PDA

View Full Version : What distro is for me?



gymophett
September 17th, 2009, 06:17 AM
I want fast, stable, and bleeding edge. Yet I don't want to have to setup a distro like Arch. I want a graphical installer... Can someone help me? NOT UBUNTU BTW. This is just me wanting to test a distro.

starcannon
September 17th, 2009, 06:18 AM
http://crunchbanglinux.org/

matthew.ball
September 17th, 2009, 06:20 AM
You can actually see from his sig (I presume), he already uses Crunchbang.

doorknob60
September 17th, 2009, 06:20 AM
Chakra? http://chakra-project.org/ It's basically Arch with a graphical installer, Live CD, and not much setup compared to regular Arch. It's a little unstable, but if it installs, then it should be stable (it's just the installer mainly that's "unstable"). Another option would be Sidux, which is based off of Debian Sid http://sidux.com/ It also has a graphical installer.

cariboo907
September 17th, 2009, 06:23 AM
Check the reviews here (http://distrowatch.com/), and pick one that appeals to you.

gymophett
September 17th, 2009, 06:32 AM
Sabayon?

~sHyLoCk~
September 17th, 2009, 06:34 AM
stable yet bleeding edge

Huh? How can they be stable if they have not been thoroughly tested?


2. Setup not like Arch and a graphical installer

I'd say fedora. thats as bleeding as u can get, but it is not stable. Enable rawhide and have fun. Since you are going to use this for testing purposes. :P


Sabayon?

Sabayon is neither stable nor that bleeding edge. Atleast that was my experience with it. Unless you have tried gentoo at some point it is going to be PITA to tweak or fix issues.

sertse
September 17th, 2009, 06:44 AM
sidux. Uses debian sid repos, so it's fairly updated. Rolling release. It additionaly has it's own repos to fix any major breaking issues sid causes (before it's fixed in debian), as well having a dedicated community to sid users for workaround to more minor issues.

Comes as a installable live cd with a working KDE or Xfce desktop depending on the iso you choose.

ynnhoj
September 17th, 2009, 07:43 AM
I want fast, stable, and bleeding edge. Yet I don't want to have to setup a distro like Arch. I want a graphical installer... Can someone help me? NOT UBUNTU BTW. This is just me wanting to test a distro.
you can't always get what you want.. :P

have you actually read the Arch install guide? it's not particularly difficult, or time consuming to get Arch installed and configured.

Gentoo has a live CD and graphical installer, doesn't it..? give it a whirl.

Bigtime_Scrub
September 17th, 2009, 09:59 AM
You sir want Fedora.

megamania
September 17th, 2009, 10:05 AM
I want fast, stable, and bleeding edge. Yet I don't want to have to setup a distro like Arch. I want a graphical installer...
That would be everybody's dream.

Who would prefer old packages to new ones, if both were stable?

Who would choose unstable over stable, if both were bleeding edge?

The distro you are looking for simply does not exist (yet?).

snowpine
September 17th, 2009, 03:12 PM
I want an Oompa Loompa, Daddy!

Seriously, suck it up and install Arch. :) If you'd started with the Beginners Guide 8 hours ago (instead of waiting for our silly opinions), you'd be done by now.

Sidux is a close second.

In my opinion, Ubuntu is pretty much the perfect balance between stable and bleeding edge. I think the 6 month release cycle is a perfect compromise. Why don't you want to use Ubuntu again?

Simian Man
September 17th, 2009, 03:28 PM
I'd say fedora. thats as bleeding as u can get, but it is not stable. Enable rawhide and have fun. Since you are going to use this for testing purposes. :P

You are right about rawhide not being stable. It makes Ubuntus alphas seem like Debian Stable :).

The released versions of Fedora, on the other hand, are the perfect balance between cutting age and stable for me. They have the latest released versions of most software unlike Ubuntu. They also provide feature updates after the release date (also unlike Ubuntu). They are also fairly stable considering. Things break every now and then (like maybe once per release), but the fixes come out through updates usually the next day and workarounds appear on the forums immediately.

It also, like Ubuntu, provides a graphical installer and sensible defaults for most users. In fact it sounds like it'd be perfect for you.

Technoviking
September 17th, 2009, 03:31 PM
Stable and bleeding edge are a hard combo.

BrokenKingpin
September 17th, 2009, 03:35 PM
I would say Fedora or Sabayon. Fedora is bleeding edge, and for the most part stable and fast (at least the last time I used it). Sabayon is also fast being Gentoo based, but I have found it a bit buggy in the past and comes with too much software installed out of the box. It does have all proprietary codecs and drives installed out of the box though.

RiceMonster
September 17th, 2009, 03:37 PM
You sir want Fedora.

Agreed. Fedora sounds ideal here. If you love to use the latest developments going on in the Linux world, and you don't want to spend a lot of time setting it up, Fedora is the way to go.

dragos240
September 17th, 2009, 04:02 PM
You sir want Fedora.

Fedora:

The dark side of Linux.

RiceMonster
September 17th, 2009, 04:04 PM
Fedora:

The dark side of Linux.

Why do you say that?

~sHyLoCk~
September 17th, 2009, 04:07 PM
Fedora:

The dark side of Linux.

