On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:30:15 +0100 "Moritz Maxeiner" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 00:53:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky > wrote: > > Admittedly, most of my linux experience (an unix in general) is > > Debian-derived stuff. (And a little bit of Mandrake from way > > back when > > it was still called Mandrake, but that's not exactly relevant > > experience anymore ;) ) > > I was hooked on Ubuntu myself, until they began getting all > "MUST_CLONE_MACOSX", "MUST_TAKE_CONTROL_AWAY_FROM_USER" on > everyone's ass (around the versions 8/9, I think). Yea, same thing here. And I found the help from their ticket support people to be...irrational. Incidentally, the "MUST_CLONE_MACOSX", "MUST_TAKE_CONTROL_AWAY_FROM_USER" just happen to also be the exact same reasons I'm fed up with all forms of Windows post-XP. I'll never understand why so many people have been so obsessed with cloning an OS that's never even managed to reach double-digit market share. It's like trying to clone the Ford Edsel: Why? Even if some people like it, they'll just use the real thing anyway. With Linux, when I outgrew Ubuntu I went upstream to Debian. Seemed the most sensible choice given their close relationship and my Ubuntu familiarity. I've had my eye on Mint, but, I dunno, it seems a little too "downstream". And like I said, I'm starting to keep an eye on Arch now too. > > I'll treat that as two seperate points :) > (1) Setup Arch from install medium to first login:[...] > > (2) X11 setup: Why would you want to configure X11 manually? > "sudo pacman -S xorg-server xorg-xinit xf86-input-evdev > xorg-video-(ati/intel/nouveau)", then install your desktop > environment, e.g. "sudo pacman -S enlightenment17", copy the > skeleton xinitrc file "cp /etc/skel/.xinitrc ~/" and change the > exec line to your desktop environment, e.g. "exec > enlightenment_start". Done. Now "startx" will give you your fully > functional desktop environment, no need for any xorg.confs, X11 > configures itself automatically. Usually the only reason for an > xorg.conf is when using the proprietary nvidia/ati drivers, but > the Arch wiki has lenghtly (well-written) articles regarding > those. Ahh, thanks for all the info :) As for the X11 stuff, that's still more manual than I'd like when it comes to X11. (Like I said, I've had *BIG* problems dealing directly with X11 in the past.) But I may give it a try. I'm sure it's improved since the nightmares I had with it back around 2001/2002, but I still worry *how* much improved... Heck, I've even had X11 problems as recently as Ubuntu 10. > > I'm not familiar with 0install myself and the truth is I probably > never will look at it - unless it can integrate with pacman, that > is - I've simply grown to dependent on the convenience of pacman > to try anything else :) > Anyway, I didn't want to put more oil in the fire of the > OS-specific-language-independent-package-manager vs. > language-specific-OS-independent-package manager debate (because > frankly, I can't contribute much in that area, all I want is a > package manager that simply works, be it OS or language specific, > I really don't care as long as it just gets the job done right - > one of the reasons I'm happy with pacman btw.), I just wanted to > point out that not all OS-package-managers are evil. Sorry for > dragging you slightly off-topic for so long^^ No prob :) But I don't think OS-package-managers are evil (like I've said, I like "apt-get install" *when it works*). It's just that I think it's patently absurd when people claim that OS-package-managers are the *only* good way to go and that there's no good legitimate purpose for language-based OS-independent stuff. As long as they're OS-dependent there will always be legitimate reasons for alternatives.
