Arch Linux and Ubuntu are two major Linux distributions that get a lot of attention and have dedicated fanbases. They are used as base distributions for other systems that are forked off of them… But, how they are doing things is quite different, and a few users might find yet one more to their liking than the opposite.
Introduction to Arch Linux and Ubuntu Linux
Arch Linux was first released on March 11, 2002, and was created to be a minimalist distribution. Arch follows the principle of KISS, or ‘Keep It Simple, Stupid’ which could be a principle accustomed to describe the practice of keeping things simple and less complex, whenever possible. However, this doesn’t always translate to having your handheld or having tools do everything for you when specifically about Linux systems and the way things are done or managed.
Unlike commonest distributions, Arch Linux by default doesn’t have a graphical install process, as an example, rather being installed by the command only. Arch Linux doesn’t, by default, include an overload of bloatware either, as would go against its minimalist design, so users are expected to make their system tailored to their own needs, and only have applications that they require to be installed.
Arch remains based totally on binary packages unlike other CLI-heavy systems like Gentoo which are more source-based, however, a system referred to as the Arch Build System does exist and is intended for source compilation for those that favor going that route. Arch doesn’t include any standard Desktop Environment as its default, having each user choose what to put in for themselves.
Arch Linux could be a rolling release model, which suggests there are not any major releases or giant system-wide updates and version numbers that the majority of people would listen to. All one has to do could be a regular package update and that they will have the most recent version of Arch Linux and every one of its packages.
Arch Linux also aims to possess very minimal distribution-specific package updates, so you won’t find as many instances of things not playing nicely together or together with your system after you try and customize things, because you don’t need to worry about distribution maintainers changing things or customizing packages or applications to tailor to the system. Arch might be considered, conversationally speaking, a plain and generic system, within the better of ways, choosing user customization to extreme levels instead of adding a large number of premade tools and layers of abstraction.
Ubuntu is the first obtrude upon the Linux world for several people across the globe. it’s been referred to as one of the foremost commonly used, most user-friendly distributions, by many, for over a decade. Ubuntu relies on Debian, which is understood for its rock-solid stability and great Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) package manager that includes a number of well-known graphical front-ends and forks.
Ubuntu, unlike Arch, encompasses a regular release cycle with new releases every six months. Ubuntu comes with an awfully easy-to-use graphical installer, and plenty of graphical point-and-click management tools built-in to form system management, updates, setting changes, and the like all very easy to navigate for less-experienced users.
Ubuntu is owned and developed by Canonical, a personal computer company, with a community of other developers working alongside them, so there’s some funding and support. There are many ‘flavors’ of Ubuntu that come each with its own default Desktop Environments like Kubuntu (KDE) or Xubuntu (XFCE), with the regular Ubuntu release using GNOME. Each Ubuntu release no matter which flavor is chosen comes with an abundance of pre-installed packages and applications, giving users a range of media players and tools, office applications, and more, without having to put in them manually.
Arch VS Ubuntu: Which Linux Distribution is the Better One?
1. Targeted Users
Arch aims to supply a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) experience to tinkerers looking to customize various elements of their Linux system. Things like structure bundles to tweaking the work area, everything counts. The out-of-the-case experience relies upon the client who introduces and sets up Arch Linux. Hence, it can easily cater to users trying to find different packages, desktop environments, and more.
On the opposite hand, Ubuntu targets users who desire a hassle-free pre-configured setup for their system. These users want essential tools installed, ensuring it all works because it is meant to. In other words, the user gets a perfect desktop experience without concern about setting it up. Ubuntu doesn’t want users to place more effort into improving their experience. All things considered, they present it as they suspect would suit most clients.
Undoubtedly, Ubuntu provides a more straightforward installation method, only if you get a GUI to assist install it to your desktop.
You can even install a GUI on the Ubuntu server if you would like.
With Arch Linux, you should depend on the terminal (or the command line) to complete the installation.
Fortunately, Arch Linux now encompasses a guided installer, which makes it easier to follow through with installing Arch Linux via the terminal.
Still, Ubuntu takes the lead with the convenience.
3. Desktop Experience
Ubuntu is customized to supply convenience to its users to understand that, Canonical gives a redid GNOME work area climate experience to make things simple.
While you will not get the identical level of customization that KDE Plasma provides, you continue to have lots of options, to start with. If you’re curious, you will take a look at our KDE vs GNOME comparison for more details.
Ubuntu also takes regular user experience feedback from its users and tries its best to supply the most effective workflow/productivity.
Arch Linux zeros in more on usefulness, and other specialized perspectives, over the work area client experience. The end-client experience totally really relies on how you set things up while introducing Arch Linux to your framework.
You will depend on what the desktop environment offers out-of-the-box; there aren’t any custom-made improvements for you. If you wish for something different, you should tweak things to make it happen.
However, the power to go for KDE Plasma, GNOME, or the other desktop environment can offer you some advantages as per your preferences.
Not only that, but you’ll also choose window tiling managers when installing Arch Linux.
Overall, with Ubuntu, you get a specific variety of desktop experiences offered to each user, with little to no ability to customize it.
But, Arch Linux gives you the liberty to define how you wish for the desktop experience. Note that this can be a decent thing for knowledgeable Linux users. But, if you’re new to Linux, this may be overwhelming.
4. Filing System
Most users don’t have to worry about the classification system utilized by their Linux distribution.
Hence, Ubuntu sticks with ext4 for its filing system, a sturdy classification system with all the essentials needed for a contemporary computing experience.
However, if you wish to settle on a unique filing system for various benefits over the most-commonly used ext4, Arch Linux can be available in handy.
You can choose from btrfs, ext4, xfs, and f2fs. The advantages of those file systems are beyond the scope of this text, but ensure that you just know what you’re doing if selecting anything over ext4.