I heard that in many distros, last time in sidux forums. :lolflag:

snowpine
September 17th, 2009, 04:24 PM
fedora:

The dark side of linux.

?????

:(

tcoffeep
September 17th, 2009, 04:59 PM
Try any distro out, until you find one that suits you.

Personally, this was my journey :

Ubuntu -> Debian -> Ubuntu -> Arch -> Ubuntu -> Arch -> Crunchbang -> Debian -> Ubuntu-> Arch -> Gentoo -> Arch -> Crunchbang -> Arch -> Gentoo -> Funtoo

And now I'm happy, at the end of my road. (btw, each step of my journey meant I used it for at least a month. i have tried -many- other ones [i have a binder full of livecds and installation dvds], but some didn't last for more than an hour)

RedSquirrel
September 17th, 2009, 09:50 PM
Gentoo has a live CD and graphical installer, doesn't it..?

No, the Gentoo graphical installer is a dead project and should not be used under any circumstances. The official method to install Gentoo is to use a weekly stage3 and follow the Handbook. More info here (http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml).

gymophett
September 17th, 2009, 10:07 PM
I've got a Chakra liveCD and Gnome and KDE Sabayons...

Sircoelho
September 17th, 2009, 11:08 PM
If you want a really fast linux try YOPER.

tcoffeep
September 17th, 2009, 11:57 PM
No, the Gentoo graphical installer is a dead project and should not be used under any circumstances. The official method to install Gentoo is to use a weekly stage3 and follow the Handbook. More info here (http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml).

Installing via the SystemRescue LiveCD (link here (http://www.sysresccd.org/Main_Page)) is another method of installing Gentoo/Funtoo. (Although it requires an "export path=" after chroot, because of some little problem.)

gymophett
September 18th, 2009, 12:55 AM
I'm loving Sabayon!

RedSquirrel
September 18th, 2009, 01:51 AM
Installing via the SystemRescue LiveCD (link here (http://www.sysresccd.org/Main_Page)) is another method of installing Gentoo/Funtoo. (Although it requires an "export path=" after chroot, because of some little problem.)

I mainly wanted to point out that the graphical installer is something to avoid since it's buggy and now deprecated, but you're right, just about any LiveCD will do when following the stage3 method in the Handbook. Installation using the Minimal CD is the "officially supported" method since it's been tested by Gentoo devs.

(Gentoo can also be installed from an existing system.)

The devs are working on a fancy LiveCD with X and Gentoo artwork. I think they plan to release this sort of thing once or twice a year. For now, the weekly, non-graphical Minimal CDs are the official product.

coldReactive
September 18th, 2009, 05:19 AM
have you actually read the Arch install guide? it's not particularly difficult, or time consuming to get Arch installed and configured.

In less than 2.5 hours? No, not configured to the way you want it.

tcoffeep
September 18th, 2009, 02:11 PM
In less than 2.5 hours? No, not configured to the way you want it.

I can configure and install Arch in less than 2.5 hours and get it the way I want it without a problem =\

fela
September 18th, 2009, 02:15 PM
Debian Squeeze FTW! :)

Haven't tried the graphical installer, but the normal installer is just like the 'alternate' ubuntu installer, which might aswell be graphical.

coldReactive
September 18th, 2009, 02:20 PM
I can configure and install Arch in less than 2.5 hours and get it the way I want it without a problem =\

With DVD Support, many codecs (like medibuntu), wakoopa, GIMP, Inkscape, Wine, totem, GNOME, Brasero, Audacity, PiTiVi, OpenOffice, xsane, compiz, ccsm, firefox 3.5, etc?

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 02:29 PM
Configuring Arch for the first time , ie-> you do not have previously saved config files, in less than 2.5 hours is hard to achieve. If you are using a DE then it's possible, but if you use fluxbox or openbox, or any other WMs, then it's impossible.

coldReactive
September 18th, 2009, 02:35 PM
Configuring Arch for the first time , ie-> you do not have previously saved config files, in less than 2.5 hours is hard to achieve. If you are using a DE then it's possible, but if you use fluxbox or openbox, or any other WMs, then it's impossible.

Yep, I would be configuring it for the first time each time I reinstall Arch (if I do for whatever reason.) This is why I stay with these fancy GUI distros.

snowpine
September 18th, 2009, 02:36 PM
With DVD Support, many codecs (like medibuntu), wakoopa, GIMP, Inkscape, Wine, totem, GNOME, Brasero, Audacity, PiTiVi, OpenOffice, xsane, compiz, ccsm, firefox 3.5, etc?

