to the other without any problem, can't you?

??? maybe ? maybe NOT ???

i still like a FRESH new clean install
reformat and install the new version as a NEW install .
-- that is the BEST way

now with that said . "preupgrade" has been getting better . so....
?maybe ? maybe NOT?

[Xi0N83]

Ok: So, fedora not for server, that is clear...
That being said: Fedora is not rolling release but still very updated as i can see....
I think i will stick with Arch for the moment... but i know now i have fedora there,.... its really tempting me... and that is a signal: Means i have no problems at all with arch and i am getting bored.... xD
Thanks for your advice!

[Mariusz W]

Originally Posted by Xi0N83

I see fedora is quite well updated (something i always looked for and i only found in arch until now) and i want to ask if this distro is more suitable and recommended for server use, in comparison to arch (Well, its red-hat's playground so must be)

If the question is: "Is it more suitable?" -- the answer, I think is "Yes". Certainly, there are more suitable distros: RedHat, Scientific, and CentOS. But they are, of course, 2-3 years behind what Fedora is now.

By perusing these pages you will find that a surprising number of people use Fedora as servers. It goes without saying that if you do, then you must be sometimes prepared for quick interventions.

Originally Posted by Xi0N83

And for desktop usage, i love arch BUT, and here is the big but... sometimes, i miss a bit more some GUI's.... something that fedora seems to have pretty well covered....

It does. For "big desktop" experience you may want Mint instead, however.

Originally Posted by Xi0N83

I think i will start with my laptop, install fedora there and see how it does behave.

I have a couple more questions though...
First: Are the lxde and xfce spins as well supported and updated as the gnome-kde ones?

I have no idea how well polished they are. All of this depends on a particular group of people who are making such spins. My understanding is that at least these groups of people try to be active with upstream development. This is generally true for maintainers of many Fedora packages, and is one big reason why I have been staying with RedHat/Fedora starting with RedHat 7.3 ten years ago.

Originally Posted by Xi0N83

Second: When updating from fedora 16 to (a future) fedora 17.... i suppose you can change from one to the other without any problem, can't you?

You can "change" any time by installing other desktops. Upgrading from one release to the next one actually doesn't allow you to make changes to the system -- it just upgrades the existing system. You either make changes before or after.

If you follow clear instructions, then you should expect generally a smooth transition between releases even though Fedora likes to do big leaps. I repeatedly upgraded Fedora on a couple of computers of differing architecture and I haven't encountered anything major.

By the way, Fedora offers (when you install from DVD) a so called "Minimal install". This allows you to build the system up, like you have been used to with Arch, but having Fedora's engine so to speak under the hood.

You should keep Arch on one computer and install Fedora on another one. This is what I did myself, except in reverse direction.

[YeOK]

Fedora makes a great server, the only issue is that it goes end of life very quickly. I have run it on servers and it has been solid. Though I have a limited usage for it, http, php and mysql.

If you are looking to set-up a server that you don't mind having to update every year, I'd certainly say Fedora can do it. If you want to just set it up and have a totally solid and stable server, running tried and tested software then CentOS or one of the other Redhat based distro's is much better.

You can use 'preupgrade' to go from Fedora 16 to 17. It has worked for me for the last few years but your mileage may vary. It certainly caused issues for some forum members.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_PreUpgrade

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle

http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#h...91e1dde5b75e6d

[fedvasu]

Originally Posted by Xi0N83

First: Are the lxde and xfce spins as well supported and updated as the gnome-kde ones?

yes , they are first class citizens of fedora as updates is concerned ,as far as support there are are good number of folks using LXDE and XFCE who can help you out here in fedora forum.

Though LXDE is much slicker, and has less footprint , the upstream is just a one man show "PCman" , is a doctor by day and gets quite less time , in development, and there are only a few packagers on fedora , one of the members of LXDE SIG , explained in "this week in fedora" podcast about need of upstream developers for LXDE . So u need it and have some time , it's time you may do some upstream hacking!!!

I don't know about XFCE upstream, except it has been here, for ages almost as old as Gnome 1.x and they switched to GTK around XFCE 3 (currently XFCE 4.8.3)

[sea]

Originally Posted by JohnVV

the boot time for a slim Arch install was something like 15 sec. from "push the power button" to reading my email

fedora - More like 2 to 3 Min.

Arch would be better for slightly older hardware
fedora DOSE NEED 4 gig of ram for 32 bit and 4+ for 64 bit

Arch will run fine on 1 gig .

On both, my laptop and my netbook, Arch requires/d between 20 and 30 secs, where as Fedora needs 25 to 40 secs, incl decryption and login procedure.
Though this hardware is not old, its low- to mid range equip.
On neither device i have 4 gb of ram, the netbook has just 1 gb ram, and Fedora runs quiete smooth n fast

About updates, i'm using LXDE as my main DE, and since Fedora provides so many DE's, they share the hughe bulk of commonly used packages, and are very up to do, though as mentioned, LXDE has only a few (1 to 2?) upstreamers, noone stops you from installing pieces of other de's.

