PDA

View Full Version : ArchBang 2.00-RC1 -Testers Invited!



~sHyLoCk~
February 28th, 2010, 02:51 AM
ArchBang is a simple GNU/Linux Distribution. It combines the lightweight Arch Linux with fast and simple Openbox window manager. It aims at providing the user an out-of-the-box Arch Linux experience with a pre-configured Openbox desktop suite whilst being simple and adhering to The Arch Way.
ArchBang is available in both 32bit and 64bit.

Official Website (http://www.archbang.org)
Official Forum (http://archbang.x.am)
BugTracker (http://bugs.archbang.org)

Currently ArchBang 2.00 RC2 is out for testing. Download info is on our website.

gletob
February 28th, 2010, 03:27 AM
I'll be downloading and testing it for y'all. I'll provide some feedback.

~sHyLoCk~
February 28th, 2010, 03:32 AM
I'll be downloading and testing it for y'all. I'll provide some feedback.

Thank you. :)

SomeGuyDude
February 28th, 2010, 03:46 AM
As an Arch/Openbox user, I'm not... entirely sure what the point of this one is.

swoll1980
February 28th, 2010, 03:51 AM
As an Arch/Openbox user, I'm not... entirely sure what the point of this one is.

The point is to make Arch a live cd and a installer. What is there not to get? It's like freeBSD/pcBSD

TheNessus
February 28th, 2010, 03:52 AM
The point is to make Arch a live cd and a installer. What is there not to get?
I suppose that because he is an arch user, he is opposed to a live cd concept, being that you need to compile everything from scratch?

earthpigg
February 28th, 2010, 03:54 AM
posting in this thread so i can find it later, when the time comes that i need to set up a computer wherein Arch is the appropriate distro.

are you guys going to do 6 month point releases?

maybe cut a new release every significant openbox point version?

TheNessus
February 28th, 2010, 04:01 AM
posting in this thread so i can find it later, when the time comes that i need to set up a computer wherein Arch is the appropriate distro.

are you guys going to do 6 month point releases?

maybe cut a new release every significant openbox point version?
baby killer.


:P

~sHyLoCk~
February 28th, 2010, 04:05 AM
Not sure about release cycle. For now we will release until we make a perfectly balanced and stable product. This is to provide users with a choice of using Arch ootb with openbox.
@ those who don't get the point of this, I have nothing to say to you,because whatever I say, you won't get the point anyway. Just read my first post, hope that helps. :popcorn:



I suppose that because he is an arch user, he is opposed to a live cd concept, being that you need to compile everything from scratch?

You don't need to compile everything from scratch in Arch. Or are you trying to imply something else? :/

MCVenom
February 28th, 2010, 04:08 AM
I suppose that because he is an arch user, he is opposed to a live cd concept, being that you need to compile everything from scratch?
I think you're thinking of Gentoo :p

WorldTripping
February 28th, 2010, 04:38 AM
OK, I don't normally do this, but I'm going to have to chip in with my 2p worth.

Ever since I discovered Ubuntu in 2006 and realised the flexibility of distros / desktop managers / windows managers / themes / et al I have been a distro *****.

I have had full installations of all of the Ubuntu mixes, smaller distros like Puppy and even experienced the joy of an Arch installation.

Currently I am running Crunchbang with OpenBox but have a VM with Fedora-12 / Mint08 / PCLinux09 running.

What I tend to do is get my system to perfection (in my opinion (conky, wallpapers etc)) and then tinker with it until I break it. Then I hop to another distro for a while (hence how I found crunchbang).

(I like it, learning new stuff.)

So yeah, I'm downloading this.

WorldTripping

(Guess this belongs in testimonials ! )

SomeGuyDude
February 28th, 2010, 04:43 AM
The point is to make Arch a live cd and a installer. What is there not to get? It's like freeBSD/pcBSD

Just not seeing the point. I suppose I can get why you'd make an Arch LiveCD for system recovery, but DE-specific Arch releases drive me batty. What's the benefit?