Are you joking? All it takes is one command:


pacman -S libdvdcss codecs gimp inkscape wine totem gnome-core gnome-extras brasero audacity pitivi openoffice xsane compiz-fusion ccsm firefox

Wakoopa I think you have to install from AUR (which is a breeze)

If you're installing Arch more than once, you can copy and paste that one line with all of your favorite apps. Why would it take more than 2.5 hours to install a few apps on any Linux distro? (excluding download time if you have a slow connection of course)

I definitely recommend setting aside an afternoon if you're installing Arch for the first time, but once you've done it a few times, it only takes an hour or two. It really is not as difficult as the Arch fanboys would have you believe. ;)

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 02:44 PM
snowpine I agree with your point that it largely depends on your bandwidth, however, for a new arch user, having a little or no previous experience with WMs [assuming you want a wm ofc] it could take a while to configure everything like the way they want to. The initial [core] arch install takes a little less/more than 10minutes. Then a system upgrade and installing X,etc takes a while and not to mention the .pacnew files you need to edit/merge occasionally. Then just imagine installing openbox and you are thrown into a black screen. You need to handpick a few apps you want to install and pacman -S them and also configure them.Besides reading the beginner's guide and various topics in the wiki should also be taken into account.

megamania
September 18th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Since you guys appear to know Arch...

Is there a way to install it without formatting the partition I want to mount as /home?

I have 500GB of data - even if I have a full backup, having to copy all the data back after the installation would be a pain.
Last time I quickly checked (3 months ago), the installer was going to format /home... but I hope I'm missing something.

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 02:53 PM
You can, just don't mount that drive when the installer asks you to. Later create a fstab entry for it. Should work.

tcoffeep
September 18th, 2009, 02:54 PM
With DVD Support, many codecs (like medibuntu), wakoopa, GIMP, Inkscape, Wine, totem, GNOME, Brasero, Audacity, PiTiVi, OpenOffice, xsane, compiz, ccsm, firefox 3.5, etc?

Why the hell would I put all that **** on my computer? I might as well use Ubuntu.

SomeGuyDude
September 18th, 2009, 02:55 PM
I can configure and install Arch in less than 2.5 hours and get it the way I want it without a problem =\

Same. And that's counting the 1-1.5 hours where I'm on the pooper while it downloads and installs all the updates. Arch is CRAZY quick to piece together once you know what you're doing.

I'd actually be willing to bet I can get Arch setup how I want it (with the DE/WM I want and the various software configurations) faster than under Ubuntu.

Mega, if you have a /home partition, you just set it to install into your / partition. It won't touch /home.

coldReactive
September 18th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Why the hell would I put all that **** on my computer? I might as well use Ubuntu.

Exactly, hence why I use it.

SomeGuyDude
September 18th, 2009, 02:58 PM
Configuring Arch for the first time , ie-> you do not have previously saved config files, in less than 2.5 hours is hard to achieve. If you are using a DE then it's possible, but if you use fluxbox or openbox, or any other WMs, then it's impossible.

I call shenanigans on this claim. I can get Arch fully setup and customized down to the fonts I have to snag off the internet before the end credits of Lord of the Rings hit, on a fresh hard drive, using Openbox.

Protip: Obmenu and obconfig are your friends with Openbox. No typing.

LowSky
September 18th, 2009, 03:01 PM
I call shenanigans on this claim. I can get Arch fully setup and customized down to the fonts I have to snag off the internet before the end credits of Lord of the Rings hit, on a fresh hard drive, using Openbox.

Protip: Obmenu and obconfig are your friends with Openbox. No typing.

It takes you 3.5 (4+ if extended) hours to setup Arch, your doing something wrong? It shouldn't take that long if you follow the wiki. 2 hours should be enough for a basic gnome config.

SomeGuyDude
September 18th, 2009, 03:05 PM
It takes you 3.5 (4+ if extended) hours to setup Arch, your doing something wrong? It shouldn't take that long if you follow the wiki. 2 hours should be enough for a basic gnome config.

Are any of those movies THAT long? I thought Fellowship was only about 2 hours or so.

snowpine
September 18th, 2009, 03:07 PM
snowpine I agree with your point that it largely depends on your bandwidth, however, for a new arch user, having a little or no previous experience with WMs [assuming you want a wm ofc] it could take a while to configure everything like the way they want to. The initial [core] arch install takes a little less/more than 10minutes. Then a system upgrade and installing X,etc takes a while and not to mention the .pacnew files you need to edit/merge occasionally. Then just imagine installing openbox and you are thrown into a black screen. You need to handpick a few apps you want to install and pacman -S them and also configure them.Besides reading the beginner's guide and various topics in the wiki should also be taken into account.

I'm not sure I understand your point... if you install Openbox in Ubuntu, you also get a black screen.

If you want to be up and running quickly, with everything working out of the box, you install Gnome or KDE, regardless of whether you're using Arch or Ubuntu.

Personally my Arch install has Gnome, Compiz, all the bells and whistles... Arch is not just for minimalists who want to use lightweight windows managers. ;) In fact, my Fluxbox box (old laptop) is running Ubuntu+Fluxbox... not Arch.

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 03:13 PM
I call shenanigans on this claim. I can get Arch fully setup and customized down to the fonts I have to snag off the internet before the end credits of Lord of the Rings hit, on a fresh hard drive, using Openbox.

Protip: Obmenu and obconfig are your friends with Openbox. No typing.

Nah what's the fun in that? :P Arch is a geek's distro, just go to the arch screenshots thread and you will hardly find anyone posting a Gnome or kde screen. Mos archers use wms and this fact can be very well be seen if you are an active member of arch forum. :) I don't think it will be easy for a newbie to setup a wm for the first time, maybe openbox or xmonad. A lot of reading and editing needs to be done. then again I was talking from a newbie's point of view. I can re-setup arch in less than 30minutes. :)

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 03:21 PM
I'm not sure I understand your point... if you install Openbox in Ubuntu, you also get a black screen.

