Re: Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
On 20/05/2023 13:35, Susmita/Rajib wrote: My query was different: whether I would shift out of Debian to Arch? It highly depends on your activities. They are quite different. It is not the case when similar questions causing flames and holy wars when general recommendation is to install the same distribution as your friends use, so you can ask their for help. If CPU performance, amount of RAM, and size of disk allows it, try to install Arch in a virtual machine to get an impression. I would not recommend Arch to inexperienced users (I have never tried its flavors aimed to be more friendly). However, any case, do not neglect docs from ArchLinux wiki (and from RedHat, SuSe, etc. sites as well). Just have in mind which parts are distribution agnostic, where important ideas are explained with examples specific to particular distributions, what instruction are not applicable to your case. Debian, Fedora, RedHat, Ubuntu have quite rich package scripts. Similar aspects of ArchLinux configuration are left to users. What is implemented as e.g. a shell script in Debian, must be explained to Arch users in prose. It is a reason why ArchLinux has so detailed wiki.
Re: Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 10:34:42AM +0530, Susmita/Rajib wrote: > My dear illustrious leaders and senior list members of debian-user ML, > > I hope I will have a clear reply on the matter by the end of the > inputs received for this query. > > For example, in Debian https://wiki.debian.org/LXDE has almost > nothing. Whereas Arch has at least a better wiki documentation on > LXDE. Also, as described in the earlier post: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/05/msg00792.html, the native > wiki website of LXDE is non-existent. You will get many answers: there is not "one size fits all". There are people who don't want a desktop at all (me, for example: and I have tried Gnome for a while and XFCE for a shorter while). A friend of mine who wants to be "just a user" does prefer a desktop. I let her try different options and she settled for Mate. So just saying "X is the best" doesn't do justice to the diversity of human beings (and perhaps also situations). Now to the Arch wiki. It is a work of beauty. Its seeming simplicity hides the fact that there must be a ton of love work beneath that. And as Sqaaakoi wrote elsewhere in this thread, you can learn a lot of things there which are useful for Debian or for Linux in general. The spirit of free software at its best. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
Dear songbird, songbird writes: > Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: > ... >> Go with Gnome Desktop. Gnome is easy and friendly. >> >> Also i am using Gnome Desktop under Debian 11 Bullseye. > > :) i'm running testing with bits of unstable and > just tagging along on this thread because i feel a > bit chatty this morning so a bit of story time and > preferences from my experiences so far with Debian > and desktop environments. > > if we're going to plug a different desktop with a > simple interface (as indicated by the OP) i'll put one > in for the MATE desktop. it is fairly consistent for > many years and a lot more simple for my pea brain to > understand and get things done. the other aspect i > was after was being able to handle lesser versions of > hardware that could at times not do as much as i > might have wanted but it did work ok until i could > finally upgrade my hardware. > > having spent many hours years ago when various > desktops were being developed to learn KDE and get my > desktop set up exactly how i liked it and then they > changed it to something i didn't like and so i switched > to GNOME and went through the large amount of work to > get that set up and how i liked it and again had that > desktop change to something i did not like again (in > both the KDE and GNOME cases it was also using more > resources than my older machine at that time could > reliably handle). so then MATE came along and has > done exactly what i wanted it to do. stay simple and > not mess up my layouts and preferences too much as > it updates. thankfully i have not had to do much > more fiddling around or searching for another desk- > top since. > > i have not had to try the other more simple > desktops, but i probably could manage it, after all > a simple console text terminal was adequate for many > years on a bunch of different machines through 15 > years of work even if i also could have multiple > terminals open on a Sun machine. thank ghods for a > good local network all those years (one advantage > of working at the university back then). i really > was spoiled by that and did not really appreciate > it until i was offline more and forced to use dialup > lines and modems all over again. > It is so long letter. Thank you for your real story. You nice guy ^^^ Still i believe that Gnome Desktop is beautiful even though it is heavy! >> Sincerely, Byung-Hee > > :) > > > songbird Sincerely, Byung-Hee (Gnome user in Debian 11 Bullseye)