Let's say I want to use Arch and am dead-set on Openbox. What does this give me that I wouldn't have just by using a regular Arch installer?

swoll1980
February 28th, 2010, 04:49 AM
Just not seeing the point. I suppose I can get why you'd make an Arch LiveCD for system recovery, but DE-specific Arch releases drive me batty. What's the benefit?

Let's say I want to use Arch and am dead-set on Openbox. What does this give me that I wouldn't have just by using a regular Arch installer?

I think it's more for people who don't want to ftfm

SomeGuyDude
February 28th, 2010, 04:53 AM
I'm curious about that. The way I see it, one of two things is true:

1) It leaves the installer completely intact, making it kinda unnecessary as a separate disc outside of its LiveCD abilities.

2) It changes the installer and specifically puts OB on, which not only robs the user of some VERY useful education in how Arch works but takes some choice away.

WorldTripping
February 28th, 2010, 05:01 AM
So why is an Ubuntu server vanilla install with a choice of Desktop Manager different ?

Guess this just appeals to me at the moment as when I used Arch I had come from Ubuntu I was used to Gnome, now, later, that I am used to OpenBox and familiar with customising it I would feel comfortable with Arch and OB.

Like I said just my 2p.

WorldTripping
February 28th, 2010, 05:03 AM
Anyway, the D/Load server seems to be a little overwhelmed at the moment..

~sHyLoCk~
February 28th, 2010, 05:10 AM
I'm curious about that. The way I see it, one of two things is true:

1) It leaves the installer completely intact, making it kinda unnecessary as a separate disc outside of its LiveCD abilities.

We always wanted to leave the Arch installer as it is. ArchBang is nothing but Arch itself with openbox! Still don't see the point? I wonder how you see the point in thousands of other distros out there!
We actually at first thought of creating a new shiny installer written in zenity and bash but the idea became against The Arch Way which we are so fond of! Even senior Archers like Mr.Green suggested we keep the Arch installer as it is!


2) It changes the installer and specifically puts OB on, which not only robs the user of some VERY useful education in how Arch works but takes some choice away.

Robs the user of what? The user still has to learn how to install and use Arch!Just by providing them an openbox Live desktop we are not robbing them of anything!
Installing Xorg and openbox separately is not much education, real education is how to install and maintain your Arch system.

We are not re-inventing the wheel but simply modernizing it! This could be beneficial in many ways :
1. Arch ISOs are roughly released twice a year but that's not a general rule! There has been no releases so far! So to install Arch you have to use an outdated ISO with outdated kernel,initscripts and everything else. While you can do pacman -Syu to update your system this could be very confusing for new users! Just take the example of new mkinitcpio changes from klibc to busybox. What do the new user know about these? Howwill they decide when pacman asks them to replace? They obviously will be confused.
2. It is always good to have an updated version of ISOs even for a rolling release distros since changes are very huge from last release, in case of new install/re-install it will decrease your chance of breakage due to an update.

earthpigg
February 28th, 2010, 05:18 AM
Just not seeing the point. I suppose I can get why you'd make an Arch LiveCD for system recovery, but DE-specific Arch releases drive me batty. What's the benefit?

Let's say I want to use Arch and am dead-set on Openbox. What does this give me that I wouldn't have just by using a regular Arch installer?

i think you missed something -- making it installable was not the developer's idea. it was the idea of the users. skim the arch forums thread he linked.

he is merely responding to the wishes of his userbase. whether you or i or john's cat thinks those wishes are worthy or unworthy is irrelevant:

the developer is responding to the wishes of his/her userbase. in my opinion, that is justification enough.

snowpine
February 28th, 2010, 03:19 PM
Nice work (I think) Shylock! Any chance of a torrent for those of us with slow connections (mine stalled out last night while I was sleeping).

For those who "don't see the point," my personal curiousity about ArchBang stems from the fact that CrunchBang development is currently stalled at 9.04. I am getting a little antsy that my two #! computers won't be suported past October, and so I am considering my next step. If ArchBang works as promised, it will be a strong contender as a replacement (what with the rolling release and all).

