PDA

View Full Version : Arch Linux Talk



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

xXx 0wn3d xXx
June 11th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Yesterday, I decided to install Archlinux. Ranked number 20 at distrowatch, Arch is optimized for i686 (Pentium 2+) processors and uses the pacman package manager. It is like Gentoo, because it compiles all packages from source. So here is how I thought Arch Linux was.

Installation:
Installing Arch Linux is very difficult. There is no graphical or even ncurses install at all. Everything is text based. I partitioned my HDD to make room, and then I proceded to install the base system. While X packages and such are on the cd you must install the base system first and then install x and gnome later. I found a great guide here that was very useful. (http://wael.nasreddine.com/Articles/Articles/Install_Arch_Linux.html)

Booting up:
When you boot Arch, there is no splash screen, making you think: "Great I messed it up." There is no splash in Arch because it aims to be simple, cutting-edge, and fast. Boot was very fast too. My computer started in about 25-30 seconds (from just after grub to a fully usable desktop) because Arch compiles everything from source, optimizing it for your system. It was great having something so fast.

Installing software:
Installing something from source is as easy as running "pacman -S program." Arch uses the pacman package manager and it was great. It was fast, simple, and it gets the job done. In seconds the program I wanted was installed and ready to use.


Setting up the system
Arch is very nice but it is very difficult to setup. I couldn't get my wireless working with ndiswrapper, due to a problem in the Arch kernel. On top of that, Arch did not detect my USB devices such as my PSP and Ipod.

Overall:
Arch is great but it is still getting there. It's really great but a little complex and difficult to use. My rating of Archlinux is 8/10. Now, I am getting ready to try Gentoo.

kabus
June 11th, 2006, 07:12 PM
It is like Gentoo, because it compiles all packages from source.

It isn't. It is a binary distro like Ubuntu.

Sheinar
June 11th, 2006, 07:25 PM
Like kabus said, Arch is a binary distribution, though you can build your own packages from source using ABS.

pelle.k
June 11th, 2006, 07:32 PM
Arch primary choice of installing new software is through pacman, and that is installing BINARY, not source. You can very easily install source packages through ABS (arch build system) though...
Arch recognized all my usb perhapsials though... Are you sure you have udev, and hal deamons added (and in the right order) in deamons array?

nalmeth
June 11th, 2006, 07:36 PM
hmm, sounds kind of cool
I like the idea of installing programs with 'pacman'

Arch was/is one of those distros I really never gave a fair chance. I like the sound of fast and clean.

One day anyway

RAV TUX
June 11th, 2006, 08:06 PM
Yesterday, I decided to install Archlinux. Ranked number 20 at distrowatch, Arch is optimized for i686 (Pentium 2+) processors and uses the pacman package manager. It is like Gentoo, because it compiles all packages from source. So here is how I thought Arch Linux was.

Installation:
Installing Arch Linux is very difficult. There is no graphical or even ncurses install at all. Everything is text based. I partitioned my HDD to make room, and then I proceded to install the base system. While X packages and such are on the cd you must install the base system first and then install x and gnome later. I found a great guide here that was very useful. (http://wael.nasreddine.com/Articles/Articles/Install_Arch_Linux.html)

Booting up:
When you boot Arch, there is no splash screen, making you think: "Great I messed it up." There is no splash in Arch because it aims to be simple, cutting-edge, and fast. Boot was very fast too. My computer started in about 25-30 seconds (from just after grub to a fully usable desktop) because Arch compiles everything from source, optimizing it for your system. It was great having something so fast.

Installing software:
Installing something from source is as easy as running "pacman -S program." Arch uses the pacman package manager and it was great. It was fast, simple, and it gets the job done. In seconds the program I wanted was installed and ready to use.


Arch is very nice but it is very difficult to setup. I couldn't get my wireless working with ndiswrapper, due to a problem in the Arch kernel. On top of that, Arch did not detect my USB devices such as my PSP and Ipod.

Overall:
Arch is great but it is still getting there. It's really great but a little complex and difficult to use. My rating of Archlinux is 8/10. Now, I am getting ready to try Gentoo.


My advice is to just use Gentoo,...I tried the live CD on my EM64T and it was smooth and flawless, detected all hardware, razer mouse, surround sound speakers, etc.

Gentoo is a beautiful distro.

Thanks for posting your problems with Arch, I have been wondering about it. I think I will skip on it and stick with Ubuntu and Gentoo.

xXx 0wn3d xXx
June 11th, 2006, 08:10 PM
My advice is to just use Gentoo,...I tried the live CD on my EM64T and it was smooth and flawless, detected all hardware, razer mouse, surround sound speakers, etc.

Gentoo is a beautiful distro.

Thanks for posting your problems with Arch, I have wondering about it. I think I will skip on it and stick with Ubuntu and Gentoo.
I'm getting ready to try the Gentoo live cd and possibly install it. How difficult is it to learn and use ?

RAV TUX
June 11th, 2006, 08:21 PM
I'm getting ready to try the Gentoo live cd and possibly install it. How difficult is it to learn and use ?

Gentoo is not difficult at all to learn to use. No worries you'll be fine and the Gentoo Forums are very responsive and helpful(a lot like the Ubuntu forums here). Have fun.

I am sure you will be pleased.

xXx 0wn3d xXx
June 11th, 2006, 08:32 PM
Gentoo is not difficult at all to learn to use. No worries you'll be fine and the Gentoo Forums are very responsive and helpful(a lot like the Ubuntu forums here). Have fun.

I am sure you will be pleased.
Thanks for the reassurance. The live cd was very nice so I have decided to install it.

RAV TUX
June 11th, 2006, 08:41 PM
Thanks for the reassurance. The live cd was very nice so I have decided to install it.

cool,...please follow up in this thread and let us know how things are progressing for you. I have only run the live CD but I will probably do the install soon.

I plan to dual-boot:
XPsp2/Gentoo on my EM64T

I run Ubuntu exclusively on my second older computer.

egon spengler
June 11th, 2006, 08:42 PM
It is like Gentoo, because it compiles all packages from source.

Others have addressed this



Installation:
Installing Arch Linux is very difficult. There is no graphical or even ncurses install at all. Everything is text based.

Ncurses IS text based, in fact the arch installation is ncurses based



Booting up:
When you boot Arch, there is no splash screen, making you think: "Great I messed it up." There is no splash in Arch because it aims to be simple, cutting-edge, and fast.

What splash screen do you mean? A boot splash? There's no boot splash because Arch has the philosphy of giving you the minimum and you add what you want as opposed to, say, ubuntu which gives you a tonne of stuff and you need to strip out what you don't want. I guess you must be fairly new to Linux if this is the first time you've seen a system boot with no boot splash. Anyway, check the Arch wiki for gensplash/fbsplash and you can get a great boot splash easily

John.Michael.Kane
June 11th, 2006, 08:57 PM
Others have addressed this



Ncurses IS text based, in fact the arch installation is ncurses based



What splash screen do you mean? A boot splash? There's no boot splash because Arch has the philosphy of giving you the minimum and you add what you want as opposed to, say, ubuntu which gives you a tonne of stuff and you need to strip out what you don't want. I guess you must be fairly new to Linux if this is the first time you've seen a system boot with no boot splash. Anyway, check the Arch wiki for gensplash/fbsplash and you can get a great boot splash easily


Why must someone be new to linux just cause they say there's not splash screen. FYI Ubuntu at one point did not boot with a splash screen. so to make a statement that one must be new to linux based souly on not seeing a splash screen is uncalled for, and untrue.

egon spengler
June 11th, 2006, 09:11 PM
FYI Ubuntu at one point did not boot with a splash screen. so to make a statement that one must be new to linux based souly on not seeing a splash screen is uncalled for, and untrue.

That's exactly my point son, until Oct last year ubuntu didn't have a splash screen (officially at least) ergo would you not conclude from that tidbit of info that someone on an ubuntu forum surprised to not see a boot splash has most likely not been using Linux that long?

And as far as it being "uncalled for" it's not really an insult to say someone is new to Linux is it? I'm new to using Arch, I'm new to using Subversion at work and I'm new at trying to fathom what it is that you think is untrue. I don't consider any of that something to be ashamed of

xXx 0wn3d xXx
June 11th, 2006, 09:13 PM
Ok, I'm installing Gentoo now. I can't believe how many options there were. I like how many options and questions it gives. The live cd comes with gnome, kde, xfce, and many other desktop enviroments and window managers. And to the person who stated that I must be new to Linux, that is not true. I have used Linux for 7 months.

RAV TUX
June 11th, 2006, 09:21 PM
Ok, I'm installing Gentoo now. I can't believe how many options there were. I like how many options and questions it gives. The live cd comes with gnome, kde, xfce, and many other desktop enviroments and window managers. And to the person who stated that I must be new to Linux, that is not true. I have used Linux for 7 months.

It's good to hear the install is going good for you.

I'm going to do my install when I get home from work.

Gentoo is simply awesome!

John.Michael.Kane
June 11th, 2006, 09:27 PM
That's exactly my point son, until Oct last year ubuntu didn't have a splash screen (officially at least) ergo would you not conclude from that tidbit of info that someone on an ubuntu forum surprised to not see a boot splash has most likely not been using Linux that long?

And as far as it being "uncalled for" it's not really an insult to say someone is new to Linux is it? I'm new to using Arch, I'm new to using Subversion at work and I'm new at trying to fathom what it is that you think is untrue. I don't consider any of that something to be ashamed of


Frist off i'm not your son. second the OP could have been using some other form or linux that did have a bootsplash which there are many. so to make the assumption is wrong. however it's your opinionas well as your assumption, and it's between you, and the OP. I spoke my peace on it.

egon spengler
June 11th, 2006, 09:43 PM
Even I know that bootslashes are a somewhat recent addition to Linux, anyone who has been using Linux for some time would not be shocked to see no boot splash. That's not assumption or opinion, it's simple deductive reasoning.

From you bringing up Hoary lacking a splash as somehow countering my point that splashes are a more recent development I can see that perhaps reason is something that you might be new to. But hey, as I already said, there si nothing wrong with being new to something. In fact you might note that the OP didn't seem to get his feelings hurt by the comment

John.Michael.Kane
June 11th, 2006, 09:47 PM
egon spengler feel what you want this topic is done. take up your thought with OP. as your feelings seems to be the only right one.

egon spengler
June 11th, 2006, 11:17 PM
I don't have anything to "take up" with the thread starter. I made a comment which can I sincerely assure was not intended as pejorative and I honestly was very surprised to see you leap to his defence from my heinous non accusation.

Now you seem to feel commited to informing me how little you care and don't intend to respond. I think we both know that there is close to zero chance of you not responding again so of course, feel free to remind me once more that you won't respond

matthew
June 11th, 2006, 11:25 PM
Let's not take the thread off topic with silly bickering...back to discussing the OP's experience with Arch Linux and his related new experience with Gentoo and we can all stop defending one another and ourselves for now, okay? In simpler words...let go and move on.

RAV TUX
June 12th, 2006, 12:37 AM
It's good to hear the install is going good for you.

I'm going to do my install when I get home from work.

Gentoo is simply awesome!
HOLD EVERYTHING !

so I got home from work, hugged my beautiful wife, we made dinner togther and lets just say life is good;)

Now while my wife is in the shower I sat down to install Gentoo.

but I noticed some ISO icon on my XPsp2 desktop...there is one I hadn't burned to CD yet.

So since I sort of collect and test Linux Distros...I figured I should burn it.

Then after the burn I was labeling it and noticed that it is a live CD so I figured what the heck...I'll give it a spin...


well............this Distro is knock-your-socks-off-and-make-your-toes-curl Awesome!

dyne:bolic 2.0 (code named: "DHORUBA")
http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

dyne:bolic is shaped on the needs of media activists (http://italy.indymedia.org/), artists (http://dyne.org/perform.php) and creatives as a practical tool for multimedia production: you can manipulate and broadcast both sound and video with tools to record, edit, encode and stream, having automatically recognized most device and peripherals: audio, video, TV, network cards, firewire, usb and more; all using only free software!

I'm using it now as I write this message.

I may have to triple-boot: XPsp2/Gentoo/dyne : bolic

anyway I'm going to continue checking this out...

xXx 0wn3d xXx
June 12th, 2006, 12:58 AM
I agree Gentoo is awesome. My Broadcom wifi card even worked in the Live cd and it is working now. I am still learning the basics though and upgrading everything. The gentoo wiki can really solve all of your problems. Compiling everything from source is a great idea and I really like it.

briancurtin
June 12th, 2006, 01:37 AM
Yesterday, I decided to install Archlinux. Ranked number 20 at distrowatch, Arch is optimized for i686 (Pentium 2+) processors and uses the pacman package manager. It is like Gentoo, because it compiles all packages from source. So here is how I thought Arch Linux was.

Installation:
Installing Arch Linux is very difficult. There is no graphical or even ncurses install at all. Everything is text based. I partitioned my HDD to make room, and then I proceded to install the base system. While X packages and such are on the cd you must install the base system first and then install x and gnome later. I found a great guide here that was very useful. (http://wael.nasreddine.com/Articles/Articles/Install_Arch_Linux.html)

Booting up:
When you boot Arch, there is no splash screen, making you think: "Great I messed it up." There is no splash in Arch because it aims to be simple, cutting-edge, and fast. Boot was very fast too. My computer started in about 25-30 seconds (from just after grub to a fully usable desktop) because Arch compiles everything from source, optimizing it for your system. It was great having something so fast.

Installing software:
Installing something from source is as easy as running "pacman -S program." Arch uses the pacman package manager and it was great. It was fast, simple, and it gets the job done. In seconds the program I wanted was installed and ready to use.


Arch is very nice but it is very difficult to setup. I couldn't get my wireless working with ndiswrapper, due to a problem in the Arch kernel. On top of that, Arch did not detect my USB devices such as my PSP and Ipod.

Overall:
Arch is great but it is still getting there. It's really great but a little complex and difficult to use. My rating of Archlinux is 8/10. Now, I am getting ready to try Gentoo.
its not really complex or difficult, because that is how its made. when things are made to be simple and they arent simple, that would be difficult.

by the way, theres no graphical installer, nor will there ever be.

RAV TUX
June 12th, 2006, 02:47 AM
I agree Gentoo is awesome. My Broadcom wifi card even worked in the Live cd and it is working now. I am still learning the basics though and upgrading everything. The gentoo wiki can really solve all of your problems. Compiling everything from source is a great idea and I really like it.

if you'r impressed with Gentoo, prepare to be blown away with

dyne:bolic 2.0
http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

K.Mandla
June 12th, 2006, 10:47 PM
My flirtation with Arch linux seems to have come full circle. I loved the speed and simplicity of it, but for whatever reason I couldn't get certain nitpicking little things to work just right.

For example, I have an ancient Linksys WPC11 wireless card that uses the Prism2 chipset -- it installs under Ubuntu just fine, but under Arch it just sat and blinked at me. After a day or two of wrangling, I decided I could get (more or less) the same effect by installing an Ubuntu server (which configured my wirless for me ... sigh) and building up an XFCE desktop around it.

I know there are some things Ubuntu handles for me, and I appreciate that. I'm still a n00b, so there are just some things that I need help with. One day I'll go back to Arch, and maybe find more to love about it. But for now, I'm an unashamed Ubuntunut.

:rolleyes:

RAV TUX
June 13th, 2006, 05:28 AM
I'm downloading StartCom MultiMedia Edition 5-ML-5.0.5 (Kessem), it seems like a pretty sweet distro.

http://www.startcom.org/?lang=en&app=15

June 12, 2006: Probably one of the largest and most complete Linux distribution ever released to the public, the new StartCom MultiMedia Edition release ML-5.0.5 offers out of the box capabilities, unheard yet of an operating system.

Designed as a multi media workstation with music studio and advanced video editing applications, it certainly also provides the desktop user with the most applications for the day to day use. More than that, multiple choices are offered, being it the integrated desktops and its tools, the various office applications and sound-video tools.

Read the full press release (http://www.startcom.org/?app=14&rel=18) or download it from here (http://www.startcom.org/?app=15#ML-5.0.5)...

Bugs should be reported to StartCom Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.startcom.org/), for question you might find answers at the StartCom Forum (http://forum.startcom.org/viewforum.php?f=4). Screenshots are here (http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=623&slide=21&title=startcom+multimedia+edition+ml-5.0.5+screenshots).

Have Fun!

raublekick
June 13th, 2006, 02:19 PM
i think i might give arch a try again sometime soon. my last experience left a good bit to be desired since i couldn't get my eth0 working correctly. but when it didn't work in dapper, i got a new one. i think arch had a newer kernel, which was what caused the problem in dapper.

anyways, arch seems really cool, and i want to give it an honest shot now that i'm just using openbox anyways.

maagimies
June 14th, 2006, 03:31 PM
Arch Linux is a great distro, I'm currently running it alongside with Kubuntu, and I like what I see.
I don't agree with the OP though with the hardness of installing though, if you have read the docs on the website, and know what you're doing, you shouldn't have too hard time.

raublekick
June 14th, 2006, 03:45 PM
Arch Linux is a great distro, I'm currently running it alongside with Kubuntu, and I like what I see.
I don't agree with the OP though with the hardness of installing though, if you have read the docs on the website, and know what you're doing, you shouldn't have too hard time.


Before I installed it I read so many guides and stuff, thinking it was gonna be super cryptic and that I would basically be guessing my way through. Turns out, with a guide it really isn't hard at all.

Kindred
June 14th, 2006, 04:25 PM
Arch is great.. and yeah it's not that hard to install/use really. I'd been using Ubuntu for about a month before I switched to Arch and didn't have any problems.

zba78
June 14th, 2006, 04:45 PM
I used ARCH as my primary distro for a long time. It's a lovely distro that gives you the feeling of total control over your system.

It's not, however, targeted at new-comers to linux.

benplaut
June 18th, 2006, 07:50 AM
>>>>>>>><<<<<<<

Intro
A few weeks ago, dapper was released. Being on the beta cycle since flight 2, it was a bit of a suprise to not be getting 200 updates per day. In fact, some of dapper's software is already a sub-version or two out of date. Summer break was finally here, and I wanted something more. Something more fun.