If you want to be up and running quickly, with everything working out of the box, you install Gnome or KDE, regardless of whether you're using Arch or Ubuntu.

Personally my Arch install has Gnome, Compiz, all the bells and whistles... Arch is not just for minimalists who want to use lightweight windows managers. ;) In fact, my Fluxbox box (old laptop) is running Ubuntu+Fluxbox... not Arch.

True but you don't need to setup X or alsa or many other essential stuffs manually in ubuntu. And I think anyone hardly has to visit the ubuntu wiki while installing ubuntu for the first time.
As I said KDE/Gnome are not the point, I was talking of a minimal install, just the way Arch is intended to be. A simple, lightweight distro. ;)

snowpine
September 18th, 2009, 03:30 PM
True but you don't need to setup X or alsa or many other essential stuffs manually in ubuntu. And I think anyone hardly has to visit the ubuntu wiki while installing ubuntu for the first time.
As I said KDE/Gnome are not the point, I was talking of a minimal install, just the way Arch is intended to be. A simple, lightweight distro. ;)

Maybe I am lucky, but my graphics card (Intel) and alsa work out of the box with Arch. I have never had to edit a video/sound conf file.

They work out of the box with Ubuntu too. Frankly the differences between the two distros are rather minimal in my experience. I switch back and forth between them throughout the day with no real speedbumps.

ps "Arch is inteded to be" desktop environment/WM neutral. You can use Gnome or openbox or jwm or whatever you want.

Daisuke_Aramaki
September 18th, 2009, 03:31 PM
Nah what's the fun in that? :P Arch is a geek's distro, just go to the arch screenshots thread and you will hardly find anyone posting a Gnome or kde screen. Mos archers use wms and this fact can be very well be seen if you are an active member of arch forum. :) I don't think it will be easy for a newbie to setup a wm for the first time, maybe openbox or xmonad. A lot of reading and editing needs to be done. then again I was talking from a newbie's point of view. I can re-setup arch in less than 30minutes. :)

There's nothing geeky about using Arch. Also, if majority of users use tiling wm's, doesn't necessarily mean that you should also use the same. If you are comfortable with a full blown desktop, or any of the *boxes, it's perfectly fine.

Trying out any new distro or OS certainly needs some read up, and if someone doesn't, the learning curve will be a bit steep. So people should stop painting a picture that once you setup Arch, you are automatically a geek or something like that. It holds true for any OS. I concur with someguydude's post in the other Arch thread about the ease in setting up an Archbox by properly following the wiki.

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 03:39 PM
I'm not saying anything bad about arch, I have seen many people facing problems the first few times trying to install arch. Yes it does require reading and I never said it's a bad thing. It requires less effort than gentoo or lfs. I'm not branding arch as a geek's distro and should be and must be used with a wm , that post was entirely my personal opinion of arch from what I've seen. each and every post I made was from a newbies perspective of first arch install compared to ubuntu install. I am a happy arch user myself and please don't make it look like I'm against arch. :P

Daisuke_Aramaki
September 18th, 2009, 03:47 PM
I'm not saying anything bad about arch, I have seen many people facing problems the first few times trying to install arch. Yes it does require reading and I never said it's a bad thing. It requires less effort than gentoo or lfs. I'm not branding arch as a geek's distro and should be and must be used with a wm , that post was entirely my personal opinion of arch from what I've seen. each and every post I made was from a newbies perspective of first arch install compared to ubuntu install. I am a happy arch user myself and please don't make it look like I'm against arch. :P

I certainly never said you were against Arch. So don't misunderstand. Next time if you wanna advise someone about using Arch, tell them the advantages, and also the disadvantages, and let them decide what they want, not what you think they want, like your wm preference.

If you personally think Arch is a geek distro, its fine, just be careful about telling someone who's on the verge of migrating that, since it is not. The Arch setup is fairly simple, and easy to understand design, there is nothing mysterious about it. :)

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 03:56 PM
I wouldn't advice the OP to use Arch, since he wants bleeding yet stable distro. Arch is bleeding alright, but stable? Sure if you know what you're doing.

tcoffeep
September 18th, 2009, 03:57 PM
I wouldn't advice the OP to use Arch, since he wants bleeding yet stable distro. Arch is bleeding alright, but stable? Sure if you know what you're doing.

The whole bleeding edge+stable is an impossibility, imho.

Hallvor
September 18th, 2009, 03:58 PM
I want fast, stable, and bleeding edge. Yet I don't want to have to setup a distro like Arch. I want a graphical installer... Can someone help me? NOT UBUNTU BTW. This is just me wanting to test a distro.

If you find such a distro, let me know. :lolflag:

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 04:00 PM
The whole bleeding edge+stable is an impossibility, imho.

Exactly.

Daisuke_Aramaki
September 18th, 2009, 04:02 PM
The whole bleeding edge thing is a disease that is rampant amongst Linux users. I was actually asked for advice once by someone who wanted to migrate to FreeBSD and OpenBSD. His first question was, how it would compare against Arch, and how bleeding edge it would be!