I do not consider CrunchBang to be "just Openbox;" I consider it a full-blown "desktop environment" like LXDE. For my personality and workflow, I much prefer crunchbang-desktop to LXDE, and am glad it's being ported to other distros (Arch, Debian, etc).

I've set up Arch from scratch several times in the past (and use it every day) so I am not really worried about the learning experience. :)

~sHyLoCk~
February 28th, 2010, 03:46 PM
Thank you for your kind words snowpine.As of now we got no servers of our own,using omploader to upload.Due to increasing no. of hits and multiple downloads, the speed is very low. Apologies for that!
For torrents, I'll have to talk to Will.

RiceMonster
February 28th, 2010, 04:18 PM
2) It changes the installer and specifically puts OB on, which not only robs the user of some VERY useful education in how Arch works but takes some choice away.

To be honest, I'm not sure why everyone is so irked by this whenever there's an Arch spinoff. So what if someone wants to use an automated installer? Maybe they already know how to do it, but they just want to get a fast Arch install. If you're bothered by the fact that choices are taken away, I don't know why you'd be looking into an Arch spinoff in the first place.

Tibuda
February 28th, 2010, 05:23 PM
I'm curious about that. The way I see it, one of two things is true:

1) It leaves the installer completely intact, making it kinda unnecessary as a separate disc outside of its LiveCD abilities.

2) It changes the installer and specifically puts OB on, which not only robs the user of some VERY useful education in how Arch works but takes some choice away.

How does it take some choice away? You still can choose to download the official arch isos. It just gives another option.

And no, nobody learns anything useful by typing "pacman -S openbox xorg hal wicd thunar firefox ...", and adding some daemons to rc.conf. Eventually, the user will have to install/remove stuff from the system, then he'll have to learn how to use pacman or to tweak rc.conf.

snowpine
February 28th, 2010, 05:37 PM
I finally got AB2.0 downloaded and working in virtualbox, very nice so far! Is there an "official" place to report any bugs/suggestions?

The Real Dave
February 28th, 2010, 06:22 PM
Exactly what I've been looking for! I've been too lazy to set up Arch for myself, and this sounds perfect! I'll install and test it for ye :) Thanks :)

Berk
February 28th, 2010, 06:24 PM
Also downloading (slowly, probably more my end than anything else) will play with it in a VM and it might well work its way onto my eee if it all seems sound.

falconindy
February 28th, 2010, 06:33 PM
Good:
* It's Arch. Can't go wrong.
* OpenBox? Even better. Stacking WMs aren't my cup of tea, but if I had to pick one it'd be OB.

Bad:
* Please please please change the desktop fonts.

Not sure why people think this robs of you any education about Arch. This isn't replacing the installer. You still have to go through AIF or quickinst. Read the OP:


I had to modify the Arch setup script to get it to work with a Live System [thanks to calimero for the ideas] but it's still based on AIF (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Arch_Linux_Install_Guide#AIF.2C_the_insta llation_tool) [Arch Linux Installation Framework] and has the simple plain old ncurses-based installer!

~sHyLoCk~
February 28th, 2010, 06:36 PM
Hi, by desktop fonts, do you mean the conky font? Because the system font is set to Dejavu. Will change conky font.

Please make all bug reports in the Arch thread so that both me and will can see them. If you don't have an Arch Linux forum account, you can post here and I'll take care of it. :)

Thanks again all for testing!

spcwingo
February 28th, 2010, 07:05 PM
Downloading now. Thanks, bro.

dragos240
February 28th, 2010, 07:22 PM
The server is a tad slow at the moment, but it looks like a nice distro. I need one for a live cd, just something to keep around, just in case.

earthpigg
February 28th, 2010, 09:55 PM
For those who "don't see the point," my personal curiousity about ArchBang stems from the fact that CrunchBang development is currently stalled at 9.04. I am getting a little antsy that my two #! computers won't be suported past October, and so I am considering my next step. If ArchBang works as promised, it will be a strong contender as a replacement (what with the rolling release and all).

yeah, i gave up (http://sites.google.com/site/masonux/) on trying to make Masonux 9.10 work perfectly with ubuntu's 9.10 implementation of openbox and gdm:


February 16, 2010

I haven't had any luck resolving any of the annoying issues caused by upstream changes not meshing well with LXDE and openbox. Unless that changes, Masonux 9.10 r1 will be the final 9.10-based release. 10.04 will hopefully not be so wonky.