5. App Ecosystem
Ubuntu offers support for a good range of applications. Undoubtedly, this is often why most of the popular Linux distributions support Ubuntu.
And, keeping its popularity in mind, various tools primarily support Ubuntu among other Linux distributions.
Not just the alternatives of apps/packages, but it’s also effortless to put in packages available for Ubuntu. you’ll be able to install packages through its official repositories, use PPAs, or its software center (with Snap integration).
While it doesn’t have Flatpack built-in, you’ll be able to set it up to put in apps from Flat hub.
Arch Linux also gets you access to countless applications through its official repositories.
However, some app developers might not officially support Arch Linux compared to Ubuntu.
Additionally, you’ll notice that you just must utilize pacman to install/manage packages. The GUI to put in/manage applications will rely on the desktop environment you decide on to install.
arch install terminal software
For instance, you’ll be able to access GNOME’s software center if you put in GNOME. And, Discover for KDE Plasma.
You will haven’t any Snap or Flatpack integration built-in, so you want to set it up as needed.
To get access to more packages, you’ll use AUR. Note that it features community-builds for packages and should not be officially recommended for everything.
Despite that, it’s often considered a robust point for Arch Linux because the number of packages offered overall may be more extensive than what Ubuntu features.
You can use some AUR helpers to enhance the experience.
Overall, if you wish one portal to simply manage/install software, Ubuntu.
6. Minimal vs Bloat Experience
These are purely supported preferences. simply because Arch Linux enables you to control everything once you set it up, you’ll be able to install a minimum number of packages.
In contrast, Ubuntu comes pre-installed with several utilities. For some, Ubuntu can be available in handy for the presence of valuable tools.
Of course, you’ll be able to uninstall packages that you just don’t need.
Notwithstanding, a few clients could think that it is pointless (or bulge).
So, you may have to decide if you would like the mandatory tools pre-installed (Ubuntu) or prefer a distro that permits you to install only the tools you wish (Arch) with no bloat.
7. Freedom to decide on vs Restrictions
As I discussed, Arch Linux enables you to control everything; it gives you lots of freedom to customize your experience.
Not just limited to the desktop environment or tiling window managers, but more.
For instance, you’ll select the well-liked audio server between Pulse Audio and pipe wire.
You can also choose a particular Linux Kernel, sort of a hardened version for extra security, a Zen variant for an enhanced experience, or the LTS version of the Linux Kernel.
In contrast, Ubuntu sticks to the Linux Kernel, which has been thoroughly tested, and uses Pulse Audio as an audio server by default (at the time of writing this).
Ultimately, what you wish will influence what’s best for you.
8. Community Support
Ubuntu, with its huge client base, offers enormous local area support. There are numerous forums/portals to guide Ubuntu users and help troubleshoot issues.
You can also ask around the forums, to urge quick help.
Given its user base, Arch Linux doesn’t offer that sort of community support. However, the Arch Linux wiki provides excellent documentation on almost everything to complete that.
Arch Linux wiki is perhaps one of the foremost extensive documentation if you would like to explore yourself.
9. Release Schedule
Ubuntu offers a Long-Term Support variant that gets minor updates for a considerable length of time or something else (for enterprises).
It also provides non-LTS versions that receive updates for about nine months while having a brand new release available every six months. The non-LTS version suits users who want the most recent updates/packages, with potentially significant changes with every upgrade.
The LTS version is best fitted for users who don’t want experience-breaking changes with every update.
For more information, you’ll be able to explore our resources on Ubuntu’s release cycles and end of life.
Arch Linux doesn’t bother with any of these; instead, it relies on a rolling-release schedule. You receive updates as they are available, whether it’s minor/major.
This ensures that you just are using the most recent and greatest packages all the time. This may sometimes be a decent thing, but it may be inconvenient for a few users when it breaks something.
10. Hardware Compatibility
Ubuntu could be a popular distribution aimed toward desktops. So, it’s tested for compatibility with a spread of hardware before releasing a version.
So, it’s safe to mention that Ubuntu offers good hardware compatibility out of the box.
In the case of Arch Linux, it doesn’t get tested as extensively as Ubuntu. So, it may/may not work with the hardware you’ve got.
However, simply because it features the newest and greatest Linux Kernel packages, it could influence work better than Ubuntu in some cases.
If you’re confused about the compatibility of your hardware, I’d suggest asking around to make sure that there are not any known issues with the system you wish to run Arch Linux.
With Ubuntu, everything works unless you’ve got bleeding-edge tech.
If you do not need your distro to fail or encounter a mistake, Ubuntu should be a more robust choice.
In the case of Arch Linux, the solution isn’t straightforward, and it can work well or go down with an update.
Arch Linux isn’t inherently stable, and you wish to take care of it yourself to confirm that nothing breaks with customization and updates.
Arch Linux? Ubuntu? Which to use?
Truly, there are only a few or rare scenarios where one system would be better than the opposite, however, some might say that Ubuntu makes a good server-install even as well as a desktop or home system, because of its regular release cycle and LTS releases, whereas Arch makes a higher home system than server, because of the character of rolling release models with their somewhat low but existent risk of package breakage.
However, for the typical user either system will serve quite well, and more boils all the way down to comfort. For users that don’t seem to be yet comfortable with employing a terminal, Ubuntu may well be the higher choice because the system may be managed without ever having to enter a CLI; whereas Arch expects the user to own some level of experience with a command-line. Arch is minimalistic whereas Ubuntu is loaded with many tools and applications that some users might consider bloat. So, ultimately, it depends on comfort level and skill.
What about you? Which does one prefer, and why? allow us to know within the comments!