I advised him that he would be better off staying put with Arch.

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 04:12 PM
Personally I prefer slackware, it's stable and the apps are not that outdated, I may not have pidgin 2.6.1 [many new features of which don't work btw], I'm happy with 2.5.9. I use arch in my usb, it's easy to switch the video drivers with a simple rc.local script when I'm using it in someone else's computer. Arch is faster than almost any distro I've seen. Then comes gentoo bootup speed wise and slackware takes quite a while to startup, but it is the ultimate beast. ;)
So my advice to OP would be to use fedora, it comes with a price of not owning your own system and letting the devs tweak your system for you, but hey for a new user that shouldn't matter right? I see he has already chosen sabayon. Sabayon wasn't "bleeding-edge" last time I used it. It still uses kde4.2.4 as of sabayon4.2 which is their latest stable release. They say it's a rolling distro but if you upgrade to a current version official help/support won't be provided. I liked the way sabayon comes with a lot of precompiled stuffs, but I'd rather use gentoo ~x86. :)

tcoffeep
September 18th, 2009, 04:13 PM
Personally I prefer slackware, it's stable and the apps are not that outdated, I may not have pidgin 2.6.1 [many new features of which doesn't work btw], I'm happy with 2.5.9. I use arch in my usb, it's easy to switch the video drivers with a simple rc.local script when I'm using it in someone else's computer. Arch is faster than almost any distro I've seen. Then comes gentoo bootup speed wise and slackware takes quite a while to startup, but it is the ultimate beast. ;)
So my advice to OP would be to use fedora, it comes with a price of not owning your own system and letting the devs tweak your system for you, but hey for a new user that shouldn't matter right? I see he has already chosen sabayon. Sabayon wasn't "bleeding-edge" last time I used it. It still uses kde4.2.4 as of sabayon4.2 which is their latest stable release.

I tried to install slackware, but the installer got the best of me, and I installed Funtoo instead. :(

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 04:16 PM
I tried to install slackware, but the installer got the best of me, and I installed Funtoo instead. :(

:lolflag:

RiceMonster
September 18th, 2009, 04:19 PM
I had no problem installing slackware. I just partitioned with cfdisk then followed the installer, which wasn't hard. If you need a guide, try the one at slackbook.org. I don't know if it's gotten out of date, but it was good when I last followed it.

If you can install Arch, you can install slackware. I can't speak for fun/gentoo because I haven't installed either. I don't have the patience for a source based distro.

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 04:22 PM
I believe slackbook is included in the DVD itself. And yes slackware setup isn' that difficult. :)

SomeGuyDude
September 18th, 2009, 04:23 PM
I wouldn't advice the OP to use Arch, since he wants bleeding yet stable distro. Arch is bleeding alright, but stable? Sure if you know what you're doing.

Yeah. You really have to be an expert to "just set it up and then not mess with anything ever again". Newbies might have a hard time with that one.

I've been on Arch for about a year now and the last time I had to mess with ANYTHING was a minor Xorg hiccup in like January. Seriously, Ubuntu was slightly higher maintenance just by virtue of the six month release cycle.

snowpine
September 18th, 2009, 04:36 PM
The whole bleeding edge+stable is an impossibility, imho.

"Stable" means two different things.

There is stable as in "doesn't change" for example Debian stable or Ubuntu. Apps are frozen at a particular version with only bug fixes and security patches. It is impossible by this definition for a rolling release distro like Arch to be stable. You could theoretically have a bleeding edge stable distro, but it wouldn't stay bleeding edge very long. :)

The other definition is what I think most lay people mean by "stable" meaning "reliable, bug-free, doesn't crash."

A distro can "stable" by the first meaning, yet buggy and crash prone, while an "unstable" (by the first meaning) distro can be reliable and bug-free enough for everyday use.

I don't really know what my point is; just sayin'. :)

coldReactive
September 18th, 2009, 04:37 PM
Are you joking? All it takes is one command:


pacman -S libdvdcss codecs gimp inkscape wine totem gnome-core gnome-extras brasero audacity pitivi openoffice xsane compiz-fusion ccsm firefox

Wakoopa I think you have to install from AUR (which is a breeze)

If you're installing Arch more than once, you can copy and paste that one line with all of your favorite apps. Why would it take more than 2.5 hours to install a few apps on any Linux distro? (excluding download time if you have a slow connection of course)

I definitely recommend setting aside an afternoon if you're installing Arch for the first time, but once you've done it a few times, it only takes an hour or two. It really is not as difficult as the Arch fanboys would have you believe. ;)

Is that all for 64-bit? Or do I have to do more tweaking?

RiceMonster
September 18th, 2009, 04:44 PM
Is that all for 64-bit? Or do I have to do more tweaking?

Installing 32 bit and 64 bit will follow the same process, unless you are on 64 bit and you need applications that are only 32 bit such as wine. In those cases, you can find packages in the AUR such as bin32-wine.



A distro can "stable" by the first meaning, yet buggy and crash prone, while an "unstable" (by the first meaning) distro can be reliable and bug-free enough for everyday use.

But newer software tends to be less stable because it is less tested and has less bug fixes available. That is what people are suggesting.

snowpine
September 18th, 2009, 04:49 PM
But newer software tends to be less stable because it is less tested and has less bug fixes available. That is what people are suggesting.