Background
Arch Linux was created by Judd Vinet as a personal distro specifically for the author's needs. Taking many ideas from Crux, it aimed to be fast, efficient, and for goodness sake -- KISS!! Simple does not always mean GUI everything. This simple refers to well annotated and logical config files, a simple BSD-style init, and a nice simple package management system. There are two ways to look at Arch from the perspective of a seasoned distro-junkie; it's either a bleeding-edge slackware with a great package manager, or gentoo... from binary.

Install
Arch's installer is simple and efficient. Coming from a bcakground involving gentoo, I took the time to print out the 30 page install manual -- not as impressive as gentoo's 90 page opus, but at least I didn't have to buy a $30 printer catridge afterwards. When the boot the install CD, it goes into a minimal Busybox system. To start the install, merely execute the ncurses script. The installer itself is very powerful, quite similar to Debian's. First, you partition your drive using cfdisk/fdisk and create your fstab through an Ncurses menu; i had already partitioned using the gparted livecd, but the fstab setup worked perfectly. Next, you select your install source, either network or CD. The next step, of course, is selecting and installing your packages. It was hard to tell if they were on network or CD, but it seemed that the CD included a very minimal X, and alot of command line userspace tools. Yes, VIM is included by default :) ...emacs is not. The next step, somewhat optional, is to configure the system's rc.conf, recheck your fstab, and several other configuration files. You usually don't need to change anything, but it's worth checking. The configs are very well annotated, and documented even better in the manual. The final step was to install a bootloader. I was planning to add it to my dedicated /boot partition (great for distro hopping, btw), but noticed in he manual that it let you edit your menu.lst, if you use grub, before installing. I decided to go that far in, then copied down the entry, to be sure that it would work when adding to my own menu.lst. With all my tasks done, I rebooted to begin post-install. As a quick note to anyone, it's very useful to either write down everything you do during an install in a notebook, or log it in a spare computer.

Post Install
When I rebooted, I went into ubuntu since I had not installed a bootloader. Copying the installer-configured entry went perfectly (Side note: I went ahead and added vga=792 to the boot line, since the default res is very hard to do anything serious with), and I then rebooted into my new arch. As the install guide suggested, I logged into the root account, with no password, and made a new user account after setting the su password. I was hooked up to an ethernet line, so I decided to learn a it about the package manager (more on that later) while getting my WiFi up. Another important tip to distro-hoppers: The first thing you should install on minimalist distros is a command line IRC client, such as irssi, weechat, and bitchx. Information is invaluable, and being able to share your issues with others via IRC is a wonderful thing. The second thing you should install, and learn to use very well, is screen. Think of screen as a window manager for the CLI. It lets you have many programs open in the same terminal, via tabs or a split screen, and lets you scroll of in a command line. It is an invaluable tool for any CLI work. Configuring WiFi was my next task. Drivers for my card, an Atheros using MadWiFi drivers, was available in the unstable repository, and worked pretty well after ading ath0 to rc.conf; actually, they didn't work at first, but it was user error. Once i did it the correct way, everything was fine. Installing X was a relatively simple task, as I copied over my xorg.conf from Dapper.

Package Management
Arch's package manager is a blessing apon distro-kind. It is simple, efficient, fast, and handles source packages with ease, and the distro has a wonderful thing called AUR. The arch user repository consists of hundreds (if not thousands) of user contributed PKGBUILDS; simple config files that give the Arch Build System's makepkg instructions for pulling down the source, ./configuring, and making a pkg.tar.gz out of it. Given that AUR pkgbuilds are not tested much, they don't all work. I've had prety good luck with most packages, so far. Scripts and python programs have been made to automatically pull down PKGBUILDs from the AUR, but it's generally easy enough to do it by hand. Pacman handles the packages themselves. It's a wonderful tool -- pacman -Ss to search for a package, pacman -S to install it, pacman -A to install a local package, pacman -Sy to pull down the latest repository cache, and pacman -Suy to update the cache, then do a complete update to the latest.

Userspace/Post post install
Installing my usual work environment was a very simple task, all the software I use was either in the repositories, or in AUR. I reused most of my configuration from ubuntu, as well. Part of my reason to use Arch was to slim down, so I decided to get rid of many of the gnome programs I had been using. Gedit was replaced by the wonderful medit, which can do everything as Gedit, plus much more. As an extra, it's faster and more configurable. My usual terminal in ubuntu was yakuake, but having all those additional kde and qt libs for a mere terminal seemed a bit extreme, so I made a little shell script to have a pop-down terminal, using screen and urxvt. Nautilus was replaced by Thunar, which I really prefer to the former. One extra dependency over my other apps, and it's less than a meg. Wonderful.

Community
As a whole, the Arch community is more knowledgable than ubuntu's. Yes, there are plenty of gurus in ubuntuforums and #ubuntu, but Arch is really a more advanced distro, and thus more of the users are knowledgable. In general, the people seem to be friendly, albeit with a lower tolerance for stupidity than ubuntu. That's a good thing! The one question I asked on the forum did not get answered, but I put in it that there was another possibility I wanted to try -- 12 hours later, I did and it worked. There's another very nice thing about the arch community -- ALOT of people, probably more than half, are using lightweight WMs; finally!

Final Thoughts
I suppose an ubuntu server install or debian sid would give me a similar result, but I really like Arch. The community is great, the package manager is excellent, and it's really fast. I'm staying with Arch for now. It took a bit longer to configure than other distros, but now that that's done, it's very little work to keep it up. Arch is on a rolling release cycle, meaning that you can just continue to pacman -Suy and always have the latest, kinda like gentoo. I'm not leaving the ubuntu community, but I'm not using the distro for a while, at least until Edgy is far into dev.

Recommendation
This is a logical next step for those who have tweaked their debian-base beyond all recognition, especially those who use lightweight environments. Hell, it's worth switching just for AUR.

Have fun!

<Edit>
holy sh*it that's alot of text

loell
June 18th, 2006, 07:57 AM
its more like a comparison than a review ;)

benplaut
June 18th, 2006, 08:23 AM
comparing, but to about 5 other distros :D

Adrian_b
July 26th, 2006, 12:32 PM
Heh, wanting to do an Arch install but it's already a bit hard for me :)
Need to set the keyboard layout to latin-be1 and need to get my WiFi working without a connection already..

However, i have plenty of time and i like screwing around since i have a safe Ubuntu install :)

I have a REALLY weird experience atm.
I set up my gateway and DNS in /etc/resolv.conf and i rebooted in Ubuntu to chroot into my Arch installation and go from there.
However, my WiFi Atheros card already works so it seems, WITHOUT me supplying the WEP and ESSID. :s

RAV TUX
August 7th, 2006, 12:02 PM
I have decided to start a series of threads specifically for technical help for other Distros...the Distro is listed in the thread title. This is primarily for Ubuntu users who test or use other distros and feel most comfortable seeking help in our own community. In no way does this superceed the help you should also be getting from the perspective Distro., in fact I encourage you to be as active in their forums as you are here and post ideas, knowledge and solutions here to provide a reference point to share, reference links are encouraged.

***Arch Linux Tech Talk***

Threads merged:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=198982
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=231311
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=194470

Rumor
September 14th, 2006, 02:14 AM
I'm just curious to know if any of the other Arch users here have tried the packages for Gnome 2.16 yet.

The release is discussed in this thread: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=24958

I've added this to my pacman.conf file, but have not yet taken the plunge.



#32 Bit
[karsten]
Server = http://arch.os-zen.net/pkg/karsten/i686


Wondering if anyone else has jumped in yet and what success you've had.

Virogenesis
September 17th, 2006, 01:48 PM
I tried, had to upgrade dbus and basically it didn't agree I wouldn't install gnome 2.16 if i were you and damn you for the link.
You borked my machine :)

Kindred
September 18th, 2006, 05:17 AM
I tried a few days ago but it was not too stable and so I quickly reverted back to Openbox. Probably best to wait till it is done by the devs anyway..

mahy
October 18th, 2006, 06:53 AM
Hi there,

anybody uses Arch Linux? I think i might give it a try, but i'd like to read some testimonials first. Please share your experience a bit, tell me what it's like. TIA

5-HT
October 18th, 2006, 09:24 AM
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=118971
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=231311

Kindred
October 18th, 2006, 11:02 AM
Arch is my distro of choice.. I switched to Arch after a month of Ubuntu (and Linux), so it's really not all that hard in general - though you'll want to be a little comfortable with the command line. The installer is okay and simple enough, most people start with a base system, update with pacman and then go from there.

Arch is perhaps the fastest distro i've used so far, simple & stripped down in nature you'll need to edit rc.conf to add your services and such yourself. This file is also used to configure a few things that are typically spread out over several configuration files in other distributions, just another attempt at keeping things simple.

Pacman is a great package manager & the repos are kept well up to date for the most part, they are of course smaller than debian but have most everything i've wanted and there is also the AUR which makes it easy to build and install packages that aren't in the repositories.

Anyway I could go on but suggest just trying it out, I dual booted with Ubuntu for a few days till I was on top of everything.

Rumor
October 18th, 2006, 02:09 PM
I dual boot Ubuntu and Arch. As it has been noted in most every post about it, Arch is very fast. I like the Pacman package manager better than Apt, and the idea of a rolling release beats (IMO) performing distribution upgrades. The forums are no where near as active as these, but you'll find them very helpful. Its development is slower than Ubuntu's, but it is a still rock solid OS for me.

mahy
October 18th, 2006, 07:57 PM
THX. Uhm, i was kinda scared off by the requirement to manually edit important system files during installation... I dunno if it's worth trying, coz i'm using Zenwalk right now. I have it downloaded and burnt, so i might try it some day.

K.Mandla
October 18th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Uhm, i was kinda scared off by the requirement to manually edit important system files during installation. ...
Don't be spooked by that; I think I had to only edit two configuration files -- the host file and the rc.conf (? ... it's been a while) file. It's really not that tricky.

Give it a try, and if it doesn't work, put the CD on a shelf somewhere and let it roll around in your subconscious for a month or so. Then try again. You might dig it. ;)

xXx 0wn3d xXx
October 18th, 2006, 09:44 PM
I used Arch for about 2 months and it was great. The only problem was that my networking broke and after that I have tried numerous installs but I can't get network-manager to work. I am currently only using Debian Etch right now so I am thinking of installing Archlinux again...

ruhar
October 20th, 2006, 12:34 AM
If you do an install, just remember to additionally edit your grub configuration (when you install the bootloader) and change our initrd line to:

image=/boot/vmlinuz26
label=ArchLinux
append="root=/dev/hdXY"
initrd=/boot/kernel26.img
read-only

If you don't reference kernel26.img, you won't be able to boot. This is the result of Arch switching over to mkinitcpio with the 2.6.18 kernel upgrade recently.

xXx 0wn3d xXx
October 20th, 2006, 02:20 AM
If you do an install, just remember to additionally edit your grub configuration (when you install the bootloader) and change our initrd line to:

image=/boot/vmlinuz26
label=ArchLinux
append="root=/dev/hdXY"
initrd=/boot/kernel26.img
read-only

If you don't reference kernel26.img, you won't be able to boot. This is the result of Arch switching over to mkinitcpio with the 2.6.18 kernel upgrade recently.

Yes, I have realized this. Thanks to this thread I am back on Arch and loving it ! Debian + Arch is awesome. Network-manager is working great too.

K.Mandla
October 20th, 2006, 10:55 PM
If you don't reference kernel26.img, you won't be able to boot. This is the result of Arch switching over to mkinitcpio with the 2.6.18 kernel upgrade recently.
Hmm. That might explain a few things. ... :-k

RAV TUX
October 21st, 2006, 04:37 PM
"Where's a thread about Arch?" Thread:

merged here.

bodhi.zazen
October 23rd, 2006, 05:44 AM
Just found this thread.

Arch Linux has been my primary OS for 6 months now.

The most difficult part was installation. Actually it is not so difficult, it just takes time.

Print and read this:Arch Linux Install Guide (http://www.archlinux.org/static/docs/arch-install-guide.html)

The best thing to do IMO is to just install the base system from CD, then add to it via pacman.

Advantages of Arch: Speed. Takes less time then Gentoo. pacman is awesome. Once you install Arch, sys admin is a snap. This is what takes so much time at installation, reading and understanding the text files for sys admin. You will learn the CLI very quickly.

If you install Arch, try running a light weight WM like Fluxbox, Openbox, or IceWM.

If I can be of assistance to you re: Arch Linux, feel free to PM.

bionnaki
October 23rd, 2006, 05:59 AM
I love arch, but I cannot get my wireless card working. I have a wmp54g using rt2500 driver + wpa. any ideas?

bodhi.zazen
October 23rd, 2006, 07:02 AM
I love arch, but I cannot get my wireless card working. I have a wmp54g using rt2500 driver + wpa. any ideas?

Have you tried this Arch Linux Wireless Setup (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Wireless_Setup) ?

Does the wireless card work on Ubuntu?

bionnaki
October 23rd, 2006, 07:22 AM
yup, ive gone over the wiki & posted on the forums.

my card works great in ubuntu by modifying /etc/network/interfaces and then adding my dns info to /etc/resolv.conf

here's a copy of my interfaces:



# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).

# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
address 127.0.0.1
netmask 255.0.0.0

# This is a list of hotpluggable network interfaces.
# They will be activated automatically by the hotplug subsystem.
mapping hotplug
script grep
map ra0

auto ra0

iface ra0 inet static
address 192.168.1.33
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.1
pre-up ifconfig ra0 up
pre-up ifconfig ra0 down
pre-up ifconfig ra0 up
pre-up ifconfig ra0 down
pre-up iwconfig ra0 essid "abc"
pre-up iwconfig ra0 mode Managed
pre-up iwpriv ra0 set AuthMode=WPAPSK
pre-up iwpriv ra0 set EncrypType=TKIP
pre-up iwpriv ra0 set WPAPSK="1234"
pre-up ifconfig ra0 up


hmmm. in arch, I can install the rt2500 driver just fine - just not connect. I can see the networks, so the card/driver does work. I guess I dont understand where to input the above info...tried everything.

bodhi.zazen
October 26th, 2006, 07:59 AM
Sorry, I do know how to fix this.

I would referr you to IRC:

irc.freenode.net
#archlinux

Very helpful folks.

kalle314
October 27th, 2006, 12:19 PM
I am planning on setting up Arch-Ubuntu dual boot.
What would be the best way to handle partitioning and boot loader?
Is it easy to partition the HD in the Arch installer, with cfdisc, or would it be better to use another partitioning tool? What partitions would I need?
The installation Guide talks about boot partition, but it seems that is not necessary. Is it easy to let Arch use the same swap partition as ubuntu?

The Arch Installation Guide is very helpful, but it would be even better if it said exactly what questions you will get and what the options will be during installation. For example, this paragraph sounds a bit scary:

If you plan on setting up a multiboot system, it might be a better option to install the bootloader in your root or /boot partition, and refer to that boot sector from whatever other boot loader you want to reside in the master boot record.
Does anyone know exactly what options to chose here?
I thought the installer might say something like "Type in the path to the location where you want to install GRUB:", and that I would have to cancel my installation since I would not know what to write then.

bodhi.zazen
October 27th, 2006, 01:35 PM
Does anyone know exactly what options to chose here?
I thought the installer might say something like "Type in the path to the location where you want to install GRUB:", and that I would have to cancel my installation since I would not know what to write then.


You have several options.

Make a boot partition. This should be ext2 and 500 mb should be more then enough. Mount it in Arch as /boot. Add (copy-paste) the Ubuntu entry from Ubuntu_root/boot/menu.lst to boot_partition/grub/menu.1st. Use your Ubuntu partition as is. Install Arch, install grub into the Arch Partition. Edit Ubutntu_root/boot/grub/menu.lst to inlcude an entry for Arch as below. You can do the same using Arch as primary. In this event install grub into the Arch partition and the MBR. Add an entry for Ubutu in Arch_root/boot/grub/menu.lst

I prefer method 1 as it is easier to maintain.

Arch Linux:
# (0) Arch Linux
title Arch Linux
root (hd0,z)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/hdxy ro
initrd /boot/kernel26.img

where hd0,z is your arch partition in grub speak and /dev/hdxy is your arch partition in Linux speak. You can find this information in Arch_root/boot/grub/menu.1st.

cfdisk it a fine partitioning tool. Your alternate would be to boot to Ubuntu and use GParted.

You can share /swap between Arch and Ubuntu.

Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

bodhi.zazen
October 27th, 2006, 01:41 PM
Arch Lnux Install Guides:

Start here. Quick guide (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=25508)
This guide uses KDE but you can easily change to fluxbox or what have you.

Difinitive Guide: Arch Linux Install Primer (http://www.archlinux.org/static/docs/arch-install-guide.html)

kalle314
October 27th, 2006, 02:18 PM
Thanks, I think I'll give it a try during the weekend.
I think I will create a ext3 partition for arch using qparted on systemRescueCD before I start the installation.

Rumor
October 27th, 2006, 02:35 PM
I am planning on setting up Arch-Ubuntu dual boot.
What would be the best way to handle partitioning and boot loader?


You can always choose not to install the bootloader at all. After you install the kernel, read the information screen that is presented to you. As you scroll down, you will see an entry that you can use in your existing Ubuntu /boot/grub/menu.lst

I usually copy that information down and manually edit my Grub list.

If hard drive space is not an issue for you, then creating a small /boot partition and installing grub there rather than in your mbr is probably the way to go.

Good luck on your installation!

bodhi.zazen
October 27th, 2006, 05:48 PM
You can always choose not to install the bootloader at all. After you install the kernel, read the information screen that is presented to you. As you scroll down, you will see an entry that you can use in your existing Ubuntu /boot/grub/menu.lst

I usually copy that information down and manually edit my Grub list.

I am not sure about Arch, but with some (if not most) Linux installs if you do not install grub to the root partition you may not get a /boot directory and will not be able to boot. I usually choose to install GRUB to the root partition.