Masonux 9.10 r1 is Beta quality. If must have stuff only available in the Ubuntu 9.10 repositories and are willing to read through the release notes/discussion, it is available for download. However, if the "Just Works" aspect is important to you, you probably want to use Masonux 9.04.

my little one man project can get away with that without it reflecting to poorly on the project as a whole... something as big and well known as crunchbang would take a significant reputation hit. Masonux isn't well known enough to have a reputation that can be damaged. :P

i bet you could do your own ubuntu minimal install and get something together pretty much identical to what crunchbang 9.10 would look like if it existed.

back up your .conkyrc and .tint2, modify this guide (http://sites.google.com/site/masonux/home/notes-to-myself) to omit lxde, and add whatever you wish to the apt-get install line, restore the .conkyrc and .tint2, set up openbox to launch them at login, and enjoy.

if i tossed together an .iso that had the same imperfections as masonux 9.10 (http://www.boxcarhosting.net:8080/masonux/boardthread?id=gen&thread=35) but resulted in a desktop interface very similar or identical to crunchbang 9.04's (ill use the relevant dotfiles from #! 9.04), would anyone be interested? archbang would be more refined and certainly more up to date... but some folks are scared of venturing away from the ubuntu family. meh. i guess it isn't such a good idea after all. why fill a niche already filled? :P

MisfitI38
February 28th, 2010, 11:04 PM
Excellent work. Best of luck.
Only thing I could suggest (and agree with) is the font thing. Typing in URLs on firefox looks like I am signing an 18th century document with a plume/ ;)
Nice work, ShyLock. :popcorn:

spcwingo
March 1st, 2010, 02:49 AM
Lookin' good. :) Keep up the good work!

~sHyLoCk~
March 1st, 2010, 03:25 AM
Thanks MisfitI38,spcwingo !

TO-DO LIST

* Change the font [fixed]
* Check fstab
* Check rc.conf [fixed]
* Check nvidia [fixed]
* Check partitioning
└┼─ Check auto-prepare
* Put Arch Docs in CD [fixed]
* Use fglrx?
* Radeon kms [fixed]

swoll1980
March 1st, 2010, 04:08 AM
I've never seen a live cd boot so fast. Good job!

Asheguy79
March 1st, 2010, 04:11 AM
I have been using Archbang since 1.04 to run my laptop via a pen drive and it justs keeps getting better and better. I was all set to make the jump to awesome as my DM when I first read about Archbang and now I am hooked. Thanks Shy and Will! :D

The Real Dave
March 1st, 2010, 07:04 PM
First and foremost, I gotta say, I love this. I really wanted to get into Arch, and this will do perfectly for my training wheels. :)

I've a couple of suggestions for slight improvements.

1. Change the position of the Arch logo in the boot screen, from behind the options in the centre of the screen, to the lower middle of the screen, so that it does not appear to be behind the options. This may seem trivial, and probably is, considering the length of time you look at a boot screen for ;) However, it'll take two minutes in GIMP to fix. I'd do it myself, but I'm useless :)

2. The font colour in the right click menus (in programs) and the menu bars of programs, is too dark. It would be better I think as a lighter colour, perhaps that used in the font in xterm or the background colour of dialog windows (that light white with a tint of grey). It would improve contrast, making things easier to read and do so without wrecking the colour scheme, which by the way, is great.

3. My final suggestion for the moment is to do with the menu.xml. IMO, it just needs some changing around, to make commonly used programs more easily accessible, and to finish off the look by correcting capitalisation. I'm editing it at the moment, and I'll post it up here when I'm finished.

Sorry if these all seem trivial, but they were just my first impressions in the five or so minutes I've played with it. I'm gonna install it on my #! computer, and give it a run for it's money. I'll let you know if I find anything else, and again, sorry if these seem like empty complaints.