I agree. Just saying there's stability and then there's STABILITY.

For example, Firefox 3.5.3 is quite new, but it's not going to make your computer explode into flames. ;)

tcoffeep
September 18th, 2009, 04:53 PM
For example, Firefox 3.5.3 is quite new, but it's not going to make your computer explode into flames. ;)

sez you. ;)

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 04:55 PM
I agree. Just saying there's stability and then there's STABILITY.

For example, Firefox 3.5.3 is quite new, but it's not going to make your computer explode into flames. ;)

You never know until you have thoroughly tested an app in every possible architecture under every possible circumstances. I beileve that's how debian,slack and gentoo calls a software stable. gentoo stable still has Gnome 2.24 and still supports kde3.5 due to the stability factor.

snowpine
September 18th, 2009, 04:58 PM
You never know until you have thoroughly tested an app in every possible architecture under every possible circumstances. I beileve that's how debian,slack and gentoo calls a software stable. gentoo stable still has Gnome 2.24 and still supports kde3.5 due to the stability factor.

I agree, but then you get people like a recent poster who argued "Debian stable isn't stable at all, because it can't play Youtube videos out-of-the-box." :) In other words, for many people, "stable" means "I can get my work done without thinking too hard about my operating system."

RiceMonster
September 18th, 2009, 05:00 PM
I agree, but then you get people like a recent poster who argued "Debian stable isn't stable at all, because it can't play Youtube videos out-of-the-box." :) In other words, for many people, "stable" means "I can get my work done without thinking too hard about my operating system."

functionality != stability

Grifulkin
September 18th, 2009, 05:31 PM
I browse the forums all the time and put in my opinions generally, but can I ask why, does wine always have to be brought up in an instillation of linux. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using Linux, to use wine to run windoze programs? I might be missing the point here but the point of linux is to use programs that are open source and or free software, isn't it? Now my biggest problem with the concept of wine is you are trying to use programs for a system that you left because you didn't like it, not only that but you can find a program that has the same purpose. If you really need a windows program that badly why not dualboot.

Also, the thing I find most annoying is when someone asks in the forums for a replacement for xxxxx windows program and people tell them to run it in wine. For the love of god, why? It isn't that great I've tried it just to see how well it worked and it just seems like a waste of time and defeats the purpose of linux if you ask me(which I know no one is).

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 05:36 PM
I browse the forums all the time and put in my opinions generally, but can I ask why, does wine always have to be brought up in an instillation of linux. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using Linux, to use wine to run windoze programs? I might be missing the point here but the point of linux is to use programs that are open source and or free software, isn't it? Now my biggest problem with the concept of wine is you are trying to use programs for a system that you left because you didn't like it, not only that but you can find a program that has the same purpose. If you really need a windows program that badly why not dualboot.

Also, the thing I find most annoying is when someone asks in the forums for a replacement for xxxxx windows program and people tell them to run it in wine. For the love of god, why? It isn't that great I've tried it just to see how well it worked and it just seems like a waste of time and defeats the purpose of linux if you ask me(which I know no one is).

I'm sorry did you post in the wrong thread? Since your post has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed here. I agree with your sentiments though. :) I haven't used wine since last I attempted to install CS in ubuntu 3yrs ao. :)

fela
September 18th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Stable and bleeding edge are a hard combo.

Only if you've decided to use the word 'hard' instead of 'impossible'.

Eisenwinter
September 18th, 2009, 05:42 PM
Configuring Arch for the first time , ie-> you do not have previously saved config files, in less than 2.5 hours is hard to achieve. If you are using a DE then it's possible, but if you use fluxbox or openbox, or any other WMs, then it's impossible.

It's not impossible.

For me, Arch takes an hour to install, from when I first boot the live CD, to the point I'm looking at openbox with a wallpaper and panel, and all the programs I need installed.

If I had a faster connection, I bet it'd take less than 30 minutes, the largest chunk of time goes to download the software.

~sHyLoCk~
September 18th, 2009, 05:44 PM
It's not impossible.

For me, Arch takes an hour to install, from when I first boot the live CD, to the point I'm looking at openbox with a wallpaper and panel, and all the programs I need installed.

If I had a faster connection, I bet it'd take less than 30 minutes, the largest chunk of time goes to download the software.

It shouldn't take an hour if it's not your first time. :)

fela
September 18th, 2009, 05:45 PM
I browse the forums all the time and put in my opinions generally, but can I ask why, does wine always have to be brought up in an instillation of linux. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using Linux, to use wine to run windoze programs? I might be missing the point here but the point of linux is to use programs that are open source and or free software, isn't it? Now my biggest problem with the concept of wine is you are trying to use programs for a system that you left because you didn't like it, not only that but you can find a program that has the same purpose. If you really need a windows program that badly why not dualboot.

Also, the thing I find most annoying is when someone asks in the forums for a replacement for xxxxx windows program and people tell them to run it in wine. For the love of god, why? It isn't that great I've tried it just to see how well it worked and it just seems like a waste of time and defeats the purpose of linux if you ask me(which I know no one is).

To every single person on the forums: it should be law to agree with this guy.