This is different then installing to the MRB.

pelle.k
October 27th, 2006, 06:28 PM
hey! gnome 2.16 moved from testing :) yay!

kalle314
October 28th, 2006, 12:43 PM
Doing the basic install and getting Arch to dual boot with ubuntu was very easy and even faster than installing ubuntu!

Now I only need to get it to connect to internet, start X and gnome, and 100 other small things!

bodhi.zazen
October 28th, 2006, 01:59 PM
Doing the basic install and getting Arch to dual boot with ubuntu was very easy and even faster than installing ubuntu!

Now I only need to get it to connect to internet, start X and gnome, and 100 other small things!

Welcome to arch. It will not take long. pacman is very fast.

Enable your reositories and start with pacman -Syu.

The "100 things" will not take long.

/etc/rc.conf is the MAIN CONFIGURATION file. This is where you enable your internet card and daemons.

I'm sure you will be up and running very fast. Also try the arch wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page)

See the section on the Left "getting started".

pelle.k
October 28th, 2006, 10:18 PM
Theres a little 'snag' currently. I've been left without a working grub after updating the system from a 0.7.2 install. You'll probably experience the same thing with a fresh install (we're all waiting for the 0.8 release :) )
Just boot the arch install cd, and follow the instructions to boot into your system, and from there, run 'grub-install /dev/hdX' or sdX if it's installed on a sata drive...
also remember to switch to mkinitpcio right after upgrading to kernel 2.6.18. How? Just edit /boot/grub/menu.lst and change initrd26.img to kernel26.img

bodhi.zazen
October 30th, 2006, 07:20 AM
Theres a little 'snag' currently. I've been left without a working grub after updating the system from a 0.7.2 install. You'll probably experience the same thing with a fresh install (we're all waiting for the 0.8 release :) )
Just boot the arch install cd, and follow the instructions to boot into your system, and from there, run 'grub-install /dev/hdX' or sdX if it's installed on a sata drive...
also remember to switch to mkinitpcio right after upgrading to kernel 2.6.18. How? Just edit /boot/grub/menu.lst and change initrd26.img to kernel26.img

LOL :lol:

Arch kernel 2.6.18 got rid of initrd in favor of initcpio. All you need to to do is change initrd26.img to kernel26.img in menu.lst:

Edit /boot/grub/menu.lst:

Change:
title Arch Linux
root (hd0,x)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/hdxy ro
initrd /boot/initrd26.img


To:
title Arch Linux
root (hd0,x)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/hdxy ro
initrd /boot/kernel26.img

Arch should now be bootable form HD.

stoffepojken
November 1st, 2006, 04:46 PM
I love ArchLinux. But it lacks in UTF-8 compabalty. Nano is a mess with swedish characters.

pelle.k
November 2nd, 2006, 04:14 PM
@bodhi.zazen;

Arch kernel 2.6.18 got rid of initrd in favor of initcpio. All you need to to do is change initrd26.img to kernel26.img in menu.lst
Yes, and i wrote that in my previous post. This isn't the issue, even though it may look like it.
I've had my boot sector "invalid or not found". I use gag on mbr, and gag boots my root partition, where grub _was_ before i updated. This has happened to me on all occasions i've updated from 0.7.2 cd to "now". It might not happen to all of you running grub from MBR though...

@stoffepojken;
As you may have seen, i'm also swedish by nationality. I have had _no_ errors at all with uft8 compability nor swedish charachters in nano...
This is what i use in my /etc/rc.conf
LOCALE="en_US.utf8"
HARDWARECLOCK="localtime"
TIMEZONE="Europe/Stockholm"
KEYMAP="sv-latin1"

This is the line i uncommented in /etc/locale.gen
en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8 (you're supposed to run locale-gen after uncommenting a line from this file...)

K.Mandla
November 8th, 2006, 09:15 AM
If you do an install, just remember to additionally edit your grub configuration (when you install the bootloader) and change our initrd line to:

image=/boot/vmlinuz26
label=ArchLinux
append="root=/dev/hdXY"
initrd=/boot/kernel26.img
read-only

If you don't reference kernel26.img, you won't be able to boot. This is the result of Arch switching over to mkinitcpio with the 2.6.18 kernel upgrade recently.
Thanks again for this. I retried an Arch install from 0.7.2 base and sure enough, it crapped out after an update. Changing the line of code worked perfectly. Cheers! :D

manmower
January 13th, 2007, 12:02 PM
Just thought I'd share this short write-up by Cactus (http://e.cactuswax.net/blog/articles/2007/01/archlinux-mini-review.html) that covers some of the interesting aspects of Arch Linux. It's a little different from your typical review as it was written by a long time Arch Linux user, but I think it does a good job describing the essential features that set Arch apart from other distros, and as such it might have some useful information for all you distro hoppers out there. ;)

jas0
January 14th, 2007, 03:37 AM
I liked the review. I'm damiliar with Slackware but I've never tried archlinux. Now I'm intrigued and I just printed out the installation guide. :)

xabbott
January 14th, 2007, 06:39 AM
I highly recommend Archlinux to a Linux power user. You should be comfortable with command line and conf files. I find the configuation much better than most "modern" distros. It's slim, does what you want, does what you tell it to. If you are unsure here are my tips...

Use the Alpha installer (http://archlinux.org/news/279/).
Read the wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org)!

xabbott
January 14th, 2007, 07:01 AM
btw here is a screenshot of my arch desktop
http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/data/500/thumbs/Screenshot225.png (http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/4720/ppuser/196736)

kazuya
January 16th, 2007, 03:58 PM
I think, this may be my next goal after Zenwalk or Sabayon{Gentoo} if not sooner. Is it possible to create or to have packages required as is the case with a slack system where I can simply download the .tgz files from linuxpackages.net or elsewhere for installation?

Does this distro provide all the development tools I need to eventually learn enterprise environments like Fedora and SUSE? That is skills needed for embedded linux, xml, oracle, ASP, javascript, perl, etc?

celsofaf
January 16th, 2007, 10:34 PM
I think, this may be my next goal after Zenwalk or Sabayon{Gentoo} if not sooner. Is it possible to create or to have packages required as is the case with a slack system where I can simply download the .tgz files from linuxpackages.net or elsewhere for installation?

Did you read the mini-review? At least part of the answer lies there.


Does this distro provide all the development tools I need to eventually learn enterprise environments like Fedora and SUSE? That is skills needed for embedded linux, xml, oracle, ASP, javascript, perl, etc?

If anything is not available in pacman, you can always compile from source. Likewise for any distro.

K.Mandla
January 26th, 2007, 07:44 AM
Anyone have any tips on inserting modules into the kernel during the Arch boot process?

I'm trying to avoid using autodetection, but invariably whatever order I use in rc.conf leaves me without a working component (not necessarily one in particular, but maybe the mouse doesn't work, or the PCMCIA doesn't work, or something).

I have a full list generated with hwdetect, and I've filtered out the ones I don't want, and I know what I can drop altogether because I can blacklist them with autodetection and still get a working system. But rearranging the ones I want in the MODULES=() list never seems to work.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what order the modules need to be inserted. Any ideas?

K.Mandla
January 26th, 2007, 09:58 AM
Never mind. I figured it out. I took the list of modules I wanted and searched the modules.dep file for each one, then listed them in the order they appeared in that file. System is working fine ... and I shaved four seconds off my boot time by not autoloading! Woo-hoo! :biggrin:

Rumor
January 26th, 2007, 03:57 PM
Never mind. I figured it out. I took the list of modules I wanted and searched the modules.dep file for each one, then listed them in the order they appeared in that file. System is working fine ... and I shaved four seconds off my boot time by not autoloading! Woo-hoo! :biggrin:

Huh, I have never thought to try that. I'll bet that would have made a couple of non-working systems become working ones. I've always just added them to the end of the list making sure that cups and gdm were the last two. Thanks for the tip!

pelle.k
January 26th, 2007, 04:28 PM
He was acctually talking about the
# Modules to load at boot-up (in this order)
# - prefix a module with a ! to blacklist it
#
MODULES=()
array, from which you can manually load modules, instead of letting udev do the job automaticly. :)
Not the
# Daemons to start at boot-up (in this order)
# - prefix a daemon with a ! to disable it
# - prefix a daemon with a @ to start it up in the background
#
DAEMONS=()
array. ;)

K.Mandla
January 26th, 2007, 06:21 PM
Yup, modules, not daemons. :D

By the way, I heartily recommend doing that for anyone who wants to trim the lag they get from udev.

P.S.: Background the network process too; that makes a huge difference as well.

pelle.k
January 26th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Why do i get the impression that you like to tweak stuff k.mandla? ;)
Yeah, starting the network can speed up your boot, but can also cause samba mountpoints in fstab to fail, if network is not up by the time netfs daemon is run.

Rumor
January 26th, 2007, 09:02 PM
Yup, modules, not daemons. :D

Bah, it's going to be time for bifocals soon . . .

K.Mandla
January 26th, 2007, 10:50 PM
Yeah, starting the network can speed up your boot, but can also cause samba mountpoints in fstab to fail, if network is not up by the time netfs daemon is run.
True, but I don't use samba, and backgrounding the network startup works without error for me. When I break something, I take a step backward and try again. ... :D

manmower
February 24th, 2007, 11:42 AM
Arch Linux 0.8 Voodoo Beta 2 .ISOs released (http://archlinux.org/news/296/). As usual with the rolling release system this is just a snapshot of the current packages with a new installer. 0.8 ISOs should be coming real soon now.

celsofaf
February 24th, 2007, 02:56 PM
Some days ago I installed the beta1 for 0.8. No problems whatsover, and I'm even considering using Arch in place of Kubuntu as my main distro. :D They are doing an awesome job on Arch.

K.Mandla
February 25th, 2007, 11:11 PM
Arch Linux 0.8 Voodoo Beta 2 .ISOs released (http://archlinux.org/news/296/). As usual with the rolling release system this is just a snapshot of the current packages with a new installer. 0.8 ISOs should be coming real soon now.
Right on. I like the 0.8 installer thus far. 0.7.2 was always a little clunky for me.


Some days ago I installed the beta1 for 0.8. No problems whatsover, and I'm even considering using Arch in place of Kubuntu as my main distro. :D They are doing an awesome job on Arch.
+1! It's a close No. 2 to Ubuntu for me.

Have you seen KDEmod (http://www.kdemod.ath.cx/) for Arch? I hear good things about it. If you dig KDE, you might want to take a look at it. xabbott (http://xabbott.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/kdemod/) seemed to like it too.

celsofaf
February 26th, 2007, 01:28 AM
Have you seen KDEmod (http://www.kdemod.ath.cx/) for Arch? I hear good things about it. If you dig KDE, you might want to take a look at it. xabbott (http://xabbott.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/kdemod/) seemed to like it too.

Yes I have taken a look at it after I did a pacman -S kde on my system, which installed all of KDE. I'll give it a try later, it should be awesome to put in place of "standard" KDE. Being a KDE fan all the way, I must see it working. :)

Another thing I love about Arch, besides of course pacman, is the AUR, whose use can even be made easier by installing the yaourt (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=5863&O=0&L=0&C=0&K=yaourt&SB=n&SO=a&PP=25&do_MyPackages=0&do_Orphans=0&SeB=nd) package (also provided in the AUR), which allowes you to search/install/uninstall/query/etc packages from the AUR the same way you'd do for the repositories packages. And yes, it also searches the standard repositories. Sweet!

K.Mandla
February 26th, 2007, 08:42 AM
Agreed. pacman is cool, but yaourt is like a dream come true. I love the entire ABS and AUR systems too. If I can get around the kernel panics I get when I insert my wireless card into my laptop, I'll go Arch on all my machines, across the board. :biggrin:

Self-aggrandizing screenshot: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2211586&postcount=466

pelle.k
February 26th, 2007, 08:39 PM
pacman and makepkg is almost the sole reason i use arch linux.
Unfortunately i've grown very tired of the rolling release system. I don't care about how stable arch might be, even though it's has a constantly changing nature. There's always something new breaking when other stuff gets fixed. It might not be that "critical" or hard to fix, but i rather fix my system every 3-6 months or so than once a week.

If there was a freeze every 3 months, arch would totally be the no 1 distro in my opinion. People tell me; "dont update then!". Well, it's a nice idea, but you can't really roll back if something goes wrong. One example is; suspend2ram hasn't been working for me since kernel 2.6.19-1 and because quite a few packages are compiled against 2.6.20.2-1, i can't roll back unless i manually replace the dependant packages as well. (if they even still exist in repo).

I've since then been looking at a few alternatives. Sidux looks promising. Up to date. Clean kde (lite install), to build a system from. The only downside is, it's technically a rolling release too, since it's based on debian sid :(

And no, i won't install ubuntu core, and add kde from there. It's a shame a distro is released with a dysfunctional ndiswrapper, even though it's supposed to be stable. OK i _might_ consider feisty when it's released. edgy broke suspend2ram for me so i have been pretty much ubuntu free for 6 months now.

On the bright side, frugalware 0.6 is going to be released very soon. It's uses pacman and makepkg as package manager, though its based on slackware (sort of anyway. not my favourite linux distro...)
I have had it installed before, and it's a nice distro. Too bad the forums pretty much suck, and the irc channel isn't too crowded. The devs can be pretty harsh (especially one of them...), but they are very competent. Just don't mention the AUR to those folks. It's like people sharing PKGBUILDS, are incompetent lamers without any clue of what they are doing, from their point of view.

K.Mandla
February 26th, 2007, 11:16 PM
One example is; suspend2ram hasn't been working for me since kernel 2.6.19-1 and because quite a few packages are compiled against 2.6.20.2-1, i can't roll back unless i manually replace the dependant packages as well. (if they even still exist in repo).
I've noticed that can be a problem. I occasionally run into things that break on update, and can't really be fixed. I had font issues the other night after an xorg update.

Perhaps some of the eagerness to move to the 2.6.20 kernel comes with the 0.8 installer coming out. But you're right, there is a subtle benefit to staging releases, rather than rolling releases.

I'm going to give a look at frugalware, now that you mention it. :D

manmower
February 27th, 2007, 12:08 AM
I think the rolling release system is one of the killer features of Arch... maybe I just got lucky with my hardware or maybe I don't have the same needs as other people, but pacman -Syu has usually been painless for me. If not there is almost always a fix or workaround.

antenna
February 27th, 2007, 03:04 AM
I tend to find that things are broken more often than I would like in Arch, though I ran it for all last year and put up with it because the base and philosophy is so clean. Nothing major, just small breakages in packages that mean I have to find alternatives for things fairly often which takes time and often means having to install more dependencies than I would like to get an app of equal functionality working. For instance, Gnomebaker wont work at all for me after an upgrade, automounting in Gnome means having to run GDM for some reason, and there are too many drives being dislayed in Nautilus. I typically run Xfce but that seems to have issues with mounting right now also. It's just little things like that. I'm just sticking with Debian (testing) for now, I miss the latest software but that's the nature of something stable I guess.

bodhi.zazen
February 28th, 2007, 08:30 PM
Hmm ...

I must admit I like the rolling release style of Arch. I have not had any major problem although I have occasionally had more minor ones ...

At any rate, downgrading an arch package is possible :

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Downgrade_packages

celsofaf
March 5th, 2007, 04:35 AM
After playing with KDE, I just started trying XFCE in Arch after a 'pacman -S xfce4'. Hey, it ROCKS! Amazingly fast anc clean! Way too much better than Xubuntu.

After all my tweaking learning Arch, I think I ended up with a much better system than any of the *buntus I tried. That is, at least for my taste. The best part of it all is: I got to learn a lot about Linux those few weeks I'm playing with Arch. Learned to properly use the shell (yes, got to learn a lot more yet), and learned the shell is NICE! Tweaking xorg.conf at hand for my needs proved more than necessary to properly use my keyboard when running X, and it's a good learning experience. Not to mention, of course, all the stuff about daemons and the init system.

Someone might say that it's too difficult to do things at hand like we need with Arch. I say it's not: their Wiki and Forums have more than enough information to guide anyone, step-by-step even. Once you learn how to do it, you do it without thinking. :) Now, surprisingly enough or not, I found the Gentoo forums also a very, very good source of help for the troubles I had. Didn't even had to ask for anything: search power!

I'm feeling comfortable enough to consider Arch as my main work distro already.

Yes, Feisty Fawn already has a partition on my hard drive awaiting for it!

unbuntu
March 6th, 2007, 09:22 PM
I've been using Arch on and off on my secondary PC. Last weekend I finally got the impulsion to get it on my primary PC. I like the tweaking and install just what you need, and the performance is top-notch.

However, I do think they need some improvement especially on the documentation side. Some work has been done to clean up their wiki but it's far from enough. As a distro that targets the crowd that are willing to learn stuff, the wiki lacks the level of broadness and detail that's found in Gentoo wiki. Also, some wiki articles are out of date; some are poorly written. I think if Arch wants to attract more competent Linux users, official handbooks like the Gentoo ones are very much in need.

Also, different distros use different init systems, and Arch happens to use the not-so-popular BSD-like init script. Don't get me wrong, I like the straight-forwardness of this init system but it's very different from the more widely used Debian one. But of course, once you know the concept, it'd be fairly easy to migrate.

Nevertheless I like the system I've built now and more likely I'll use it as my primary Linux distro.

chaosgeisterchen
March 8th, 2007, 09:20 AM
The reason I now rarely visit the ubuntu forums is my switch from ubuntu to Arch Linux. The main reason was the bleeding edge software and the rolling release system as well as the rc.conf centralized configuration. I love the way, things are working in Arch and it's very fast. Not to mention the fabolous KDEmod (www.kdemod.ath.cx) desktop environment with very engaged maintainers (10 patched versions of 3.5.6 so far!).

