Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help finding a Distro

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jaguar07 View Post
    Archlinux is a pain in the ASCII to install and set up. It reminds me of Slackware releases from 1994.

    Once you get Archlinux installed and configured manually, it lacks a couple of features I really use a lot in other distros. Ability to log into KDE as root for example. Right click on desktop to get a menu including console or terminal windows for example, etc.


    I do have to admit that with Archlinux, I obtained one of the best benchmarks for Apache-build there is. For everyday use it just is too time consuming to make the spoils worth the battle.

    Your mileage will vary. It's just a matter of how much.
    Archlinux installs vanilla KDE, so no right click options, but they can be installed. As for root issues, don't forget to install sudo and setup visudo, also HAL and DBUS need ck-launch-session in .xinitrc, e.g. "exec ck-launch-session startkde". All of this is in the wiki pages AFAIK. The install is very straightforward, part of KISS principle, the installer guides you step by step and it's hard to screw anything up, unlike Gentoo stage 3 install.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by hax0r View Post
      The install is very straightforward, part of KISS principle, the installer guides you step by step and it's hard to screw anything up, unlike Gentoo stage 3 install.
      Well, gentoo has the best guides out there and even if sourcebased, the installation is pretty straight. Only a newbie could have a problem I guess, but yet gentoo aims to experienced users.

      Comment


      • #18
        Don't the let the "configuration" of Arch throw you off.

        1. If you know your way around Linux, it's not particularly hard to setup

        2. The defaults configs are generally well documented/commented

        3. Once you set it up once, it's easy to set it up again

        4. KDE will be for the most part completely packaged and setup with a vanilla install


        However, the biggest problem with a rolling distro is that you always have to stay on top of it. You always have to be watching what's coming up and potential changes, since it's not necessarily advisable not to upgrade

        Comment


        • #19
          Using ARch on work and is working very nicely!!!

          Sadly the new kernel don't support Catalyst (Or the other way around :P ) so keeping Ubuntu @ home and hoping for a new ATI Catalist release!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by yesterday View Post
            2. The defaults configs are generally well documented/commented

            3. Once you set it up once, it's easy to set it up again
            ++

            The first time might take a couple of hours and some confusion until you get how everything is set up. The next time, you'll have a complete system up and running in less than 1 hour (provided you have a good internet connection and a fast hard drive ).

            The arch wiki is excellent and explains everything you might wish to know. The community is very active and supportive and you'll find PKBUILD scripts for everything you might need (and if you don't it's *trivial* to make a script yourself).

            Arch: where the beer is good and the software is up to date!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BhaKi View Post
              Slackware and openSuSE are the best KDE-based distros out there. Slackware is faster, bloat-free and more secure. But its package management is less intuitive compared to openSuSE and you need fair amount of experience with Linux (any UNIX-like OS) to be comfortable with Slackware. openSuSE has an excellent GUI control center for everything from package management to server administration.
              Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.

              Comment


              • #22
                arch can't even properly version their kernels.

                if you want 'easy' go opensuse. Good KDE. Pretty recent software. Easy to use.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by t.s. View Post
                  Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.
                  might change soon. Opensuse users told novell that they are pissed off with all the gnome crap.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by t.s. View Post
                    Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.
                    openSUSE at the moment is de neutral. SLED in gnome biased and as energyman says don't be surprised if KDE becomes the default desktop again soon in openSUSE.

                    https://features.opensuse.org/306967

                    • Votes: 550
                    • Positive: 426
                    • Neutral: 8
                    • Negative: 116

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by energyman View Post
                      arch can't even properly version their kernels.
                      Erm, fail
                      Code:
                      andrew@Serenity:~$ pacman -Qi kernel26 | grep -i version
                      Version        : 2.6.30.5-1
                      It doesn't add the minor release version to the kernel name however
                      Code:
                      andrew@Serenity:~$ uname -r
                      2.6.30-ARCH
                      ...but that's a name, nothing more.
                      Last edited by Mora; 08-19-2009, 06:14 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mora View Post
                        Erm, fail
                        Code:
                        andrew@Serenity:~$ pacman -Qi kernel26 | grep -i version
                        Version        : 2.6.30.5-1
                        It doesn't add the minor release version to the kernel name however
                        Code:
                        andrew@Serenity:~$ uname -r
                        2.6.30-ARCH
                        ...but that's a name, nothing more.
                        your point?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
                          your point?
                          That energyman has been reiterating the same moronic argument for months.

                          Arch's versioning scheme is working perfectly. The package manager reports the correct version; you can install any version side-by-side; you can change the name to "look ma, no hands" and it will still work fine.

                          This argument was stupid when energyman made it last year. It's still stupid now.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            look into boot. What do you find there on an arch system?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              @blackstar - i don't think i was in my right mind when i asked that question....

                              @energy man - that has nothing to do with versioning and everything to do with not having to update the grub menu.lst after every kernel install. there are quite a few distro's that do it that way actually.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                *yawn* you don't have to update menu.lst/grub.conf if you do it right.

                                kernel with version + symlink. Works fine, is save. Arch can not do it? Made by idiots or broken? What is it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X