Do NOT think of Linux as a drop in replacement for Windows, and do NOT try to get windows programs to run on Linux.

Great post.

coldReactive
September 18th, 2009, 05:58 PM
To every single person on the forums: it should be law to agree with this guy.

Do NOT think of Linux as a drop in replacement for Windows, and do NOT try to get windows programs to run on Linux.

Great post.

So we shouldn't be running gnash, swfdec nor flashplugin-nonfree? Ok, I'll go back to using Windows then if that'll make you happier.

SomeGuyDude
September 18th, 2009, 06:00 PM
To every single person on the forums: it should be law to agree with this guy.

Do NOT think of Linux as a drop in replacement for Windows, and do NOT try to get windows programs to run on Linux.

Great post.

Hi there, I'm the voice of reason!

I'm here to let the both of you know that Linux does not have a software solution for every problem and the FOSS community, for all its advances, still lacks in a number of key areas. Amongst them are video editing and (gasp) gaming.

So when your buddy wants to try out Ubuntu but would still like to play games on his Steam account and edit some videos for YouTube, you COULD tell him to shut up and play some random Freeware games instead of Portal and try and learn Cinelerra, but he's going to hand you a big bag of "thanks but no thanks".

Today's dose of reality: until Linux's software library fleshes out to the point of having acceptable solutions for all situations, Wine has a place. Deal with it.

coldReactive
September 18th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Today's dose of reality: until Linux's software library fleshes out to the point of having acceptable solutions for all situations, Wine has a place. Deal with it.

Problem: Wine has no real driver support.

Solution: ReactOS :P

SomeGuyDude
September 18th, 2009, 06:09 PM
There's this strain of Linux elitism that's starting to drive me nuts, and it feels like every time I come back to the forums it's a little worse. It's the "everything Windows is bad always" thing. People get pissy at GTK/QT themes that look like Windows, distro features that are similar to Windows, and bitch at people for using Wine.

I much, much prefer not to use WINE, but I quite literally can't get by without it due to lots of niche applications that only have Windows versions. Example? WinISD, an app made for designing subwoofer enclosures. No Linux version, nothing remotely similar. Also, I love Picasa, but again gotta use Wine.

gn2
September 18th, 2009, 06:10 PM
~ Ubuntu was slightly higher maintenance just by virtue of the six month release cycle.

But it's not mandatory to switch every six months, the user can choose between six months, a year, eighteen months, two years or three years depending on which release they start with.
Most users never have any problems moving from one release to the next.

colau
September 18th, 2009, 06:10 PM
openSuse.

coldReactive
September 18th, 2009, 06:18 PM
Also, I love Picasa, but again gotta use Wine.

Uh, what?

http://picasa.google.com/linux/

chris200x9
September 18th, 2009, 06:27 PM
sidux? :P

SomeGuyDude
September 18th, 2009, 06:28 PM
Uh, what?

http://picasa.google.com/linux/

Yeah. It uses sort of an embedded wine-style emulation. It's not a native Linux app, and LOOKS it.

tcoffeep
September 18th, 2009, 06:36 PM
There's this strain of Linux elitism that's starting to drive me nuts, and it feels like every time I come back to the forums it's a little worse. It's the "everything Windows is bad always" thing. People get pissy at GTK/QT themes that look like Windows, distro features that are similar to Windows, and bitch at people for using Wine.

^++

Quote for the motherlovin' truth.

Странник
September 18th, 2009, 06:39 PM
Consider Debian testing/unstable branch

megamania
September 18th, 2009, 06:43 PM
There's this strain of Linux elitism that's starting to drive me nuts, and it feels like every time I come back to the forums it's a little worse. It's the "everything Windows is bad always" thing. People get pissy at GTK/QT themes that look like Windows, distro features that are similar to Windows, and bitch at people for using Wine.

It's not just Linux. Some people need a mission in life, and being pro-something and against-something else.

There are even people fighting for a high score on... Folding at home. Can you believe that?

It just came to my mind Forrest Gump running endlessly with lots of people following him and waiting for him to say something... and all he says is "I'm a bit tired". :-) I've always found it clever.

NormanFLinux
September 18th, 2009, 07:44 PM
Its a contradiction in terms. You can have a fast and stable system but you cannot have a lot of beta software and still expect the distro to be reliable.

SomeGuyDude
September 18th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Its a contradiction in terms. You can have a fast and stable system but you cannot have a lot of beta software and still expect the distro to be reliable.

Well for a lot of distros, specifically non-rolling ones, they wait until they next version before including newer versions of certain software. Ubuntu, for example, would have an update freeze on (for example) OpenOffice and wait until the next full release before putting 3.0 in. A similar phenomenon happened with Firefox 3.0. Despite having come out, there wasn't an official update in the repos because the devs were waiting for the next full distro upgrade.

So it's not necessarily talking about 'beta' so much as the instant software is updated, having it available for installation. That doesn't happen a lot of the time.

snowpine
September 18th, 2009, 08:09 PM
Its a contradiction in terms. You can have a fast and stable system but you cannot have a lot of beta software and still expect the distro to be reliable.

Name a distro that uses "a lot of beta software" (in its non-testing repos).