K.Mandla
March 10th, 2007, 10:57 PM
I need to try that KDEMod. Everybody raves about it. Of course, if it converts me to KDE, it will be a miracle of Biblical proportions. ;)

pelle.k
March 11th, 2007, 01:19 AM
It's alright... I stay with the vanilla kde though...
If you lika a modded qt and kde, then by all means, go for it. I acctually prefer the arch vanilla kde _because_ of the untouched nature of it.

manmower
March 26th, 2007, 08:48 AM
The long awaited "libified" pacman 3 is in testing. Here (http://archlinux.org/news/303/)'s the announcement, which links to a detailed list of the many changes.

I've probably got a few hours to go before it hits the Belnet mirror but will be testing this as soon as possible.

celsofaf
March 26th, 2007, 09:38 PM
After a few days in testing it should be moved to current. Great!!

manmower
April 6th, 2007, 08:18 PM
More news from the Arch front (http://www.archlinux.org/news/308/).

Forthcoming releases will be numbered by year and month and, more importantly, from now on there will be new ISOs with each kernel upgrade!

celsofaf
April 7th, 2007, 04:42 AM
More news from the Arch front (http://www.archlinux.org/news/308/).

Forthcoming releases will be numbered by year and month and, more importantly, from now on there will be new ISOs with each kernel upgrade!

I keep wondering why they took so long to do it. Since bringing new "features" never is in Arch's plans, and since every release is only in fact a current snapshot of -current- (with perhaps improvements in the installer), this is the most obvious thing to do. Great news!!

:guitar:

darweth
April 8th, 2007, 03:35 AM
So after 3 1/3 months of Ubuntu goodness (my first Linux experience), I decided to once again go a little overboard and completely wipe my Ubuntu partition to install Arch! COLD TURKEY, baby! This is what I did from Windows to Ubuntu as well.

Now... first off let me say that I think Arch is great. It was pretty easy to get into once I learned a few pointers. My GNOME Arch is now basically identical to the Ubuntu GNOME and I am mad comfortable. Got all my xchat/amarok scripts, file-roller context menus, software, configurations, etc. I appreciate the snappyness of it, but I think this is a bit exaggerated. It is faster than Ubuntu, for sure, but it is hardly a deal broker. I really like that I installed the base and built upwards so my menus look slim and are filled with only the goodies I want. Nice!

Anyway, it was a great learning experience. I now got a perfect GNOME box for what I do. I even tried kdemod for a bit and it was not bad, but I definitely am not experienced with that DE.

I am a little underwhelmed though. I guess I am just too basic of a user to really appreciate the advantages of Arch. Rolling is a nice benefit, but I guess I strongly overrated this option. Constantly needing the latest is far from a necessity. For your average Joe who just surfs the web, types papers, listens to music and chats... I will continue to HEAVILY recommend Ubuntu. It is fine and dandy. It just works!! The speed of other distros like Arch is greatly overstated (though it is a bit faster).

Maybe my thoughts will change as I use Ubuntu for more than a day. hehe. Don't get me wrong... I am loving it, but I just don't see the point for most users. Only an advanced power user needs the power offered here in this kind of environment. But now that it is configured, I will probably keep Arch on this box for all time as long as packages are maintained and the distro continues receiving great support. I might just stick with Ubuntu on any future boxes though.

pelle.k
April 8th, 2007, 11:21 AM
It is faster than Ubuntu, for sure, but it is hardly a deal broker.
I don't think that has ever been the one selling of arch linux. If you've tried arch linux, and the speed is the only thing that impressed you, i say you've missed what really make arch linux so great.
ABS, makepkg/makeworld, the initscripts/system, pacman, more than one kernel flavour in repos, very nice and competent forum, the AUR, the KISS attitude etc. etc. is.

Then again, if you're not an advanced user, you might not appreciate these things at all.

I like the fact that it's a bit faster than most distros out there though. :)

celsofaf
April 8th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Then again, if you're not an advanced user, you might not appreciate these things at all.

Well, I don't think myself as an advanced user, yet I do appreciate every feature you described about Arch. Besides, I'm coming to a conclusion: if you want to become an "advanced user", Arch (but not only Arch, of course) suits your needs.

Did I have a hard time configuring/using Arch? No. Why? Everything you need is available on the forum (not only Arch's forum, of course), the wiki, google, mailing lists... Just search, and ask!, and you're fine.

darweth
April 8th, 2007, 04:07 PM
I don't think that has ever been the one selling of arch linux. If you've tried arch linux, and the speed is the only thing that impressed you, i say you've missed what really make arch linux so great.
ABS, makepkg/makeworld, the initscripts/system, pacman, more than one kernel flavour in repos, very nice and competent forum, the AUR, the KISS attitude etc. etc. is.

Then again, if you're not an advanced user, you might not appreciate these things at all.

I like the fact that it's a bit faster than most distros out there though. :)

Ah. Sorry if I sounded a little harsh. :) I guess the differences and advantages aren't immediately obvious to someone who has almost-exclusively used Ubuntu or to someone who just wants convenience and immediate function.

I did use the AUR for the first time this morning and it was a pleasure. Also been reading about yaourt which looks to make things even easier. Haven't tried it yet!

But I will continue to use ARCH and hopefully grow with the distro. Then I will look back on my original post in this thread with shock and befuddlement!

pelle.k
April 8th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Then I will look back on my original post in this thread with shock and befuddlement!
:D

Since some time back, i've been running arch most of the time. This does not mean i think ubuntu is a bad distro! If you ride with the defaults most of the time, and don't do any big changes under the hood, ubuntu is great. However, when you want to customize your system from the ground up, you'll do yourself a favour if you choose arch.

There are countless examples, but like back when the ndiswrapper version i got with dapper didn't work with my usb dongle, i could easily build another set (as a package) in arch. I just had to make _one_ change in a PKGBUILD. Hell, i could even rebuild my whole kde without too much effort.

Another nice side effect is you learn what is started in your DAEMONS array in rc.conf, because you _have_ to know what it is you're putting there...
Before i started using arch i didn't know that alsa initscipt was responsible for saving/restoring volume levels at bootup/shutdown. little things like that.

K.Mandla
April 12th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Has anyone run into weird errors with yaourt 0.6.5 and pacman 3? yaourt seems to spit out an error message anytime I try to install something from AUR. I think it's using a flag (a -w flag?) that pacman 3 doesn't handle. I looked on the Arch forums but didn't see anything related.

It doesn't slow me down really, since I just tell yaourt to move everything into /var/abs/local and build it with makepkg. I was just thinking I might be doing something funky that I could fix on my end.

Cheers!

Rumor
April 13th, 2007, 03:45 AM
Huh, what do you know? I had not tried yaourt since upgrading to pacman 3.0. I read your message here and thought I'd give it a try. I tried to install Mozilla's Sunbird from the AUR and got:

==> sunbird dependencies:
- libstdc++5 (already installed)
- nss (already installed)
- libxt (already installed)
- libgnomeui (already installed)

==> Edit the PKGBUILD ? [y/N] ("A" to abort)
==> ----------------------------------------------
==>
==> Building and installing package
/usr/bin/makepkg: illegal option -- w
makepkg version 3.0.0

Not terribly helpful to you, but at least you now know it is not just you. Yaourt version 0.6.5

Rumor
April 13th, 2007, 03:58 AM
I just upgraded yaourt to version 0.7.5 from this thread: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=25718&p=3 and Sunbird installed and runs.


==> Continue installing 'sunbird'? [Y/n]
==> ----------------------------------------------
==>
loading package data... done.
checking dependencies... done.
cleaning up... done.
(1/1) installing sunbird [###################################] 100%
If you like this package, please install aurvote
and vote for its inclusion/keeping in [community]


All I did to install the new yaourt was to replace the yaourt and pacdiffviewer files from the archive into /usr/bin (after renaming the ones that were being replaced)

Maybe it will work for you too?

tscook
April 13th, 2007, 08:34 AM
Now that my Arch install is working (mostly) the way I want it too I have found The Distro. All the functionality with a fraction of the packages. Saving tomorrow for configuring suspend to ram, a bootsplash, and finding out why urxvt w/ pseudo-transparency redraws improperly all the time. After that pacman -Syu for life.

K.Mandla
April 15th, 2007, 06:36 AM
Maybe it will work for you too?
Yup, that was it. I was looking for a new yaourt because I knew pacman 3 was out; I should've looked a little harder. At least it was easy to pin down the culprit on this one. Cheers! :D

ThinkBuntu
April 24th, 2007, 04:33 PM
So I'm giving Arch a try again. It seems that updates had been causing kernel panics when I tried out 0.7.2, but so far 0.8's going very smoothly for me. GIMP loads in about one second, and everything's lighting quick: quicker even than Zenwalk!

pelle.k
April 24th, 2007, 05:05 PM
It seems that updates had been causing kernel panics when I tried out 0.7.2
I assume you mean install cd version 0.7.2, since arch linux has no versions or releases...

The switch to mkinipcio (initramfs...) would cause a kernel panic, and that change happened some time after the 0.7.2 cd was released. The solution is to edit menu.lst to point to the new kernel image (since with mkinitpcio it was renamed). Either way, 0.8, obviously solves that "problem" (even though it was announced at the main page), and they are going to release install cd:s even tighter in the future to prevent new installs to go through such drastic changes.

You'll have to watch out for similar changes at the main page. Even if your system is running perfectly, these changes can render it useless, _if_ you don't read the news.

As an example, atm they are moving gnome to /usr from /opt, and this can bring some slight side effects. Since this is announced at www.archlinux.org , you'll know this and keep the forums clean of threads that could easily been avoided.

K.Mandla
April 26th, 2007, 05:54 PM
The switch to mkinipcio (initramfs...) would cause a kernel panic, and that change happened some time after the 0.7.2 cd was released. The solution is to edit menu.lst to point to the new kernel image (since with mkinitpcio it was renamed).
I remember that. That confused me for a long time. I think the step-by-step for how to fix it is still somewhere in this thread.

moon_dog
May 5th, 2007, 07:58 PM
i've installed arch on a partition (hd0,2), but can't boot. it always returns an error message:

no filesystem could mount root, tried:
kernel panic - vfs not syncing

anyone know what's going on?

moon_dog
May 5th, 2007, 08:20 PM
here is my menu.lst on my root partition


# menu.lst - See: grub(8), info grub, update-grub(8)
# grub-install(8), grub-floppy(8),
# grub-md5-crypt, /usr/share/doc/grub
# and /usr/share/doc/grub-doc/.

## default num
# Set the default entry to the entry number NUM. Numbering starts from 0, and
# the entry number 0 is the default if the command is not used.
#
# You can specify 'saved' instead of a number. In this case, the default entry
# is the entry saved with the command 'savedefault'.
# WARNING: If you are using dmraid do not change this entry to 'saved' or your
# array will desync and will not let you boot your system.
default 0

## timeout sec
# Set a timeout, in SEC seconds, before automatically booting the default entry
# (normally the first entry defined).
timeout 3

## hiddenmenu
# Hides the menu by default (press ESC to see the menu)
hiddenmenu

# Pretty colours
#color cyan/blue white/blue

## password ['--md5'] passwd
# If used in the first section of a menu file, disable all interactive editing
# control (menu entry editor and command-line) and entries protected by the
# command 'lock'
# e.g. password topsecret
# password --md5 $1$gLhU0/$aW78kHK1QfV3P2b2znUoe/
# password topsecret

#
# examples
#
# title Windows 95/98/NT/2000
# root (hd0,0)
# makeactive
# chainloader +1
#
# title Linux
# root (hd0,1)
# kernel /vmlinuz root=/dev/hda2 ro
#

#
# Put static boot stanzas before and/or after AUTOMAGIC KERNEL LIST

### BEGIN AUTOMAGIC KERNELS LIST
## lines between the AUTOMAGIC KERNELS LIST markers will be modified
## by the debian update-grub script except for the default options below

## DO NOT UNCOMMENT THEM, Just edit them to your needs

## ## Start Default Options ##
## default kernel options
## default kernel options for automagic boot options
## If you want special options for specific kernels use kopt_x_y_z
## where x.y.z is kernel version. Minor versions can be omitted.
## e.g. kopt=root=/dev/hda1 ro
## kopt_2_6_8=root=/dev/hdc1 ro
## kopt_2_6_8_2_686=root=/dev/hdc2 ro
# kopt=root=UUID=f2b2d330-1af7-49e1-9f19-73a184424c8a ro
# kopt_2_6=root=/dev/hda1 ro

## default grub root device
## e.g. groot=(hd0,0)
# groot=(hd0,0)

## should update-grub create alternative automagic boot options
## e.g. alternative=true
## alternative=false
# alternative=true

## should update-grub lock alternative automagic boot options
## e.g. lockalternative=true
## lockalternative=false
# lockalternative=false

## additional options to use with the default boot option, but not with the
## alternatives
## e.g. defoptions=vga=791 resume=/dev/hda5
# defoptions=quiet splash

## should update-grub lock old automagic boot options
## e.g. lockold=false
## lockold=true
# lockold=false

## altoption boot targets option
## multiple altoptions lines are allowed
## e.g. altoptions=(extra menu suffix) extra boot options
## altoptions=(recovery) single
# altoptions=(recovery mode) single

## controls how many kernels should be put into the menu.lst
## only counts the first occurence of a kernel, not the
## alternative kernel options
## e.g. howmany=all
## howmany=7
# howmany=all

## should update-grub create memtest86 boot option
## e.g. memtest86=true
## memtest86=false
# memtest86=true

## should update-grub adjust the value of the default booted system
## can be true or false
# updatedefaultentry=false

## ## End Default Options ##

title Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.17-11-generic
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-11-generic root=/dev/hda1 ro quiet splash
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.17-11-generic
quiet
savedefault
boot

title Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.17-11-generic (recovery mode)
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-11-generic root=/dev/hda1 ro single
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.17-11-generic
boot

title Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.17-10-386
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-10-386 root=/dev/hda1 ro quiet splash
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.17-10-386
quiet
savedefault
boot

title Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.17-10-386 (recovery mode)
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-10-386 root=/dev/hda1 ro single
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.17-10-386
boot

title Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.17-10-generic
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-10-generic root=/dev/hda1 ro quiet splash
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.17-10-generic
quiet
savedefault
boot

title Ubuntu, kernel 2.6.17-10-generic (recovery mode)
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-10-generic root=/dev/hda1 ro single
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.17-10-generic
boot

title Ubuntu, memtest86+
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/memtest86+.bin
quiet
boot

title Arch Linux
root (hd0,2)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/sda3 ro
intird /boot/kernel26.img
boot

### END DEBIAN AUTOMAGIC KERNELS LIST


and this is the one on the arch partition


# Config file for GRUB - The GNU GRand Unified Bootloader
# /boot/grub/menu.lst

# DEVICE NAME CONVERSIONS
#
# Linux Grub
# -------------------------
# /dev/fd0 (fd0)
# /dev/hda (hd0)
# /dev/hdb2 (hd1,1)
# /dev/hda3 (hd0,2)
#

# FRAMEBUFFER RESOLUTION SETTINGS
# +-------------------------------------------------+
# | 640x480 800x600 1024x768 1280x1024
# ----+--------------------------------------------
# 256 | 0x301=769 0x303=771 0x305=773 0x307=775
# 32K | 0x310=784 0x313=787 0x316=790 0x319=793
# 64K | 0x311=785 0x314=788 0x317=791 0x31A=794
# 16M | 0x312=786 0x315=789 0x318=792 0x31B=795
# +-------------------------------------------------+

# general configuration:
timeout 5
default 0
color light-blue/black light-cyan/blue

# boot sections follow
# each is implicitly numbered from 0 in the order of appearance below
#
# TIP: If you want a 1024x768 framebuffer, add "vga=773" to your kernel line.
#
#-*

# (0) Arch Linux
title Arch Linux
root (hd0,2)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/sda3 ro
initrd /boot/kernel26.img

# (1) Arch Linux
title Arch Linux Fallback
root (hd0,2)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/sda3 ro
initrd /boot/kernel26-fallback.img

# (1) Windows
#title Windows
#rootnoverify (hd0,0)
#makeactive
#chainloader +1


i've tried changing "sda" to "hda", but it doesn't seem to make a difference. i always get the error:

Kernel panic - Not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) on boot

pelle.k
May 5th, 2007, 08:21 PM
I think you are confused over how grub works...
Why do you have _two_ menu.lst set up? grub, installed as a bootloader to MBR (master boot record, there is only one such one a HD) are set to look for menu.lst at _one_ place only. That is the OS from which grub-install /dev/sda is run. How exactly did you install grub, when you installed arch? If you use grub on MBR, you're supposed to have stanzas for every OS, at one place in you computer (that would be either ubuntu menu.lst _or_ arch menu.lst).

If you wan't to have grub boot-loader installed to root partition instead, you can have a separate menu.lst for every OS you install. This way you can have GAG in MBR which points to grub boot-loader in the root partition of every OS.
See, there's a diffrence between /boot/grub, and grub-boot loader. I'm not very good at explaining these things. I suggest you read up on this.