I think it a great idea, and I can't wait to play with it somemore :)

EDIT: Here's that edited menu.xml. I finished editing it in Gnome, so I'm not sure if it's perfect, but I think it's ok. It looks quite like the #! one, but it gives quick access to needed programs. Also cleaned up some menus, titles and added some shortcuts, like reconfiguring Openbox, and hTOP. I hope this is ok and that you find it useful.

~sHyLoCk~
March 2nd, 2010, 02:38 AM
Firstly,thanks a lot for testing it for us.
Secondly, no they are not trivial, in fact we could use every little detail that could be improved! Since me and will are working on this by just the two of us,we tend to forget/ignore a lot of minor details! So please let us know of any changes we could make to improve,however minor they maybe.
About menu.xml, I will check it out.Thanks for submitting. :)

MisfitI38
March 2nd, 2010, 02:47 AM
Seeding at insane speeds for whomever. :popcorn:

handy
March 2nd, 2010, 06:11 AM
Thanks ~sHyLoCk~ & Will. :)

Downloading now. I'm going to replace Mint-Xfce on my No.2 box with ArchBang.

Having your LiveCD will be very useful from time to time; being able to install a pre dedicated Arch/Openbox (which is where I live) on a machine is great. I'll just copy any config I need to from No.1 box.

I'll know more about that of which I speak after I've seen it & installed it.

Great stuff.

gymophett
March 2nd, 2010, 08:06 AM
I'm testing it and it's very nice. The only complaint I have is that big, bulky Arch cursor. It sort of bugs me. I like he regular dmz-white cursor.

It may just be me.

mips
March 2nd, 2010, 10:07 AM
Busy downloading now, will test on my laptop and probably install it as well ;)

handy
March 2nd, 2010, 10:55 AM
I initially had a lot of problems with the ArchBang LiveCD, I found that it was the CD. On burning a new one all problems are now gone. :)


The ArchBang LiveCD looks great! :D

It boots up faster than any other LiveCD I've used & into my favourite pair, Arch & Openbox, how could I not be happy?

I expect that ArchBang is going to have a very bright future.

mips
March 2nd, 2010, 08:25 PM
Loving it so far ;)

Still need to install some apps and remove others and do a bit of customising.

Also discovered hellanzb today, wow.

vrkalak
March 3rd, 2010, 06:52 AM
I have downloaded the ArchBang 2.00rc1 LiveCD with installer.

I had read WillExtreme's blog on How-to /setup-Arch
It's near impossible to find Arch as a true LivecD. They always want you to compile stuffs.
It was most refreshing to be welcomed to a GUI desktop, instead of the CLI.

The only problem, or minor glitch, was that I use a Wireless USB Modem on my PC and Wicd doesn't yet support these.

I've been wanting to build an Arch with Xfce, but I find Openbox very intriguing. I might stick with it.

Another new distro from the #!CrunchBang devs is: Squeezebang (Debian 'testing' with Openbox WM) I really like this one, as I have already built a Debian 'testing' with Xfce.
I am more comfortable around the base Debian system.

Either #!ArchBang or #!SqueezeBang ... both are minimal and very fast. Easily configurable once you know the basics of Openbox.

[Re] Smile
March 3rd, 2010, 07:51 AM
It's near impossible to find Arch as a true LivecD. They always want you to compile stuffs.


What are you talking about ?

handy
March 3rd, 2010, 08:24 AM
Smile;8908449']What are you talking about ?

I know!

Why do people think that Arch is built the way Gentoo is?

Arch packages come as binary (fast) installs, until you head out into the Arch User Repository = AUR. That is where you get to do some compiling.

The "Arch Base System" & the wide array of most popular packages are NOT in AUR (compile yourself) they are in the Arch binary repo's.

earthpigg
March 3rd, 2010, 08:37 AM
until you head out into the Arch User Repository = AUR. That is where you get to do some compiling.

well, you're computer does. i've never typed 'make' or 'make install' into the terminal on my arch system. but yeah, i get what you are saying.

regarding the notion that compiling is a normal thing to be doing on arch: if it's a large package and you are compiling, you will know. compiling and installing openoffice is something that will be taking you hours, not ~5 minutes + the download.

handy
March 3rd, 2010, 08:55 AM
well, you're computer does. i've never typed 'make' or 'make install' into the terminal on my arch system. but yeah, i get what you are saying.