Most "bleeding edge" (I hate that term) distros use the latest stable version of most apps. People who use Ubuntu, Arch, Sidux, Fedora, etc. are not using beta software; they are using the latest stable releases. (Unless you are using the testing repos of course.)

NormanFLinux
September 19th, 2009, 12:02 AM
I use the Ubuntu backports to update to the next stable version of say KDE. Then I remove them from the repositories list.

PhoHammer
September 19th, 2009, 12:06 AM
That would be everybody's dream.

Who would prefer old packages to new ones, if both were stable?

Who would choose unstable over stable, if both were bleeding edge?

The distro you are looking for simply does not exist (yet?).

word

Grifulkin
September 19th, 2009, 02:03 AM
I'm sorry did you post in the wrong thread? Since your post has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed here. I agree with your sentiments though. :) I haven't used wine since last I attempted to install CS in ubuntu 3yrs ao. :)

Well actually it was in the right thread, I was reading through seeing what people were saying about what linux distro they liked and Arch came up of course. Then someone mentioned that they couldn't set up Arch in less than 2 hours installing said list of applications and Wine was one. And for some reason I got instantly annoyed that Wine was considered in setting up a system like it is a necessity. And that was the part that bugged me making bringing it up as if we as linuxers can't get on without Windows applications. Now don't get me wrong I have never said Windows was "bad" I was attempting to say that you left it for a reason, or never used it in the first place I don't know. I have a dual boot for a reason because Wine isn't the answer.

tcoffeep
September 19th, 2009, 02:10 AM
Well actually it was in the right thread, I was reading through seeing what people were saying about what linux distro they liked and Arch came up of course. Then someone mentioned that they couldn't set up Arch in less than 2 hours installing said list of applications and Wine was one. And for some reason I got instantly annoyed that Wine was considered in setting up a system like it is a necessity. And that was the part that bugged me making bringing it up as if we as linuxers can't get on without Windows applications. Now don't get me wrong I have never said Windows was "bad" I was attempting to say that you left it for a reason, or never used it in the first place I don't know. I have a dual boot for a reason because Wine isn't the answer.

Wine runs my Baldur's Gate 2 better than my Vista, same as Planescape:Torment. So it's a necessity for me.

fela
September 19th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Today's dose of reality: until Linux's software library fleshes out to the point of having acceptable solutions for all situations, Wine has a place. Deal with it.

Wine will never have a place until Microsoft itself contributes to it (then, as Linus himself said, Linux will have truly won).

Until Linux has proper video editing, gaming, and whatever support people that need that will have to use Windows.

HappinessNow
September 19th, 2009, 10:25 AM
I want fast, stable, and bleeding edge. Yet I don't want to have to setup a distro like Arch. I want a graphical installer... Can someone help me? NOT UBUNTU BTW. This is just me wanting to test a distro.
MacPup Opera (or other puppy derivative).

tcoffeep
September 19th, 2009, 04:18 PM
Until Linux has proper video editing, gaming, and whatever support people that need that will have to use Windows.


Wine runs my Baldur's Gate 2 better than my Vista, same as Planescape:Torment.

Unless it is like what I had said above. Wine has a place, and serves it well.

calrogman
September 19th, 2009, 04:38 PM
Debian Squeeze FTW! :)

Haven't tried the graphical installer, but the normal installer is just like the 'alternate' ubuntu installer, which might aswell be graphical.

Eventually, squeeze will become stable. If you want to keep it up-to-date, change squeeze to unstable.


vi /etc/apt/sources.list
:%s/squeeze/unstable/g
:wq

snowpine
September 19th, 2009, 04:47 PM
Eventually, squeeze will become stable. If you want to keep it up-to-date, change squeeze to unstable.


vi /etc/apt/sources.list
:%s/squeeze/unstable/g
:wq

No no no, squeeze=testing, sid=unstable !

~sHyLoCk~
September 19th, 2009, 05:14 PM
No no no, squeeze=testing, sid=unstable !

Lol, install unstable it will tell you debian squeeze. :P

C!oud
September 19th, 2009, 05:18 PM
Lol, install unstable it will tell you debian squeeze. :P

http://www.debian.org/releases/unstable/

~sHyLoCk~
September 19th, 2009, 05:31 PM
http://www.debian.org/releases/unstable/

Ok if you install sidux and then go to tty or the grub menu and just see what it says. ;) I know what unstable is but thanks for the link anyways. I don't remember if debian sid will say the same, it's been a while that I have used it.

fela
September 20th, 2009, 08:35 PM
Unless it is like what I had said above. Wine has a place, and serves it well.

It isn't a viable alternative though, and we should concentrate on making Linux native programs, not trying to get Wine to run better.

NormanFLinux
September 20th, 2009, 09:30 PM
There's Codeweavers, a commercial Wine application. The reality is some Windows applications will never get ported to Linux.

tcoffeep
September 20th, 2009, 09:53 PM
It isn't a viable alternative though, and we should concentrate on making Linux native programs, not trying to get Wine to run better.

Why must it be natively linux? What about classic games? Do you seriously think people will rewrite great games just to make them work natively on linux? No. So Wine has its place. Thank god for that. I don't rely on Wine for anything but my older games.