The best advice i can give you is, always install grub to "boot partition" instead of "MBR", and let GAG ( http://gag.sourceforge.net/ ) take care of booting the correct partition for you. This will save you a lot of troubles setting up many/diffrent OS:es on one hd.

moon_dog
May 5th, 2007, 08:29 PM
i used the cd installation. grub to arch partition (hd0,2). root partition is ubuntu (hdo,0). i just modified the menu.lst on the ubuntu partition to include an entry for arch. anything else you need to know?

pelle.k
May 6th, 2007, 12:24 AM
What install cd version did you use?
Can you mount /dev/sda3 from ubuntu and ls "/", "/boot" and "/boot/grub" and paste output here?
Do you have multiple hd:s?

moon_dog
May 6th, 2007, 07:18 AM
ok got the whole thing resolved... it was just a typo on the menu.lst file.... now though i can't seem to get my wireless working.

iwconfig gives this output:



lo no wireless extensions.

eth0 no wireless extensions.

eth1 no wireless extensions.


this is my rc.conf


#
# /etc/rc.conf - Main Configuration for Arch Linux
#

#
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
# LOCALIZATION
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# LOCALE: available languages can be listed with the 'locale -a' command
# HARDWARECLOCK: set to "UTC" or "localtime"
# TIMEZONE: timezones are found in /usr/share/zoneinfo
# KEYMAP: keymaps are found in /usr/share/kbd/keymaps
# CONSOLEFONT: found in /usr/share/kbd/consolefonts (only needed for non-US)
# CONSOLEMAP: found in /usr/share/kbd/consoletrans
# USECOLOR: use ANSI color sequences in startup messages
#
LOCALE="en_US.utf8"
HARDWARECLOCK="localtime"
TIMEZONE="Canada/Pacific"
KEYMAP="us"
CONSOLEFONT=
CONSOLEMAP=
USECOLOR="yes"

#
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
# HARDWARE
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# Scan hardware and load required modules at bootup
MOD_AUTOLOAD="yes"
# Module Blacklist - modules in this list will never be loaded by udev
MOD_BLACKLIST=()
#
# Modules to load at boot-up (in this order)
# - prefix a module with a ! to blacklist it
#
MODULES=(b44 mii ipw2200)
# Scan for LVM volume groups at startup, required if you use LVM
USELVM="no"

#
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
# NETWORKING
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
#
HOSTNAME="myhost"
#
# Use 'ifconfig -a' or 'ls /sys/class/net/' to see all available
# interfaces.
#
# Interfaces to start at boot-up (in this order)
# Declare each interface then list in INTERFACES
# - prefix an entry in INTERFACES with a ! to disable it
# - no hyphens in your interface names - Bash doesn't like it
#
# Note: to use DHCP, set your interface to be "dhcp" (eth0="dhcp")
#
lo="lo 127.0.0.1"
#eth0="eth0 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255"
eth0="dhcp"
eth1="dhcp"
INTERFACES=(lo eth0 eth1)
#
# Routes to start at boot-up (in this order)
# Declare each route then list in ROUTES
# - prefix an entry in ROUTES with a ! to disable it
#
#gateway="default gw 192.168.0.1"
ROUTES=(!gateway)
#
# Enable these network profiles at boot-up. These are only useful
# if you happen to need multiple network configurations (ie, laptop users)
# - set to 'menu' to present a menu during boot-up (dialog package required)
# - prefix an entry with a ! to disable it
#
# Network profiles are found in /etc/network-profiles
#
#NET_PROFILES=(main)

#
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
# DAEMONS
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# Daemons to start at boot-up (in this order)
# - prefix a daemon with a ! to disable it
# - prefix a daemon with a @ to start it up in the background
#
DAEMONS=(syslog-ng network netfs crond)


# End of file


and my conf.d


#
# Settings for wireless cards
#
# For each wireless interface declared in INTERFACES (in rc.conf), declare
# a wlan_${IF} variable that contains the arguments to be passed to
# iwconfig(8). Then list the original interface name in the
# WLAN_INTERFACES array.
#

wlan_eth1="eth1 mode managed essid default"
WLAN_INTERFACES=(eth1)

moon_dog
May 6th, 2007, 08:22 AM
reinstalled the wireless card driver and i can now see my wireless connection and use iwconfig to set up a connection. however i still can't/don't know how to request and receive an IP address. i tried using the "commit" flag in iwconfig:



iwconfig eth1 essid "linksys" mode managed channel 6 key off commit

but an error message came up saying i couldn't commit. on ubuntu i would just use


iwconfig eth1 essid "linksys" mode managed channel 6 key off
sudo dhclient

on boot i still get this error


::starting network [failed]

ahaslam
May 10th, 2007, 07:25 AM
I've just installed 64bit Voodoo & it seems quite fast. To measure the performance I wanted to run a few benchmarks, one of those being super_pi. Unfortunatly I can't run it, in Zenwalk I'd issue 'pi 20' and in Ubuntu 'sh super_pi 20'. Here's what I get:


[root@myhost super_pi]# ls
Readme.txt pi super_pi
[root@myhost super_pi]# chmod +x *pi
[root@myhost super_pi]# pi 20
bash: pi: command not found
[root@myhost super_pi]# sh super_pi 20
super_pi: line 1: ./pi: No such file or directory
[root@myhost super_pi]#

super_pi:

./pi $1


Any guidance would be appreciated ;)

pelle.k
May 10th, 2007, 01:10 PM
you can't run

pi 20
because "pi" isn't in your $PATH.

why don't you just run

./pi 20

It's a bit strange however, since "./pi $1" is in super_pi. It might be some to me unknown enviroment variable acting up though. Havent seen this script before...
I'm not really sure this qualifies as a "real" benchmark though, as it doesn't measure much more than mathematics performance...

ahaslam
May 10th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Thanks for your response though I'd tried that:

[root@voodoo super_pi]# ./pi
bash: ./pi: No such file or directory
It's a good bench for me as I'm a keen overclocker & improvements are clearly shown here.

pelle.k
May 10th, 2007, 06:17 PM
that's freakin impossible! Can you "stat" the file, or the whole dir if necessary?

ahaslam
May 10th, 2007, 06:27 PM
that's freakin impossible! Can you "stat" the file, or the whole dir if necessary?

[root@voodoo ~]# stat zen/ahaslam/Desktop/Crap/super_pi/pi
File: `zen/ahaslam/Desktop/Crap/super_pi/pi'
Size: 255408 Blocks: 512 IO Block: 4096 regular file
Device: 803h/2051d Inode: 360482 Links: 1
Access: (0755/-rwxr-xr-x) Uid: ( 1000/ ahaslam) Gid: ( 100/ users)
Access: 2007-05-10 16:05:34.000000000 -0700
Modify: 2003-09-26 08:28:47.000000000 -0700
Change: 2007-03-19 12:29:09.000000000 -0700
[root@voodoo ~]#

ahaslam
May 12th, 2007, 09:12 AM
The problem persists:

pelle.k
May 12th, 2007, 10:16 PM
weird. this is what i got;

[pelle@pelle1 super_pi.tar.gz_FILES]$ ls
PI.DAT Readme.txt pi super_pi
[pelle@pelle1 super_pi.tar.gz_FILES]$ stat ./pi
File: `./pi'
Size: 255408 Blocks: 512 IO Block: 4096 regular file
Device: 807h/2055d Inode: 2272974 Links: 1
Access: (0755/-rwxr-xr-x) Uid: ( 1000/ pelle) Gid: ( 100/ users)
Access: 2007-05-12 23:12:25.000000000 +0200
Modify: 2003-09-26 17:28:47.000000000 +0200
Change: 2007-05-12 23:10:46.000000000 +0200
[pelle@pelle1 super_pi.tar.gz_FILES]$ ./pi 20
Version 2.0 of the super_pi for Linux OS
Fortran source program was translated into C program with version 19981204 of
f2c, then generated C source program was optimized manually.
pgcc 3.2-3 with compile option of "-fast -tp px -Mbuiltin -Minline=size:1000 -Mnoframe -Mnobounds -Mcache_align -Mdalign -Mnoreentrant" was used for the
compilation.
------ Started super_pi run : Sat May 12 23:13:13 CEST 2007
Start of PI calculation up to 1048576 decimal digits
End of initialization. Time= 0.372 Sec.
I= 1 L= 0 Time= 1.000 Sec.
I= 2 L= 0 Time= 1.152 Sec.
I= 3 L= 1 Time= 1.160 Sec.
I= 4 L= 2 Time= 1.300 Sec.
I= 5 L= 5 Time= 1.296 Sec.
I= 6 L= 10 Time= 1.296 Sec.
I= 7 L= 21 Time= 1.256 Sec.
I= 8 L= 43 Time= 1.308 Sec.
I= 9 L= 87 Time= 1.380 Sec.
I=10 L= 174 Time= 1.388 Sec.
I=11 L= 349 Time= 1.380 Sec.
I=12 L= 698 Time= 1.380 Sec.
I=13 L= 1396 Time= 1.384 Sec.
I=14 L= 2794 Time= 1.372 Sec.
I=15 L= 5588 Time= 1.176 Sec.
I=16 L= 11176 Time= 1.156 Sec.
I=17 L= 22353 Time= 1.116 Sec.
I=18 L= 44707 Time= 1.172 Sec.
I=19 L= 89415 Time= 1.096 Sec.
End of main loop
End of calculation. Time= 25.030 Sec.
End of data output. Time= 0.132 Sec.
Total calculation(I/O) time= 25.162( 0.892) Sec.
------ Ended super_pi run : Sat May 12 23:13:39 CEST 2007
[pelle@pelle1 super_pi.tar.gz_FILES]$

I got the package from ftp://pi.super-computing.org/Linux/super_pi.tar.gz
What is your folder permissions?

ahaslam
May 12th, 2007, 11:57 PM
A fresh download from your link gives the following permissions:

[ahaslam@voodoo Desktop]$ ls -l super_pi
total 260
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ahaslam users 323 Sep 3 2003 Readme.txt
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ahaslam users 255408 Sep 26 2003 pi
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ahaslam users 8 Sep 25 2003 super_pi
[ahaslam@voodoo Desktop]$

& following your example:

[ahaslam@voodoo super_pi]$ ls
Readme.txt pi super_pi
[ahaslam@voodoo super_pi]$ stat ./pi
File: `./pi'
Size: 255408 Blocks: 504 IO Block: 4096 regular file
Device: 804h/2052d Inode: 203573363 Links: 1
Access: (0755/-rwxr-xr-x) Uid: ( 1000/ ahaslam) Gid: ( 100/ users)
Access: 2007-05-12 23:28:56.024883321 -0700
Modify: 2003-09-26 08:28:47.000000000 -0700
Change: 2007-05-12 23:28:13.626467175 -0700
[ahaslam@voodoo super_pi]$ ./pi 20
bash: ./pi: No such file or directory
[ahaslam@voodoo super_pi]$

I found this (http://www.ocforums.com/archive/index.php/t-405925.html) via google (see the last post), could it be a x86_64 problem :-k


- EDIT -

I feel stupid now, of course that's the problem & there doesn't seem to be a 64 bit Linux version ](*,)

Thanks for your time

- EDIT 2 -

pacman -S lib32 (community) does the trick ;)

moon_dog
May 13th, 2007, 05:10 PM
i've been experiencing this strange problem on my xfce desktop. it takes about 10 minutes for any changes to the settings of the desktop to take effect. for example, if i change the background, or the font of the windows, it will take 10 minutes for the changes to take effect. i've re-installed xfce and the problem persists. i'm not quite sure if this is some problem with arch or if it's a specific problem with xfce. the thing is, if i try to run thunar from a terminal in xfce, it also takes about 10 minutes for thunar to come up.

pelle.k
May 13th, 2007, 10:05 PM
moon_dog:
I'm pretty sure this is because you either are not running dbus and hal, or you do not run the "lo" network connection (essential to many interprocess communication protocols...).
I already assume you've done the regular stuff (added your hostname to /etc/hosts, ran fam daemon)

ceelo
May 14th, 2007, 02:22 AM
Just installed Arch a few days ago and have got most of it up and running how I like it. Man, they aren't joking about the speed, this thing is fast. I'm even seeing a noticeable increase in Beryl's performance. Some issues such as auto-mounting CDs/DVDs and other minor things, but I am really enjoying it so far.

rsambuca
May 14th, 2007, 02:31 AM
Just installed Arch a few days ago and have got most of it up and running how I like it. Man, they aren't joking about the speed, this thing is fast. I'm even seeing a noticeable increase in Beryl's performance. Some issues such as auto-mounting CDs/DVDs and other minor things, but I am really enjoying it so far.

I haven't tried Arch (yet), but I keep hearing about how "fast" it is. Can someone please let me know what you are talking about when you say fast? ie. boot-up, programs opening, or actual tasks?

I have used ubuntu, both 32 and 64 bit, Sabayon, 32 and 64, and dreamlinux.

ThinkBuntu
May 14th, 2007, 02:32 AM
Just installed Arch a few days ago and have got most of it up and running how I like it. Man, they aren't joking about the speed, this thing is fast. I'm even seeing a noticeable increase in Beryl's performance. Some issues such as auto-mounting CDs/DVDs and other minor things, but I am really enjoying it so far.

What's your hardware? I noticed a speed increase over Ubuntu and others, but got pretty much equal speed with Debian, Zenwalk, and PCLOS with my 1.6GHz 1.5GB RAM laptop. Just curious.

ceelo
May 14th, 2007, 02:50 AM
I haven't tried Arch (yet), but I keep hearing about how "fast" it is. Can someone please let me know what you are talking about when you say fast? ie. boot-up, programs opening, or actual tasks?

I have used ubuntu, both 32 and 64 bit, Sabayon, 32 and 64, and dreamlinux.

The system boots faster, programs load and run faster. That 2-3 second delay while switching tabs in Firefox that I've noticed in pretty much every other Linux I've tried is absent in Arch. On newer hardware you probably won't notice a significant difference, but I'm running on a Celeron with 512MB RAM and integrated graphics. OpenOffice seems to load quicker too. The most noticeable was definitely Beryl. It's still a bit sluggish for me but smoother than I'd noticed before. I wouldn't say one should make the switch from say, Debian to Arch based on the speed alone, but other distros like Fedora and SuSE, definitely. Then again, my view might be a bit skewed since my system is quite dated.

ceelo
May 14th, 2007, 03:01 AM
What's your hardware? I noticed a speed increase over Ubuntu and others, but got pretty much equal speed with Debian, Zenwalk, and PCLOS with my 1.6GHz 1.5GB RAM laptop. Just curious.

Specs listed above. :KS

Rumor
May 14th, 2007, 03:51 AM
I find a significant speed benefit in boot time, program loading and the response to most every function in Arch.
System Specs (CPU and RAM):

cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
model name : AMD Athlon(TM) XP 3000+
cpu MHz : 1735.552
cache size : 512 KB


free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 775640 284444 491196 0 240 141716
-/+ buffers/cache: 142488 633152
Swap: 1028152 0 1028152

And finally, the daemons I load on boot from my /etc/rc.conf file:

DAEMONS=(syslog-ng network netfs crond autofs alsa samba cups gdm)

I boot in under 30 seconds from grub to the gnome desktop using automatic login.
Abiword opens in under 2 seconds.
Kazehakase (web browser) opens in less than 5 seconds.
Swiftfox opens in around 3 seconds.
Pan newsreader opens in less than 2 seconds.
It is much faster than my Ubuntu Feisty install on the same machine.
**EDIT**
By way of comparison, same machine, now booted into Ubuntu Feisty, not running Samba:

free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 775736 370156 405580 0 10032 210404
-/+ buffers/cache: 149720 626016
Swap: 1510068 0 1510068

DJiNN
May 14th, 2007, 04:16 AM
I've finally got Arch running and although i've got a few problems, i agree with the other posters here..... it's fast. Firefox loads in seconds..... way faster than anything else i've tried. :)

Having said that, this is a Dual Core (4200+) AMD machine with 2gb of ram, so i'm going to try it on my other machine that's already running Xubuntu, which is a bog standard old P4 2.4ghz (400fsb) with 1gb Ram. If it's speedy on there as well, then i think i "May" start using it as my main OS..... although i'm not 100% sure yet, because there's still a lot that i don't know about Arch.....

But from what i have seen so far, i can highly recommend it!! :)

DJiNN

celsofaf
May 14th, 2007, 05:20 AM
i'm going to try it on my other machine that's already running Xubuntu, which is a bog standard old P4 2.4ghz (400fsb) with 1gb Ram.

My PC is slower than yours and I wouldn't call it old in any way. Still, in my experience, Arch with KDE runs faster than Xubuntu on it. Go for it! Once you get used to Arch (no, it's not a nightmare), you won't think to use another distro.

rsambuca
May 14th, 2007, 05:36 AM
The system boots faster, programs load and run faster. That 2-3 second delay while switching tabs in Firefox that I've noticed in pretty much every other Linux I've tried is absent in Arch. On newer hardware you probably won't notice a significant difference, but I'm running on a Celeron with 512MB RAM and integrated graphics. OpenOffice seems to load quicker too. The most noticeable was definitely Beryl. It's still a bit sluggish for me but smoother than I'd noticed before. I wouldn't say one should make the switch from say, Debian to Arch based on the speed alone, but other distros like Fedora and SuSE, definitely. Then again, my view might be a bit skewed since my system is quite dated.

hmmm... I'm not sure that I will see much difference then. I don't have the fastest rig in the world by any means: AMD Athlon 64 +3500, 1GB Ram, but for me FF opens in less than 3 seconds, and tab switching is instantaneous. OO is by far the slowest to load at 5 seconds. Boot up with ubuntu is slow (54 seconds), but is a non issue for me as I never turn my PC off.

moon_dog
May 14th, 2007, 04:09 PM
pelle thanks for the reply. it was the "lo" network interface

ahaslam
May 14th, 2007, 07:35 PM
I haven't tried Arch (yet), but I keep hearing about how "fast" it is. Can someone please let me know what you are talking about when you say fast? ie. boot-up, programs opening, or actual tasks?

I have used ubuntu, both 32 and 64 bit, Sabayon, 32 and 64, and dreamlinux.

In every day situations (booting, app launch, etc) Arch64 feels about the same as Zenwalk which feels only slightly faster than Feisty. The performance gain comes when under heavy loads. For example in 3d games Zenwalk produces an average frame rate 15% higher than Feisty. Arch adds a further 4% to Zenwalks figures, offering almost 20% more performance.

For an overclocking enthusiast like myself, that's the difference of a volt mod'd vga or water cooled cpu.

R3linquish3r
May 15th, 2007, 07:48 AM
Got base Arch installed. Spent 3 hours messing with ndiswrapper before i realised the modules didn't match my kernel. God I hate broadcoms, Installing GDM and Gnome now. So far it's been an interesting experience on my old Latitude C600. I'm hoping Arch will be fairer with it then Ubuntu was.

ThinkBuntu
May 15th, 2007, 04:30 PM
In every day situations (booting, app launch, etc) Arch64 feels about the same as Zenwalk which feels only slightly faster than Feisty. The performance gain comes when under heavy loads. For example in 3d games Zenwalk produces an average frame rate 15% higher than Feisty. Arch adds a further 4% to Zenwalks figures, offering almost 20% more performance.