[fedvasu]

Originally Posted by JohnVV

it depends on what you want
i was using arch and fedora on an old computer
the boot time for a slim Arch install was something like 15 sec. from "push the power button" to reading my email

fedora - More like 2 to 3 Min.

Arch would be better for slightly older hardware
fedora DOSE NEED 4 gig of ram for 32 bit and 4+ for 64 bit

Arch will run fine on 1 gig .

FUD about fedora on fedoraforum!! , fedora LXDE runs on 512 MB like a charm!!! fedora 14 KDE ran on 700 MB , virtual machine just fine!!

exact minimum and recomended requirements here --->Fedora 16 hardware requirements !!!

[hadrons123]

i hardly find any difference by performance wise between arch and fedora.Boot times differ and arch usually beats fedora on my PC.its just a matter of choice,what you want to use.
Desktops, laptops both are OK.packageswise no major difference.arch AUR is bit poor on quality though!

servers, i got no idea.but i 've read that lot of supercomputers run on fedora and amazon EC2s too!
memory footprint on arch is slightly better than fedora.i have had system breakage on arch after kernel updates,but never on fedora,at least for me.I am sure fedora update would have broken someone else's PC.my opionion is arch breaks more often.strength of arch is it is more flexible when you mangle with PC.

f15-->f16 update was a mess when i tried through 'preupgrade'.didnt even try f14--->f15.

[Mariusz W]

Originally Posted by hadrons123

i hardly find any difference by performance wise between arch and fedora.Boot times differ and arch usually beats fedora on my PC.its just a matter of choice,what you want to use.
Desktops, laptops both are OK.packageswise no major difference.arch AUR is bit poor on quality though

Installing and daily using Arch (and usually doing this for long hours) predisposes me very well towards Arch, I have however some doubts about the quality of several of their Community packages, vide a glaring bug in Opera, the sort of which I haven't ever witnessed in Fedora.

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

Originally Posted by hadrons123

f15-->f16 update was a mess when i tried through 'preupgrade'.didnt even try f14--->f15.

I performed a number of preupgrades in recent years: 13 -> 14, 14 -> 15 , and 15 -> 16, on a couple of laptops, and I haven't experiened any trouble except for a snail pace the actual installation of packages took on my Toshiba NB 205 netbook (24 hours F14 -> 15 and, respectivel, 10 hours, F15 -> 16).

[MikeCO]

Originally Posted by fedvasu

FUD about fedora on fedoraforum!! , fedora LXDE runs on 512 MB like a charm!!! fedora 14 KDE ran on 700 MB , virtual machine just fine!!

Running F16 on my old laptop right now... single Athlon, 1 gig. Runs fine, even loaded hard.

Fact is, I don't even make swap partitions any more. After I started building machines with 2GB+, Fedora would never write to swap anyway.

[jpollard]

Originally Posted by MikeCO

Running F16 on my old laptop right now... single Athlon, 1 gig. Runs fine, even loaded hard.

Fact is, I don't even make swap partitions any more. After I started building machines with 2GB+, Fedora would never write to swap anyway.

You don't run anything very large.

My 8G dual quad has been known to swap to death (and no, the OOM did not hit like I expected it to, it just deadlocked thrashing swap).

I was running PovRay at the time, and had it generate too many objects (try a 6.2 mile diameter cylinder using 10x10 cubes for 20 mile length... several billion objects) It would do a single ring without problems, even two. But doing over 20,000... no chance. After an hour generating things it hung - no mouse, no keyboard, nothing. I was expecting it to be killed though, there was plenty of CPU available (my pov-ray process only used one CPU).

[sonoran]

Originally Posted by Mariusz W

Installing and daily using Arch (and usually doing this for long hours) predisposes me very well towards Arch, I have however some doubts about the quality of several of their Community packages, vide a glaring bug in Opera, the sort of which I haven't ever witnessed in Fedora.

I've had flaky behaviour with the current Arch k3b package - nothing glaring, it does work - but
when I need to burn a cd or dvd I boot Fedora 16 now. The Fedora k3b is much smoother.

[MikeCO]

Originally Posted by jpollard

You don't run anything very large.

Well, I thought I did... until...

Originally Posted by jpollard

(try a 6.2 mile diameter cylinder using 10x10 cubes for 20 mile length... several billion objects)

It's not every day one gets called to render 400 cubic mile cylinders. But that being the case, I think we can safely say your 8 gigs is not enough to qualify as a render farm. That stuff is usually done with racks full of hardware.

So, I suspect you either have some unrealistic expectations... or are being silly.