Comments on: Two out of three ain’t bad

By: K.Mandla

K.Mandla — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:54:38 +0000

Boot is faster, programs run faster, frame rates are better, setup is simpler … but compilation time is a killer. I can have a working Arch system in place in 20 minutes, but I need two days to get the same software compiled and working on the same machine with Crux (maybe less, if I can babysit it).

So it’s a tradeoff. You get speed and simplicity with Arch, but you get insane performance from Crux … after a day or so.

By: ikaruga

ikaruga — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:36:55 +0000

Wow… so crux is awesome? I’ve been unwittingly following your lead from Ubuntu to Arch … I have been compiling just about everything on Arch including the kernel (except for the packages that came in the initial install.) I suppose it’s time for me to go to Crux — although I never heard of it — *everything* is compiled in Crux, is that the difference between Arch?

Is it really *faster* than Arch? Or is just the boot faster?

BTW, I avoid the startup freeze on Arch by hibernating to disk and rebooting every once in a while. (Not really a solution but it works for me.)

By: K.Mandla

K.Mandla — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:30:06 +0000

Two reasons: First, I have a better sense of control over package compilation. I started using Crux when I couldn’t get ABS to work (I didn’t have rsync access at the time) and wanted to eke still more speed out of my software. I couldn’t manually compile software, but a system-wide rebuild (at the time) wasn’t practical.

Second, I was irritated by the startup sequence. I work primarily with old hardware, and I regularly see delays of 7-12 seconds — sometimes more — while I wait for modules to be inserted and udev to settle. It’s not worth it to me, since I have one set of hardware for each installation. I don’t want each startup to probe for changes to the configuration — I can handle that manually, once every six months or so, when I buy a new gizmo. Wait time was unacceptable.

And I guess there’s a third reason: I learned a lot when I went from Ubuntu to Arch, and I learned a lot more when I went from Arch to Crux. Learning is good.

I still use Arch from time to time, when I need a system now that works predictably and can be installed in 20 minutes. But the wait to compile a Crux system is infinitely worth it, for the performance gained at the end.

By: mauud777

mauud777 — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:37:12 +0000

thanks … but i have question

whats make crux butter than Arch ??

i see that you love crux more than arch

regards

moauud