For an overclocking enthusiast like myself, that's the difference of a volt mod'd vga or water cooled cpu.
I use my machine for design, development, word processing, and some simple games, so the only really CPU-intensive processes I put it through are when I launch multiple programs, or give it some huge task from the terminal (like $ du -h /, which takes a bit).

rokixz
May 16th, 2007, 08:49 AM
Arch is my favorite distro, but when I gave my PC to engineer, my video Card is not support Monitor, only defaults. After that Arch linux with KDE is not opens. On my monitor Writes Not Available mode :(

Can I get help

pelle.k
May 16th, 2007, 02:31 PM
rokixz;
Yes, you i will help you.
You know, a funny thing with linux is that once people learn a thing, they keep doing it and never question if it could be done another way. Maybe there's an easier way?

Check my monitor section out (as long as you run with dpms, you _probably_ dont need vertical and horizontal refresh rate);

Section "Monitor"

Identifier "crt"
# HorizSync 30-107
# VertRefresh 50-160
Option "DPMS"

EndSection

Now this works just as good as with those lines i commented out in xorg.conf.
Now we just have to wait for xorg 7.3 where there us no real need for an xorg conf file really.

you might have to turn your resolution down a bit though, if you're _not_ using the same monitor this time...
I didn't really understand what you meant. What components are new ones?

moon_dog
May 16th, 2007, 06:12 PM
about ABS, i've found that it's a great way to manage packages. however, i've also found that there are some packages that aren't found in /var/abs, even though they are installed. not sure why this is. how do you manage these packages?

pelle.k
May 16th, 2007, 07:22 PM
If you think about it, pacman and abs isn't the same thing is it?
pacman has it's own .conf and so does abs...

moon_dog
May 17th, 2007, 02:32 AM
so how would you recompile the packages that aren't found in /var/abs? say i wanted to add --enable-gui to mplayer but it isn't in /var/abs, is there a way to go about it? i thought abs scanned the computer for all installed packages and placed them in /var/abs.

pelle.k
May 17th, 2007, 04:10 PM
Ok, i'll be a little bit clearer this time. In /etc/pacman/pacman.conf you have these repos to choose among;

[current]
# Add your preferred servers here, they will be used first
Server = ftp://ftp.gigabit.nu/current/os/i686
Include = /etc/pacman.d/current

[extra]
# Add your preferred servers here, they will be used first
Server = ftp://ftp.gigabit.nu/extra/os/i686
Include = /etc/pacman.d/extra

#[unstable]
# Add your preferred servers here, they will be used first
#Include = /etc/pacman.d/unstable

[community]
# Add your preferred servers here, they will be used first
Server = ftp://ftp.gigabit.nu/community/os/i686
Include = /etc/pacman.d/community

And in /etc/abs/abs.conf you've got those counterparts for loading /var/abs/local with pkgbuilds;

SUPFILES=(arch extra !unstable community)


So no, it isn't automatic. Since mplayer is in extra, you would have to make sure theres no exclamation (!) mark before "extra" and then run "abs"...

moon_dog
May 17th, 2007, 06:30 PM
thanks for the reply pelle. so how about if i install a package, like xmms.pkg.tar.gz? can i edit the PKGBUILD through abs?

moon_dog
May 17th, 2007, 06:33 PM
i mean to say if i install a package that isn't found in the repos. like a package that i downloaded from AUR.

ThinkBuntu
May 17th, 2007, 06:54 PM
I'm back with Arch! I'm taking the attitude this time of "one thing at a time." I understand it may very well take me two weeks or longer, chipping away at my problems, to get my system "just right" with the features I expect, as opposed to before where I expected that three hours of troubleshooting would get my system perfect. The payoff will be when KDE4, for example, is released, because I know upgrading will go to perfection!

Boot time is spectacular, and I really am learning about my system. And I'm doing it efficiently, not waiting five hours to compile an application like I was with Sabayon.

pelle.k
May 17th, 2007, 07:41 PM
thanks for the reply pelle. so how about if i install a package, like xmms.pkg.tar.gz? can i edit the PKGBUILD through abs?
Well, abs is nothing more than an "source" interface/mirror for those existing packages in the binary repos. "abs" would be the equivalent of "pacman -Sy", and "makepkg -b" would be like "pacman -S".
abs just synchs the PKGBUILDS, nothing more. makepkg, can make use of both the PKGBUILDS from abs _and_ binary packages from the pacman repos though.

If you build a PKGBUILD, and it requires something to be installed as a dependency, this can be done _if_ the dependency is available through "abs"/source or "pacman"/binary repos...
makepkg -s = install dependencies with pacman
makepkg -b = build dependencies from /var/abs
If it's not availiable anywhere, you'll have to make a pkgbuild of it and install it first yourself.

Yes, you can edit you PKGBUILD to your liking.

moon_dog
May 17th, 2007, 07:45 PM
ok i mean if i download a package file from the net, not from the repos (****.pkg.tar.gz), how i edit the PKGBUILD? it won't show up in abs because it isn't in the repos, and the downloaded file is already packaged. how would one go about editing this?

ahaslam
May 17th, 2007, 10:24 PM
Simply loving Arch. The upgrades have gone really smoothly so far, a rolling release cycle that actually works ;)

PS. moon-dog, why don't you get the source & build your own package for your needs?

pelle.k
May 18th, 2007, 12:29 AM
ok i mean if i download a package file from the net, not from the repos (****.pkg.tar.gz), how i edit the PKGBUILD? it won't show up in abs because it isn't in the repos, and the downloaded file is already packaged. how would one go about editing this?
A binary (compiled...) package doesn't include a PKGBUILD. Neither does a .deb include it's debian counterpart. It seems you got that already. You could ask the same question about a .deb file you found.

In arch you have an advantage though...
I've never seen a package in it's binary form without it's PKGBUILD in close reach. Since all packages have a PKGBUILD in the first place, people commonly distribute the PKGBUILD instead. Like in the AUR. ( aur.archlinux.org )

So, the problem you describe is almost non existant.

Nikron
May 18th, 2007, 01:38 AM
Everything is beautiful, only problem maybe that install and setup took a couple of days (not continuous). But now everything is just to my liking. Not too big of a speed increase from what I can see, but its sorta noticeable.

ThinkBuntu
May 18th, 2007, 01:55 AM
I know this much: when KDE4 releases, I'll be happy to be using Arch. I have faith that not only will the transition go smoothly, I also won1t lose any relevant settings. Installing from the 0.8 release, I had already unwittingly upgraded to the new release seamlessly long before seeing the announcement on DW.

A.I. BOT
May 18th, 2007, 04:54 AM
I used to be on arch for a long time, it was fantastic. But unfortunately, I got fed up with making my own ACPI scripts that dident always work. The laptop support wasent as good as I found on Ubuntu. I wanted to beable to close my lid and have my screen shut off ... and when I open the lid, xscreensaver will ask for my password.

If anyone knows how to do that I'd gladly go back and use Arch again because it is simply an elegant system :).

Thanks.

ThinkBuntu
May 18th, 2007, 06:00 AM
I used to be on arch for a long time, it was fantastic. But unfortunately, I got fed up with making my own ACPI scripts that dident always work. The laptop support wasent as good as I found on Ubuntu. I wanted to beable to close my lid and have my screen shut off ... and when I open the lid, xscreensaver will ask for my password.

If anyone knows how to do that I'd gladly go back and use Arch again because it is simply an elegant system :).

Thanks.
Have you worked with KLaptop and KDE settings? I'm pretty sure it can be done...

A.I. BOT
May 18th, 2007, 06:46 AM
Yeah I tried KLaptop, it dident do anything, I set it all up and rebooted, tried my lid and nothing happened.

ThinkBuntu
May 18th, 2007, 12:35 PM
Yeah I tried KLaptop, it dident do anything, I set it all up and rebooted, tried my lid and nothing happened.
Am I correct in assuming you enabled all ACPI modes and set the laptop lid button action to suspend?

pelle.k
May 18th, 2007, 03:22 PM
bah! klaptop... How medieval ;)
I run powersave dameon, and kpowersave. Thats how you do it.

Oh, and let me tell you, arch is the _only_ distro that can suspend my core2duo and fujitsuSiemens laptop.
You don't need kpowersave for basic suspend/hibernation features though.. "powersave -u" does the trick.

ThinkBuntu
May 18th, 2007, 03:31 PM
bah! klaptop... How medieval ;)
I run powersave dameon, and kpowersave. Thats how you do it.

Oh, and let me tell you, arch is the _only_ distro that can suspend my core2duo and fujitsuSiemens laptop.
You don't need kpowersave for basic suspend/hibernation features though.. "powersave -u" does the trick.

KPowersave vs. KLaptop...explain? My KDE has KLaptop, but i remember KDE distros in the past using KPowersave. They both seem to have the same options available from the applet.

Rumor
May 18th, 2007, 04:52 PM
I just noticed that the new install ISO's have been released.

http://www.archlinux.org/

2007.5 "Duke" - Changelog here: http://www.archlinux.org/news/325/

Nikron
May 18th, 2007, 05:09 PM
Has anyone got beryl to work with powersave -u (or powersave -U)? Or alternatively, anyone know the config file where I can tell powersave to kill beryl and then restart it?

pelle.k
May 18th, 2007, 08:21 PM
ThinkBuntu;
kpowersave is nothing more than a GUI for powersave(d) infrastructure. It's intended as a replacement for klaptop. If klaptop works for you, why fix it... :)

Nikron:
I dont run beryl, so i can't really say for sure. But if beryl _is_ causing problems i see two options here;
1. Make a daemon script in /etc/rc.d and use this in /etc/powersave/sleep (restart service you know?).
2. Make a custom script in /usr/libexec/powersave/scripts and add it to two of these events;
(from /etc/powersave/events ...)

EVENT_GLOBAL_SUSPEND2DISK="prepare_suspend_to_disk screen_saver do_suspend_to_disk"
EVENT_GLOBAL_SUSPEND2RAM="prepare_suspend_to_ram screen_saver do_suspend_to_ram"
EVENT_GLOBAL_STANDBY="prepare_standby screen_saver do_standby"

EVENT_GLOBAL_RESUME_SUSPEND2DISK="restore_after_suspend_to_disk"
EVENT_GLOBAL_RESUME_SUSPEND2RAM="restore_after_suspend_to_ram"
EVENT_GLOBAL_RESUME_STANDBY="restore_after_standby"

Of course you would have to know how to write this script in the first place...

ThinkBuntu
May 18th, 2007, 08:22 PM
I couldn't even find KPowersave in the repos. Granted, I have KDEmod installed, so it's possible this is blocking the package out. In any case, I have no reason to use it as long as my medieval KLaptop is working.

Rumor
May 18th, 2007, 09:17 PM
It looks like kpowersave is in the AUR.


yaourt -Ss kpowersave
aur/kpowersave 0.6.2-5
KDE-frontend for the powersave daemon
aur/kpowersave-devel 0.7.2-1
KDE-frontend for the power management
aur/kpowersave-svn 2951-1
A KDE-frontend for the power management

Nikron
May 19th, 2007, 12:36 AM
ThinkBuntu;
kpowersave is nothing more than a GUI for powersave(d) infrastructure. It's intended as a replacement for klaptop. If klaptop works for you, why fix it... :)

Nikron:
I dont run beryl, so i can't really say for sure. But if beryl _is_ causing problems i see two options here;
1. Make a daemon script in /etc/rc.d and use this in /etc/powersave/sleep (restart service you know?).
2. Make a custom script in /usr/libexec/powersave/scripts and add it to two of these events;
(from /etc/powersave/events ...)

EVENT_GLOBAL_SUSPEND2DISK="prepare_suspend_to_disk screen_saver do_suspend_to_disk"
EVENT_GLOBAL_SUSPEND2RAM="prepare_suspend_to_ram screen_saver do_suspend_to_ram"
EVENT_GLOBAL_STANDBY="prepare_standby screen_saver do_standby"

EVENT_GLOBAL_RESUME_SUSPEND2DISK="restore_after_suspend_to_disk"
EVENT_GLOBAL_RESUME_SUSPEND2RAM="restore_after_suspend_to_ram"
EVENT_GLOBAL_RESUME_STANDBY="restore_after_standby"

Of course you would have to know how to write this script in the first place...

Thanks a lot, that's exactly what I needed, suspend to ram/disk works with beryl now.

ahaslam
May 20th, 2007, 01:16 PM
There seems to be very frew Arch wallpapers around, anyone know of good source?

I've just gimped one up for myself & because of this I thought I'd share: http://xs215.xs.to/xs215/07206/arch.png

Here it is in use:
http://xs215.xs.to/xs215/07206/newwall.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs215&d=07206&f=newwall.png) http://xs215.xs.to/xs215/07206/beryl.png.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs215&d=07206&f=beryl.png)
I'm glad that there's pacman -Rs, Beryl makes good screenies but it's quite annoying.

Enjoy ;)

mahy
May 21st, 2007, 12:24 PM
Yay! I'm just running a fresh Arch installation. Ran into a coupla problems, but so far fixed everything. It rocks! The only thing left is OTR support for my Pidgin. Any ideas?

Rumor
May 21st, 2007, 02:40 PM
There seems to be very frew Arch wallpapers around, anyone know of good source?


Well, up until last week I'd have told you to look in the Arch Gallery, but it has been taken down. There are a few on the Deviant Art website (one of my favorites: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36160302/?qo=4&q=by%3Abathannen&qh=sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps) and a few on Gnome-Look's website.

mahy
May 21st, 2007, 03:42 PM
Yay! I'm just running a fresh Arch installation. Ran into a coupla problems, but so far fixed everything. It rocks! The only thing left is OTR support for my Pidgin. Any ideas?

Don't bother. A bit more wiki-reading and the AUR repository fixed it. It's even easier than on Ubuntu!

ahaslam
May 21st, 2007, 05:07 PM
Well, up until last week I'd have told you to look in the Arch Gallery, but it has been taken down. There are a few on the Deviant Art website (one of my favorites: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36160302/?qo=4&q=by%3Abathannen&qh=sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps) and a few on Gnome-Look's website.

Thx, shame that they took it down, I'd have enjoyed it.

ahaslam
June 18th, 2007, 10:55 PM
I've started a thread for sharing any custom artwork, themes & whatnot on their forums. I've linked my own stuff, I hope others join in & contribute ;)

Here's the thread if anyone here's interested: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=259791#p259791

finferflu
June 21st, 2007, 07:34 PM
I've installed Arch yesterday, and so far I am immensely impressed. Despite all textual configuration it's so damn simple. I only had some issues with configuring my ndiswrapper, but I found out I had downloaded packages too recent for my kernel, since I was running an outdated system (from an outdated install CD), so what? I plugged in my LAN cable, ran "pacman -Syu" and apart from the time it took to download all the packages, my system was updated in about 5 minutes. Pacman is amazing, soooo fast!
I still had some issues with the grub entry for Arch after the upgrade, but I found the answer quickly by searching for the error message I got in the Arch Linux forums. I edited the grub's menu.lst and I was up and running again. Ndiswrapper worked as a charm, with much less hassle than I had on Ubuntu (not to mention PcLinuxOS). I quickly installed the X server and Gnome, and was able to get Beryl working with not much effort (I had to realise there were some conflicts with the fglrx drivers I had installed by mistake).
I have to say that everything seems to be straight forward and simple (just follow the wiki!), true to the Arch motto. I find the system to be very lightweight, reliable and stable. And pacman is damn fast, did I mention that?
Also the packages seem to be more up to date than Feisty, and I particularly enjoy the AUR philosophy, for the simple way to manage user contributed packages.
I think I have found my new home, this is the distro of my dreams. I still keep Ubuntu on my hard disk, but I don't think it will be my primary OS.

So far so good!

5-HT
June 21st, 2007, 08:27 PM
I've started a thread for sharing any custom artwork, themes & whatnot on their forums. I've linked my own stuff, I hope others join in & contribute ;)

Here's the thread if anyone here's interested: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=259791#p259791

Thanks! Is there something wrong with the link?


...:D

fiery
June 23rd, 2007, 10:36 AM
It's even easier than on Ubuntu!

Agreed. I was on Ubuntu since 5.04, left half way through Edgy for Zenwalk, then moved to Arch a month and a half ago. Yes, takes a a little bit more to set up (just a little bit), but it is sooo much nicer once going. And I love Pacman, so bloody easy.

Raffo
June 23rd, 2007, 10:48 AM
I'll install arch after the exams :D
July is a terrible month for university :(

ahaslam
June 23rd, 2007, 11:19 AM
Thanks! Is there something wrong with the link?
The links seem fine to me, the only problem is the lack of contributions :p


Agreed. I was on Ubuntu since 5.04, left half way through Edgy for Zenwalk, then moved to Arch a month and a half ago. Yes, takes a a little bit more to set up (just a little bit), but it is sooo much nicer once going. And I love Pacman, so bloody easy.
Exactly the same story here ;)

finferflu
June 23rd, 2007, 07:49 PM
I also was impressed by the simplicity, expecially after hearing a lot about Arch as the power-users distro. I don't consider myself a power user, yet I find it quite simple, even because I only do simple things with it. A flexible distro, isn't it?

raja
June 29th, 2007, 03:03 PM
After thinking long about a second distro and trying out various ones on my virtualbox, i finally plumped for Arch a week back. Installation sure takes a little more time and some reading, thanks to how we have been spoiled by Ubuntu. But I have almost everything set up now save a few hiccups and it is an awesome distro.
Very lean (I installed base and then only what I needed) and very fast. Much faster then Ubuntu - and I was surprised by that. I also like the philosophy of a few clean configuration files to configure everything. You get newer versions of most application thanks to the rolling updates.
So, it looks like great fun, and who knows, may replace Ubuntu as my primary distro.

Rui Pais
June 30th, 2007, 11:52 AM
Hi,
i tried Arch on 2 computers, a pentium4 (duke 32b) and a C2D (duke 64b) but i got a weird problem... i already search Arch forum but didn't find anything.