That's because the PKGBUILD file, does everything for you.



regarding the notion that compiling is a normal thing to be doing on arch:

It is not.



if it's a large package and you are compiling, you will know. compiling and installing openoffice is something that will be taking you hours, not ~5 minutes + the download.

OpenOffice is in the binary repo's, it will take a tiny fraction of the time of compilation to install on an Arch system.

[Re] Smile
March 3rd, 2010, 12:03 PM
While compiling is a normal thing, it shouldn't be the first or only way of installing something - as long as there are PKGBUILD's, we're safe :)



OpenOffice is in the binary repo's, it will take a tiny fraction of the time of compilation to install on an Arch system.

.. which is broken ( nothing critical but an annoying document icon applied to all of my custom executables :D ).

Tibuda
March 3rd, 2010, 12:11 PM
OpenOffice is in the binary repo's, it will take a tiny fraction of the time of compilation to install on an Arch system.

both OpenOffice and Go-OO

handy
March 3rd, 2010, 02:46 PM
Smile;8909038']
While compiling is a normal thing, it shouldn't be the first or only way of installing something - as long as there are PKGBUILD's, we're safe :)

What do you mean?

Arch is a binary distro.

What you are saying makes NO sense? As first & foremost Arch packages DO NOT NEED TO BE COMPILED. Sorry for shouting, but, how many times does it have to be said?

AUR packages DO require compiling. They are in a repository that is separate to the Arch repo's. The AUR packages are contributions that are maintained by some members of the community, for the benefit of those members of the community that wish to partake.


Smile;8909038']
.. which is broken ( nothing critical but an annoying document icon applied to all of my custom executables :D ).

If so, (I don't know personally, as I don't need to use it) it will be fixed quickly as per usual.

[Re] Smile
March 3rd, 2010, 02:50 PM
What do you mean?

Arch is a binary distro.

What you are saying makes NO sense? As first & foremost Arch packages DO NOT NEED TO BE COMPILED. Sorry for shouting, but, how many times does it have to be said?

AUR packages ARE compiled. They are in a repository that is seperate to the Arch repo's. The AUR packages are contributions that are maintained by some members of the community, for the benefit of those members of the community that wish to partake.


tint2 (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/tint2-svn/tint2-svn/PKGBUILD), mpd-pulse (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpd-pulse/mpd-pulse/PKGBUILD), ... - where the magic ( pre-compiled binaries from a different server ) comes in ?


If so, (I don't know personally, as I don't need to use it) it will be fixed quickly as per usual.

It's been a month or so and no one have fixed it yet .. :p

Tibuda
March 3rd, 2010, 02:54 PM
Smile;8909038']While compiling is a normal thing, it shouldn't be the first or only way of installing something - as long as there are PKGBUILD's, we're safe :)

Those are the ways to install stuff on Arch:
1. "pacman -S packagename": this is the preferred way, that will download precompiled binaries from the official repositories, just like apt-get.
2. Download .pkg.tar.gz file and install with "pacman -U": the equivalent of download and install a .deb file, but no app is distributed in this format.
3. AUR, this is the easier way to install stuff from source. There are some wrappers like yaourt and packer that make it just as easy as using pacman.
4. Create your own PKGBUILD, or import it from ABS. This requires some extras knowledge, but no more knowledge than you need to "./configure; make; sudo make install", but you have the advantage of be able to uninstall it with pacman.

handy
March 3rd, 2010, 03:04 PM
Smile;8909529']tint2 (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/tint2-svn/tint2-svn/PKGBUILD), mpd-pulse (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpd-pulse/mpd-pulse/PKGBUILD), ... - where the magic ( pre-compiled binaries from a different server ) comes in ?

You still aren't making any sense to me, can you try to be more descriptive, give more details, so I can understand what you are saying please?