The problem is that after run Arch for a while (10~15 mn) it turns ADSL line of my router down. The only way to make it back again is power off router an then power on again :(
It's very annoying, of course.
It happens on both computers/versions and i have tried either with static IPs an DHCP, having both cases the same symptoms.
I never had such an issue on any Distro i tried or used and never heard about nothing like that.
Can someone give me some light on what may be happen?

Thanks.

pelle.k
June 30th, 2007, 02:29 PM
"sudo tail /var/log/messages.log" or "dmesg | tail" when it happens?

finferflu
June 30th, 2007, 04:23 PM
Hi,
i tried Arch on 2 computers, a pentium4 (duke 32b) and a C2D (duke 64b) but i got a weird problem... i already search Arch forum but didn't find anything.

The problem is that after run Arch for a while (10~15 mn) it turns ADSL line of my router down. The only way to make it back again is power off router an then power on again :(
It's very annoying, of course.
It happens on both computers/versions and i have tried either with static IPs an DHCP, having both cases the same symptoms.
I never had such an issue on any Distro i tried or used and never heard about nothing like that.
Can someone give me some light on what may be happen?

Thanks.


Did you try to post this on the Arch forums? I think it would be more useful for people who may get problems similar to yours. And if you find a solution on the Ubuntu forums, I really suggest you to write it down on the wiki or something like that. It would be very cool for the Arch community :)

Thanks.

Rui Pais
July 1st, 2007, 11:28 AM
hi, thanks for your replys.

"sudo tail /var/log/messages.log" or "dmesg | tail" when it happens?
Only yesterday at night i could log to my arch and check. I used for 3 or 4 hours and... mysteriously... the issue disappeared.
Maybe an pacman -Syu had fix it... don't know. I checked messages.log from past sessions for anything unusual but didn't find anything.
When i get time i will check my old machine (that i didn't update yet) and see if i can reproduce it again.


Did you try to post this on the Arch forums? I think it would be more useful for people who may get problems similar to yours. And if you find a solution on the Ubuntu forums, I really suggest you to write it down on the wiki or something like that. It would be very cool for the Arch community :)

Thanks.

Yes, of course. I just post about it here to see if it was a common issue or get some general tips (i could be something obvious wrong since i have very few experience with Arch), not to get real support :)

I had a problem with Arch Forum. Its very hard to read. The choice of gray for background make it hard for the eyes, the characters vanishes in the too dark pages... Wiki, in opposite it's nice, clear and well written, very informative and easy to find info (i find ubuntu docs and search very confusing).

But if I get again the problem (or still have it in my old box) i will create and account and post there. :)

Thanks

Ramses de Norre
July 1st, 2007, 12:17 PM
For what it's worth: I've totally switched to Arch a few months ago and for the moment, I'm staying :) I really like the distro as a whole, the package manager is splendid and the community is really helpful. The rolling release system is a superb feature (if you're not on a production server) and breakage hasn't occurred to much for me.
It feels _a lot_ faster than ubuntu and has perfect integration of lightweight WMs, all configuration is done by config files.

The only minor thing is the installer, I find it quite difficult, but this (http://wiki2.archlinux.org/index.php/Install_Arch_from_within_another_distro) method works flawlessly and lets you use internet and such on the same pc while installing.

I'd say, try out Arch but realize that the distro isn't made for everyone, you need to know the ins and outs of linux a little to get Arch running decently.

finferflu
July 1st, 2007, 01:36 PM
The only minor thing is the installer, I find it quite difficult, but this (http://wiki2.archlinux.org/index.php/Install_Arch_from_within_another_distro) method works flawlessly and lets you use internet and such on the same pc while installing.

I'd say, try out Arch but realize that the distro isn't made for everyone, you need to know the ins and outs of linux a little to get Arch running decently.
Wow, that's a very cool method, it's the first time I hear about that.
I don't know if I will ever try it, but I think it's *the* solution for my wireless problems, namely ndiswrapper not being in the install CD. So in this way I could set it up from withing the host distro, reboot, and voilą, Arch + internet connection up and runnning. So cool :)
I just hope I will not need to reinstall Arch, that's why I don't know if I will ever try it.
By the way, if you read the instructions, I think the installer is quite straight forward (I didn't try to partition from withing the installer, though, since I've used Gparted).

fwojciec
August 6th, 2007, 04:10 PM
New developments in the Arch Linux land, so I though I'd bump this old thread to let everyone know...

ISOs for new Arch Linux 2007.08 (Don't Panic) are released. Info and download links ***HERE*** (http://archlinux.org/news/337/).

Enjoy!

drum
August 14th, 2007, 03:34 AM
Hi,
I've been running Arch on my core2 duo box for 4 months and everything works great.
I just bought a T61 and found that the hardware on it makes it very difficult to get wireless, sound and nvidia running in Arch "Don't Panic"
I'm a little bit past the noob stage and have tried all the detailed instructions I can find to get these things working but I've had no luck so far. Probably my lack of experience.
It's a bit over my head so I would appreciate any advice from people who've had success on this machine.
It runs well with a wired connection but I love to get sound and wireless and using the built in Nvidia chip.

Maybe I should wait till the drivers get more up to date to work without these advanced methods of installing?
Any thoughts? I don't want to give up on it. Am I on the right track?
Thanks:(

5-HT
August 14th, 2007, 07:56 AM
Any thoughts?
Are your video, sound, and wireless cards supported? Best to search for the specific hardware IMO instead of the whole notebook as more people should have those cards than computer. You can post 'em here, but would probably have better luck either on the Arch forums or their IRC channel.


Maybe I should wait till the drivers get more up to date to work without these advanced methods of installing? If the devices are supported you should have no problem. If they're not, there'd be no way to get 'em working at all (but development rates being as they are, hopefully they'll be supported Soon. And with a rolling release like Arch, you'll get 'em when they're hot off the press...)
Cheers,

andrek
August 14th, 2007, 01:56 PM
I really would like to try Arch.. I tried to emulate it with Microsoft Virtual PC - the install script is really difficult.. I had to edit many .conf files by myself, it was tough.. Are there any alternative installation scripts, as easy as Debian's one?

bodhi.zazen
August 14th, 2007, 03:21 PM
I really would like to try Arch.. I tried to emulate it with Microsoft Virtual PC - the install script is really difficult.. I had to edit many .conf files by myself, it was tough.. Are there any alternative installation scripts, as easy as Debian's one?

This is both the biggest advantage and disadvantage of Arch.

The advantage is that the install process forces you to understand how the system actually works. Once you install you know how to maintain and run the OS.

One option it to try March, it is a live CD Arch Linux + Fluxbox. No option to install however.

http://marchlinux.wikidot.com/

Once you decide to install, give yourself 2 hours and read through the documentation.

kellemes
August 14th, 2007, 03:29 PM
I really would like to try Arch.. I tried to emulate it with Microsoft Virtual PC - the install script is really difficult.. I had to edit many .conf files by myself, it was tough.. Are there any alternative installation scripts, as easy as Debian's one?

The defaults work for most systems I'm sure..
I have installed it on many systems without serious issues.
I actually find the setup-procedure very simple (think KISS principle), transparent and (again) the defaults work most of the time.

What was the difficulty with setting-up Arch? Maybe a little help will make you an Archer! :popcorn:

K.Mandla
August 14th, 2007, 03:29 PM
This is both the biggest advantage and disadvantage of Arch.

The advantage is that the install process forces you to understand how the system actually works. Once you install you know how to maintain and run the OS. ...

Once you decide to install, give yourself 2 hours and read through the documentation.
Big +1. Arch forces you to learn about the guts of your computer, and if you're not interested in that, it will be a frustrating experience.

There is a very detailed installation walkthrough (http://www.archlinux.org/static/docs/arch-install-guide.txt), but again, you have to know about the inside of your system for it to be usable.

And I'm sorry to say it, but Arch users generally don't suffer newbies. I certainly don't mean they're rude, but if you ask a question on the forums and you haven't done you're homework, you might be rebuffed ... un-gently.

kellemes
August 14th, 2007, 03:54 PM
(..) and you haven't done you're homework..


This is it the thing..
How to ask questions (http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html)

The moderators in the Arch forums are doing a great job in keeping threads clean and keep the trolls out.
Most Archers understand and respect not everyone has the same level of knowledge.
All in all there is much less of a elitist-culture going on as in some other (specific dists) forums where just being a n00b seems to be enough to get flamed.

andrek
August 14th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Ok, so according to your posts I SHOULD try installing Arch :)
First, I'm on Debian right now. I don't want to destroy or over-write my current GRUB configuration. The best way for me would be installing the system without any bootloader and then adding Arch info to current GRUB config?
Second, I haven't used any package-manager than apt-get or aptitude. Are there any guides how to get accustomed to pacman ? :)
And the last thing, I'm in 'love' to GNOME, is there any way to make it slim and fast, like KDEmod for KDE?

Oh, and I certainly know what's inside my pc. I'd like to get the best performance from it. I think Arch would manage that ;)

I know i seem to be noob, and so I am. I have no experience in using wide-variety of distros.. just ubuntu and debian.

Cheers.

kellemes
August 14th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Ok, so according to your posts I SHOULD try installing Arch :)
First, I'm on Debian right now. I don't want to destroy or over-write my current GRUB configuration. The best way for me would be installing the system without any bootloader and then adding Arch info to current GRUB config?
Second, I haven't used any package-manager than apt-get or aptitude. Are there any guides how to get accustomed to pacman ? :)
And the last thing, I'm in 'love' to GNOME, is there any way to make it slim and fast, like KDEmod for KDE?

Oh, and I certainly know what's inside my pc. I'd like to get the best performance from it. I think Arch would manage that ;)

I know i seem to be noob, and so I am. I have no experience in using wide-variety of distros.. just ubuntu and debian.

Cheers.

I understand you wanna dual boot ArchLinux/Debian? Windows also maybe?
I've actually never dual booted GNU/Linux, I will one of these days..
It doesn't really matter if you leave your current Grub as it is (and add Arch-entries) or let Arch install Grub and add Debian-entries. It all depends on from which distro do you want to manage Grub.. (I know there is a way to be able to manage Grub from both distro's but I don't know how)
By the way..it could very well be the installation of Grub from Arch will recognize Debian and add the entries automatically. (I know it does recognize Windows.)
Backup you most important stuff anyway ;)

I don't know of any special modular version of Gnome but I can tell ya, on Arch it's so fast you won't believe it.

Pacman is the best thing, see..
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman

pacman -Syu you'll use the most (update any package currently installed on my system)

By the way, there is nothing wrong with being a n00b as long as you're willing to learn.. And if it doesn't workout you can always go back to Debian (you can't go wrong with that)


Edit: For the best help become a member at the Arch Forums. (http://bbs.archlinux.org/)

Rumor
August 14th, 2007, 07:02 PM
First, I'm on Debian right now. I don't want to destroy or over-write my current GRUB configuration. The best way for me would be installing the system without any bootloader and then adding Arch info to current GRUB config?

You can just skip the bootloader installation step and modify your current GRUB to include the boot info for Arch.

title Arch Linux
root (hdX,X) <-modify the X's to the correct disc, partition for root
kernel /vmlinuz26 root=/dev/sdaX ro <-again, edit the path to your kernel
initrd /kernel26.img



Second, I haven't used any package-manager than apt-get or aptitude. Are there any guides how to get accustomed to pacman ? :)


http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman
The Arch wiki is your friend.


And the last thing, I'm in 'love' to GNOME, is there any way to make it slim and fast, like KDEmod for KDE?


I use gnome on all three PCs I have running Arch. You can choose to install just the base gnome package and then add to it as you like. I always install both gnome and gnome-extra for the additional packages.

But, there is no Gnome mod for Arch.

Laplace's Daemon
August 15th, 2007, 09:59 PM
I asked about booting to multiple distros in this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=508301) a little while ago. Got some good advice that's working for me.

K.Mandla
September 5th, 2007, 03:35 PM
Hey, what's the deal with GTK1 fonts in Arch? I can't seem to find or install anything that doesn't look like complete garbage.

I've tried xfonts-100dpi and xfonts-75dpi, plus a few others, but either they're xft and don't apply to GTK1 applications, or they just don't show up in xfontsel.

I only ask because dillo-improved out of the archlinux.fr repositories is UH-MAZING fast. And it doesn't render pages to look like rubbish either.

But the darn GTK1 interface is ruining it for me. (I know, I'm so superficial. :roll: )

EndPerform
September 5th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Just thought I'd post. I just downloaded an Arch ISO and have a base install up and running in Virtualbox on my laptop. It reminds me a bit of Gentoo, except without the compile times. I'm liking it so far, and if I continue to grow fond of it, Ubuntu may be in trouble on my desktop (my laptop unfortunately runs Vista due to heat and sound issues in Linux).

Rumor
September 5th, 2007, 04:55 PM
Hey, what's the deal with GTK1 fonts in Arch? I can't seem to find or install anything that doesn't look like complete garbage.

I've tried xfonts-100dpi and xfonts-75dpi, plus a few others, but either they're xft and don't apply to GTK1 applications, or they just don't show up in xfontsel.

I only ask because dillo-improved out of the archlinux.fr repositories is UH-MAZING fast. And it doesn't render pages to look like rubbish either.

But the darn GTK1 interface is ruining it for me. (I know, I'm so superficial. :roll: )

Have you looked at the following info? http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/XOrg_Font_Configuration I have not messed much with my fonts, but your question has prompted me to look more closely at some of the alternative offerings.

I'll have to look at the dillo-improved package. I tend to ignore the archlinux.fr repository once I have yaourt installed.

Thanks for the head's up!

fwojciec
September 5th, 2007, 08:53 PM
Hey, what's the deal with GTK1 fonts in Arch? I can't seem to find or install anything that doesn't look like complete garbage.

I've tried xfonts-100dpi and xfonts-75dpi, plus a few others, but either they're xft and don't apply to GTK1 applications, or they just don't show up in xfontsel.

I only ask because dillo-improved out of the archlinux.fr repositories is UH-MAZING fast. And it doesn't render pages to look like rubbish either.

But the darn GTK1 interface is ruining it for me. (I know, I'm so superficial. :roll: )

Are the font paths in your xorg.conf correct? Do you see any font related errors in your Xorg.0.log? I had to play around with the paths in xorg and mkfontdir command before xfontsel would see all the fonts I have installed in Arch.

K.Mandla
September 5th, 2007, 10:42 PM
Are the font paths in your xorg.conf correct?
Aha! That's what it was. For some reason those paths were commented out. I got the normal series after I uncommented those lines and restarted X. Thanks! dillo-improved looks much better now! ;)

regomodo
September 5th, 2007, 11:11 PM
hmm. a bit dissapointed by Arch Linux. I managed to get a base install up and running no problem but i ran into inconsistencies between the instructions and what was actually possible.

For example, when changing the locales i was told to run $locale -a . This spurted out errors. When changing the timezone the changes were not added to rc.conf.
A certain file that was supposed to be edited didn't exist. How to add the CD packages into a .conf file was wrong. I followed it to the word ( i printed out the 27 base install guide) and must have done it 4 times.

I also managed to bork my Gutsy install as the initrd img was in a seperate /boot partition which Arch wiped even though i set the mountpoints manually and told nothing to format.

Maybe another day but i'm going to try Gentoo instead

pelle.k
September 6th, 2007, 01:42 AM
For example, when changing the locales i was told to run $locale -a
I quote from the install guide;

You can get a list of the available locales by running locale -a from the commandline. This setting is not needed for US English users.
"locale -a" only shows what locales you have added (or commented out if you will, in /etc/locale.gen + run locale-gen). this last step is acctually done in the installer...

When changing the timezone the changes were not added to rc.conf.
I quote from the guide;

Command tzselect can find correct timezone for you.
It doesn't add your timezone to rc.conf. It _finds_ you timezone. In my case it said "'Europe/Stockholm" which is correct.

A certain file that was supposed to be edited didn't exist.
What file?

How to add the CD packages into a .conf file was wrong. I followed it to the word
I will agree that this would probably not work though. I guess the changes in pacman V3 probably rendered that advice useless. You're supposed to name the [repository] after the database file in the directory your pointing to. In this case it's named current.db.tar.gz on the install cd, and since that is also true of the original repo, you can just as well put

Server = file:///mnt/cd/arch/pkg
just below the existing [current] in /etc/pacman.conf (temporarily, since pacman will replace the real repo for the cd until you remove this modification)
This entry will be primary even if you have an "Include = " below it.


I also managed to bork my Gutsy install as the initrd img was in a seperate /boot partition which Arch wiped even though i set the mountpoints manually and told nothing to format.
You failed to understand at least two of the instructions from the install guide judging from your post, so who knows, maybe you did it again.

Better luck next time though. Don't hesitate to ask if something isn't clear to you.

regomodo
September 6th, 2007, 07:51 AM
I quote from the install guide;

"locale -a" only shows what locales you have added (or commented out if you will, in /etc/locale.gen + run locale-gen). this last step is acctually done in the installer...

I quote from the guide;

It doesn't add your timezone to rc.conf. It _finds_ you timezone. In my case it said "'Europe/Stockholm" which is correct.

What file?

I will agree that this would probably not work though. I guess the changes in pacman V3 probably rendered that advice useless. You're supposed to name the [repository] after the database file in the directory your pointing to. In this case it's named current.db.tar.gz on the install cd, and since that is also true of the original repo, you can just as well put

Server = file:///mnt/cd/arch/pkg
just below the existing [current] in /etc/pacman.conf (temporarily, since pacman will replace the real repo for the cd until you remove this modification)
This entry will be primary even if you have an "Include = " below it.


You failed to understand at least two of the instructions from the install guide judging from your post, so who knows, maybe you did it again.

Better luck next time though. Don't hesitate to ask if something isn't clear to you.

yeah, maybe i should have worded myself a bit better. When it says it shows available $locales -a all i was an error. When i ran $ locale the certain files returned were just the ones specified by rc.conf which was en_US. When i changed it with en_GB pacman spurted errors about the locale.