Smile;8909529']
It's been a month or so and no one have fixed it yet .. :p

Well, it is probably the biggest set of packages in the Linux world, so I guess it is their problem to sort out, not that of the Arch dev's.

[Re] Smile
March 3rd, 2010, 03:09 PM
You still aren't making any sense to me, can you try to be more descriptive, give more details, so I can understand what you are saying please?

I know, because your replies are way too off of the topic I tried to cover.
You said AUR packages are already compiled - I gave you a few examples so you could see you were wrong .. what else needs to be described here ?

handy
March 3rd, 2010, 03:16 PM
Smile;8909620']
I know, because your replies are way too off of the topic I tried to cover.

Sorry, they weren't meant to be...


Smile;8909620']
You said AUR packages are already compiled - I gave you a few examples so you could see you were wrong .. what else needs to be described here ?

If I said that? It was a typo, because everyone knows that, that is absolutely NOT the truth.

AUR packages MUST BE COMPILED, unlike the lovely binaries in the standard Arch repo's. :D

Peace.

[Re] Smile
March 3rd, 2010, 03:23 PM
Sorry, they weren't meant to be...



If I said that? It was a typo, because everyone knows that, that is absolutely NOT the truth.

AUR packages MUST BE COMPILED, unlike the lovely binaries in the standard Arch repo's. :D

Peace.

Didn't expected it to be that way but I'm happy we're finally on the same planet :D

handy
March 3rd, 2010, 03:33 PM
Smile;8909671']Didn't expected it to be that way but I'm happy we're finally on the same planet :D

Sh*t man, Arch has been my prime distro for 2 years!

I haven't gone back to find the typo yet, but if you think I meant the opposite of the truth, then it had to be a typo. or damn bad grammar on my behalf. :D

handy
March 3rd, 2010, 03:40 PM
@[Re] Smile: I just had a reread of my posts & I didn't make a typo. I'm afraid you just misunderstood me, quite badly actually.

Which is ok, I do the same thing from time to time myself...

The only problem that can still linger at this point belongs to no one else but ego. :)

& as the immortal Skyhooks once sang, ego is not a dirty word. :)

MisfitI38
March 3rd, 2010, 06:56 PM
..AUR packages ARE compiled...

I think that herein lies the issue. The above should actually read "AUR packages DO require compiling." ;)

Anyways, still off topic, but don't forget about the ports-like ABS, with which you can install the ABS tree under /var/, and play with all official PKGBUILDs. :)

The Real Dave
March 4th, 2010, 01:02 AM
Can someone point me to a good guide on how to set up RT2500 USB wireless in Arch? Or is the Arch Wiki best? :) It doesn't seem to work automagically in ArchBang. :(

handy
March 4th, 2010, 03:41 AM
I think that herein lies the issue. The above should actually read "AUR packages DO require compiling." ;)

Anyways, still off topic, but don't forget about the ports-like ABS, with which you can install the ABS tree under /var/, and play with all official PKGBUILDs. :)

You are absolutely correct MisfitI38.

I wonder why I think that you are a great proof reader/editor?

Thanks, I'll go & change the post.

@[Re] Smile: Sorry, I blew it. ;)

mips
March 4th, 2010, 05:30 PM
Reboot & Exit does not always work from the menu for some odd reason.

How do I get Brasero to see inserted media? Thunar sees it fine.

~sHyLoCk~
March 14th, 2010, 07:20 AM
GIT: http://gitorious.org/archbang/archbang

We now have a separate forum: http://archbang.x.am

NOTE:This forum was created by request. This was not in my todo list!:p

And we also have a few new contributors.So if anyone is interested join in and contribute!

Regards
sHy

~sHyLoCk~
March 27th, 2010, 03:04 AM
And we have a website now: http://www.archbang.org

Currently planning on RC2 release.:popcorn:

uberlube
March 27th, 2010, 03:15 AM
Arch and OB? i <3 u

~sHyLoCk~
April 2nd, 2010, 06:07 AM
ArchBang 2.00 RC2 is out.