Woops, missed that about tzselect.In any case i changed the rc.conf to Europe/London anyway. Its hard working from a plump armchair. I can't concentrate properly in this madhouse, can't wait till i get back to uni to my own house.

/etc/mkinitcpio.conf was the file missing. Yep, i double checked the spelling and tried to tab-complete but it wasn't there.

About Pacman. Cheers for the tips, i'll remember when i get back to it (i.e. when i fail with Gentoo) but first i've got to wait for my custom kernel to compile. yawn.

kazuya
September 7th, 2007, 02:39 PM
I'm loving archlinux. It is a learning machine, but once setup is so rewarding. I inderstand that there is no gui fron-end for pacman?
I can actually do without it, but that would be an added bonus for me.

I find arch and zenwalk equally fast on my 256MB PC.

My question, I always get a prompt when using pacman -S gnome
about using -C or something like that. It works fine, but I am just curious on what that means. I shall post the message later. Else, the system runs like a dream.

K.Mandla
September 7th, 2007, 02:58 PM
Has anyone ever installed Arch on an i586 machine? I mean, have you ever recompiled the key packages, like it suggests in the wiki?

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Install_Arch_i586

I have a machine I'd love to use Arch on, but it's a K6-2, and Arch doesn't give it any love. I was just wondering how big a can of worms I'd be opening, if I decided to recompile for i586 on one machine, just to install on another.

Or would I be better off just trying Gentoo?

pelle.k
September 7th, 2007, 05:50 PM
about using -C or something like that.
Can i take a guess at that it's complaining about your locale? Maybe you should set one in that case.


Has anyone ever installed Arch on an i586 machine?
I have, using lowarch (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=27580)
In the end i had to compile too many packages by hand, so i gave up. It's really a shame, because that k6-2 i had was perfect for a ligt weight distro like arch.

Rumor
September 7th, 2007, 06:41 PM
I'm loving archlinux. It is a learning machine, but once setup is so rewarding. I inderstand that there is no gui fron-end for pacman?
I can actually do without it, but that would be an added bonus for me.


There is one that has been developed by a user.

Jacman: http://www.andy-roberts.net/software/jacman/

There were some others, but I believe Jacman is the only one being actively developed.

miggols99
September 7th, 2007, 07:25 PM
Jacman doesn't work for me :( Tried using it. Nice GUI. But when I tried to install something, it would crash.

K.Mandla
September 7th, 2007, 11:47 PM
I have, using lowarch (http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=27580)
In the end i had to compile too many packages by hand, so i gave up. It's really a shame, because that k6-2 i had was perfect for a ligt weight distro like arch.
That's what I was afraid of. If it ends up being recompile after recompile, I think I'd rather just tinker with Gentoo. Not a thrilling prospect, but we'll see what happens. Thanks.

ynnhoj
September 8th, 2007, 01:39 AM
i'm sure if you read the gentoo handbook/install guide you'll have very little (major) to worry about. there are always bumps in the road, but if yer prepared it's not an issue.

Warren Watts
September 8th, 2007, 09:29 AM
I had Xubuntu installed on my secondary computer for a day or so, but something about Xubuntu's implementation of Xfce left me cold. The selection of preinstalled packages is minimal at best, and I didn't really feel like Xubuntu really offered any significant speed increase over Ubuntu on the same hardware, So I went back to Ubuntu.

RavTux had really good things to say about Wolvix, so I set up Wolvix Cub on a second 4.3 GB drive in the computer.

I have been dual booting Ubuntu and Wolvix Cub for about three weeks now on my secondary computer and I realized the other day that I haven't booted into Ubuntu in at least a week.

The main reason for this is that I have grown to appreciate Wolvix Cub/Xfce's compact size and speed (both being issues considering the computer only has 256MB of RAM and a 700 MHz Duron processor). It way outperforms Ubuntu running on the same hardware. My only complaint so far is with the difficulty I seem to have locating and installing Slackware packages.

Here lately everyone has been raving about Arch Linux, and since I'm not even using Ubuntu on the secondary machine, I have decided it's time for Ubuntu to go.

Don't panic, I'm still running Ubuntu on my server and primary computer (My 12 year old daugher LOVES Ubuntu, and I don't think I could bring myself to take it away from her anyway).

I downloaded and burnt an Arch ISO, naively expecting an easy Live CD based install similar to Ubuntu and Wolvix, and whoa!, much to my surprise and dismay upon booting the CD I discovered I have to LEARN to install Arch.

At first this put me off, but after reading the Arch Wiki on installation and all 22 pages of this thread, I have decided to give it a go. I have been using Linux exclusively for about four months now. Between what I have learned using Ubuntu and my experience with Wolvix, I think it is something I can handle. :-)

I'll post my progress and experiences here as I go thru the install.

Warren Watts
September 9th, 2007, 01:06 AM
Update: Arch Linux Install Day 1

Two hours into the install, I am typing this from Firefox running on Xfce! It wasn't nearly as difficult as I imagined it was going to be.

I followed the Beginner's Guide on the Arch Linux Wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide), built the base install, then rebooted into the base system and installed Xwindows and Xfce.

The only difficulty I have had so far was configuring xorg.conf. The default xorg.conf didn't do a very good job of detecting possible screen resolutions and color depths, so I cheated and copied the "Device" and "Screen" sections from my working Wolvix install.

Now it's time to customize!

5-HT
September 9th, 2007, 06:43 AM
so I cheated and copied the "Device" and "Screen" sections from my working Wolvix install.


same here...:)

fwojciec
September 9th, 2007, 06:16 PM
same here...:)
make sure to look at /var/log/Xorg.0.log and check for any errors (EE) and warnings (WW). Most likely you will have to adjust one or two things - like font paths for example - to make everything work correctly in Arch.

afonic
September 9th, 2007, 09:06 PM
Arch's biggest stength imo is the amazing way it stays up to date. Just install once and keep syncing - the way they generate binary packages as soon as a new upstream version is out and serve them to you via pacman is just awesome. Its releases are just snapshots of the current package tree, the concept of different versions as in most other distros is non existant in Arch. Just keep running "pacman -Syu" and you are always updated!

Besides that, Arch is very fast. It can easily run Gnome in my old P3 700MHz laptop with 128MB RAM. Ubuntu - even Xubuntu - are *too* slow and always lock up and crash under that setup. Arch runs pretty fast, even when running Firefox, downloading a torrent and watching an XviD movie at the same time. :)

The only small drawback is the setup. You have to setup everything yourself, including X, Gnome, Alsa etc. Heck, I even added Arch art work myself. :)
However it is very simple. And by saying simple I don't mean the Ubuntu way but the Arch KISS way. The structure of the OS and the config files is so easy that if you have basic Linux knowledge and use the wiki you can configure everything yourself. In my first Arch install I had Gnome running in under 1 hour (excluding the download time) and when it was finished I had this nice feeling that I had achieved something! :) (and imagine I've even installed Gentoo).

Last but not least here is my brand new Arch laptop using Gnome with Deviant Metacity and GTK themes:


http://www.divshare.com/img/thumb/1902877-192.png (http://www.divshare.com/download/1902877-192)

K.Mandla
September 12th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Arch is spoiling my anticipation for Gutsy.

I'm used to Kazehakase 0.4.8 and Openbox 3.4.4, and the idea of dropping back when Gutsy arrives is not enticing. Yes, I could install those externally, from the OB site or by recompiling, but still ... I appear to be addicted to a rolling release. :|

AriciU
September 12th, 2007, 02:42 AM
After trying almost all major distro's out there (ubuntu, debian, slackware, gentoo, fedora, etc) i've finally switched from Slackware 12 to Arch.

It has the Slack simplicity + pacman (awesome package manager) + more speed. Love it!

5-HT
September 12th, 2007, 05:33 AM
make sure to look at /var/log/Xorg.0.log and check for any errors (EE) and warnings (WW). Most likely you will have to adjust one or two things - like font paths for example - to make everything work correctly in Arch.
Thanks for the tip! There were a few errors and warnings that I wasn't aware of.

fwojciec
September 12th, 2007, 06:57 AM
5-HT: sure thing :)
K.Mandla: I feel your pain... When I discovered Arch I was testing Feisty and, sure enough, by the time Feisty was officially released Arch was already miles ahead in terms of what versions of software were available. I agree, rolling release system, especially the way Arch implements it, is like crack cocaine ;) Once you get hooked it's difficult to go back. I think that maybe one day, when I have matured sufficiently to be a tad more pragmatic in my attitude towards computers, I'm likely to settle for a more stable distro (Slackware?) that simply does what I want it to do but without the (not all that unpleasant) chore of daily updates and other turbulences that go along with the bleeding edge approach. I digress... Maybe dual booting is the answer for you?

K.Mandla
September 12th, 2007, 07:34 AM
Maybe dual booting is the answer for you?
Even better ... two computers! One Arch, one Feisty! :mrgreen:

EndPerform
September 12th, 2007, 01:24 PM
Arch is spoiling my anticipation for Gutsy.

I'm used to Kazehakase 0.4.8 and Openbox 3.4.4, and the idea of dropping back when Gutsy arrives is not enticing. Yes, I could install those externally, from the OB site or by recompiling, but still ... I appear to be addicted to a rolling release. :|

It spoiled me already. I switched my desktop from Gutsy dev to arch, and now I don't even plan on looking back. I'll still have Ubuntu at work, though :)

bodhi.zazen
September 12th, 2007, 03:14 PM
I have been rotating my distro every 6 months just to get a deeper feel for what each has to offer. I am finding that I miss arch though for all there reasons that have been stated ...

FYI ~ A little off topic , but for those that like slackware and pacman, you might want to check out Frugal :

http://frugalware.org/

It has been a while since I ran Frugal, but I enjoyed it the last time I looked.

kellemes
September 12th, 2007, 10:13 PM
.. for those that like slackware and pacman, you might want to check out Frugal :

http://frugalware.org/

It has been a while since I ran Frugal, but I enjoyed it the last time I looked.

Yeah, this will be my next endeavour..

bodhi.zazen
September 12th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Oh, I came across this link , it is an alternate install guide.

Looks very nice :

YAALIG = Yet Another Arch Linux Install Guide (http://www.my-guides.net/en/content/view/49/26/)

I like the organization :)

# For example :
# On the Daemons page is a hint for how to speed boot times by adding an @ in the front of a deamon with advice on which ones to add this to.

afonic
September 13th, 2007, 05:13 PM
My review for Arch:

http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/212/104/

:)

epimer
September 13th, 2007, 06:23 PM
That was a well-written review. afonic.

I just switched to Arch last week, and I'm very much liking having a much lighter, more customised system.

bodhi.zazen
September 13th, 2007, 07:48 PM
An easier way to install Arch :

http://user-contributions.org/wikis/userwiki/index.php?title=Arch_Linux_Office_Install_CD

Have any of you tried this or advised it to new arch users ?

eyelessfade
September 13th, 2007, 08:12 PM
Arch: Bin there done that. Used it for 1 1/2 years before moving to (k)ubuntu. And why did I switch?. Because it is horrible unstable. It was even more unstable then debian sid, which I used until glibc broke ^^

Arch has a nice package system. But it doesn't help when they roll out packages which breaks X, or even worse the entire system. I know a lot of people who ran arch, but had to switch because the unstable nature of the distro.

Gentoo was more fun, although I finally got tired of waiting hours for a simple upgrade. Maybe I will try it again someday, if I get a core2quad or something :)

bodhi.zazen
September 13th, 2007, 08:32 PM
I have heard of people running into problems with Arch, but honestly I find it to be very stable, as much so as any of the major distor's.

I can not think of a single distro that has not had problems you describe.

My experience has been that updating with any distro has some risk and if I were updating a production server yo bet I would do be cautious and perform a system backup first.

With Arch I have had problems with isolated packages, but never any major problem I could not resolve with a brief visit to the forums.

I would have to disagree that Arch is any more or less stable then any other distro with the exception of Slackware ...

afonic
September 13th, 2007, 09:36 PM
Arch has a nice package system. But it doesn't help when they roll out packages which breaks X, or even worse the entire system. I know a lot of people who ran arch, but had to switch because the unstable nature of the distro.


Ubuntu had a problematic update that broke X as well. In Arch if something like that happens you can roll back by installing the older version of the package kept in the pacman cache.


An easier way to install Arch :

http://user-contributions.org/wikis/...ice_Install_CD

Have any of you tried this or advised it to new arch users ?

I won't suggest such an install way. If you want to use Arch you'll have to do it "the Arch way", learning how it works. Installing Arch like that and then trying to mess with rc.conf to setup CUPS has no meaning imo.

Rumor
September 13th, 2007, 09:52 PM
I've been an Arch user for about a year and have had no problems with stability. None of the upgrades have broken X, and maintaining my nVidia drivers has been much easier with Arch than it was with Ubuntu; upgrades for which frequently broke X.

You can make your system as stable / unstable as you wish by enabling the testing and/or unstable repositories. I have not had any issues with the packages in the testing repo. Of course, your mileage may vary :-)

kellemes
September 13th, 2007, 10:12 PM
I've been an Arch user for about a year and have had no problems with stability. None of the upgrades have broken X, and maintaining my nVidia drivers has been much easier with Arch than it was with Ubuntu; upgrades for which frequently broke X.

You can make your system as stable / unstable as you wish by enabling the testing and/or unstable repositories. I have not had any issues with the packages in the testing repo. Of course, your mileage may vary :-)

Same here..
Haven't had stability-issues at all.. Arch is very transparent and thereby it's easy to keep an eye on system-essential packages and see to it they don't break, and if they do.. there is no challenge in fixing it.
I respect distro's like Ubuntu, but for most Ubuntu'rs it seems a lot harder to maintain there system as it is for Archers to maintain there's.

afonic
September 13th, 2007, 11:09 PM
Their kernel update system should be better though. They install the new kernel in the place of the old one, not even leaving two of them in parallel. So in case the new kernel does not boot you need to use the install CD to fix it.

pelle.k
September 14th, 2007, 02:44 AM
Their kernel update system should be better though. They install the new kernel in the place of the old one, not even leaving two of them in parallel. So in case the new kernel does not boot you need to use the install CD to fix it.

That is true, however, booting your installation with the kernel from the cd, is a piece of cake, and from there, it's just a matter of installing the old kernel from the package cache (or the install cd). I think it's rather elegant.
Also, you could easily have another kernel install beside your standard kernel, like the "ck" or "suspend" flavor, kept in "IgnorePkg" (pacman.conf) when you upgrade. You could of course also compile your own "flavor" and have this installed just as a backup.

In either case, i see your point.

K.Mandla
September 15th, 2007, 05:39 AM
I gave Lowarch a shot yesterday on my lowly 450Mhz K6-2. It was like a breath of fresh air. Fully 30 seconds faster to boot than a stripped Ubuntu. I loved it.

But the distro is stalled so badly that I'm working with six- and eight-month old packages. I'm considering recompiling a lot of stuff, but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort.

Opinions? or should I just do my best with Gentoo?

K.Mandla
September 15th, 2007, 05:40 AM
By the way, I don't know if anyone noticed or not, but xorg is no longer a metapackage. You have to install the subpackages individually.


# pacman -Sy xorg-server xorg-xinit xf86-input-{mouse,keyboard} xf86-video-<mycard> xorg-fonts-<mydpi>
# X -configure
# $EDITOR xorg.conf.new
# mv xorg.conf.new /etc/X11/xorg.conf
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=37062
(Warning: Very mean thread there. Sad.)

Personally I like it better that way, but I'm a rabid minimalist.

Pancetilla
September 15th, 2007, 07:04 AM
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=37062
(Warning: Very mean thread there. Sad.)

:popcorn:

Anyway

I have installed xorg using pacman -S xorg and recently using the whole thing (pacman _S xorg-server et al.l). It's the same to me (begginer-intermediate user), both ways work flawless. But maybe the xorg group package mantainer should have passed (or tried to pass) the task of mantaining it to another guy before removing it instead of vanishing after one single post in the forums.

afonic
September 15th, 2007, 10:07 AM
By the way, I don't know if anyone noticed or not, but xorg is no longer a metapackage. You have to install the subpackages individually.


# pacman -Sy xorg-server xorg-xinit xf86-input-{mouse,keyboard} xf86-video-<mycard> xorg-fonts-<mydpi>
# X -configure
# $EDITOR xorg.conf.new
# mv xorg.conf.new /etc/X11/xorg.conf
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=37062
(Warning: Very mean thread there. Sad.)

Personally I like it better that way, but I'm a rabid minimalist.

Very sad thread indeed. Especially the user that said "it was relly fast to install arch...now its verrrryyy borring" I don't know if I should laugh or cry. :S

I don't agree with that change though, from what I've seen that xorg group pulled just the basics you need plus the vesa drivers. (just what you'd install anyway), so I don't think it changed something except the user using the keyboard a bit more. :P

ynnhoj
September 15th, 2007, 02:37 PM
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=37062
(Warning: Very mean thread there. Sad.)
yeesh, what a mess. it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me :confused:

finferflu
September 15th, 2007, 05:54 PM
I don't see anything sad about that thread. In every forum there are people who complain arrogantly, but it's nice to see how the people in charge (developers and moderators) dealt with the situation. They had very cool spirits, and every attempt to create flames has been extinguished quickly. I think it's something that indicates the maturity of the people over there.

I don't agree with the decision to remove the Xorg metapackage without thinking ahead to prevent possible problems with dependencies. I think everyone makes mistakes, and disagreement between developers in such cases is quite healthy.
I actually don't know whether this has been fixed yet, since I don't need to install any Xorg-related stuff at the moment...

regomodo
September 15th, 2007, 07:24 PM
ah, i've just returned to Arch and i've spotted the typo in the "Official Arch Linux Install Guide". Wherever it says /etc/mkinitrd.conf it should actually say /etc/mkinitcpio.conf

Correct me if i'm wrong

regomodo
September 15th, 2007, 08:01 PM
grrr! Pacman is p**sing me off again

i've added the cdrom packages to my pacman.conf and mounted the cd

when i run find from the cd in terminal i see all the packages but $pacman -Sy just returns loads of errors