Re: Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: ... > Go with Gnome Desktop. Gnome is easy and friendly. > > Also i am using Gnome Desktop under Debian 11 Bullseye. :) i'm running testing with bits of unstable and just tagging along on this thread because i feel a bit chatty this morning so a bit of story time and preferences from my experiences so far with Debian and desktop environments. if we're going to plug a different desktop with a simple interface (as indicated by the OP) i'll put one in for the MATE desktop. it is fairly consistent for many years and a lot more simple for my pea brain to understand and get things done. the other aspect i was after was being able to handle lesser versions of hardware that could at times not do as much as i might have wanted but it did work ok until i could finally upgrade my hardware. having spent many hours years ago when various desktops were being developed to learn KDE and get my desktop set up exactly how i liked it and then they changed it to something i didn't like and so i switched to GNOME and went through the large amount of work to get that set up and how i liked it and again had that desktop change to something i did not like again (in both the KDE and GNOME cases it was also using more resources than my older machine at that time could reliably handle). so then MATE came along and has done exactly what i wanted it to do. stay simple and not mess up my layouts and preferences too much as it updates. thankfully i have not had to do much more fiddling around or searching for another desk- top since. i have not had to try the other more simple desktops, but i probably could manage it, after all a simple console text terminal was adequate for many years on a bunch of different machines through 15 years of work even if i also could have multiple terminals open on a Sun machine. thank ghods for a good local network all those years (one advantage of working at the university back then). i really was spoiled by that and did not really appreciate it until i was offline more and forced to use dialup lines and modems all over again. > Sincerely, Byung-Hee :) songbird
Re: Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 12:05:38PM +0530, Susmita/Rajib wrote: > From: Byung-Hee HWANG > Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 15:00:00 +0900 > Message-id: <[] 87r0rbzgnz.fsf@penguin> > [ ... ] > Go with Gnome Desktop. Gnome is easy and friendly. > > Also i am using Gnome Desktop under Debian 11 Bullseye. > [ ... ] > > Thank you, Mr. Hwang, for responding to my query. I had tried Gnome > Desktop earlier. I don't like the Wayland Interface. I like the > StartMenu/Programs system of LXDE or any other DE that uses this kind > of menu driven interface that allows a bird's eye view of all > programs. I think I would stick to OpenBox. OK ( said the happy XFCE user ) > My query was different: whether I would shift out of Debian to Arch? > Perhaps you missed out my core message. Could be. However I'm fairly sure it was well understood. > May be my email could be read once more please, Mr. Hwang. Do known we are writing to N person that see this email. Do known that the N is much larger as you want to feed each day. (There is **no need** for addressing one single person.) Back to "read once more". People do make choices. Different people, different choices. Respect those choices. Surely avoid situations when **you** want to make a choice and ask **others** why **not** make the change **you** are about to make. So expirement. > Best wishes Yes Regards Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse
Re: Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
On Saturday, 20 May 2023 17:04:42 NZST Susmita/Rajib wrote: > My dear illustrious leaders and senior list members of debian-user ML, > > I hope I will have a clear reply on the matter by the end of the > inputs received for this query. > > For example, in Debian https://wiki.debian.org/LXDE has almost > nothing. Whereas Arch has at least a better wiki documentation on > LXDE. Also, as described in the earlier post: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/05/msg00792.html, the native > wiki website of LXDE is non-existent. > A lot of information on the Arch Wiki is relevant on any other distro that packages that software, including Debian. In a lot of cases, info on those wikis can be used to manage Debian systems, excluding some package names, some paths, and a few other rare things. > ArchLinux LXDE is not Debian LXDE. The corresponding packages > available in any one of the two isn't compatible with the other > (.tar.bz2 vs .deb). Debian installation via synaptic (or apt) is very > organised and simple for me. > > So this query also: is .deb packages a better alternative than > .tar.bz2? What are the pros and cons if the two are compared? > > I tried to add a menu item to the right click, drop down menu in LXDE, > but failed to find any information on this. > > I moved away from LXDE as a result and have begun using OpenBox. > > So my question becomes all the more pertinent. > > Best wishes, > Rajib B > Etc.
Re: Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
From: Byung-Hee HWANG Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 15:00:00 +0900 Message-id: <[] 87r0rbzgnz.fsf@penguin> [ ... ] Go with Gnome Desktop. Gnome is easy and friendly. Also i am using Gnome Desktop under Debian 11 Bullseye. [ ... ] Thank you, Mr. Hwang, for responding to my query. I had tried Gnome Desktop earlier. I don't like the Wayland Interface. I like the StartMenu/Programs system of LXDE or any other DE that uses this kind of menu driven interface that allows a bird's eye view of all programs. I think I would stick to OpenBox. My query was different: whether I would shift out of Debian to Arch? Perhaps you missed out my core message. May be my email could be read once more please, Mr. Hwang. Best wishes
Re: Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
Dear Rajib, "Susmita/Rajib" writes: > My dear illustrious leaders and senior list members of debian-user ML, > > I hope I will have a clear reply on the matter by the end of the > inputs received for this query. > > For example, in Debian https://wiki.debian.org/LXDE has almost > nothing. Whereas Arch has at least a better wiki documentation on > LXDE. Also, as described in the earlier post: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/05/msg00792.html, the native > wiki website of LXDE is non-existent. > > ArchLinux LXDE is not Debian LXDE. The corresponding packages > available in any one of the two isn't compatible with the other > (.tar.bz2 vs .deb). Debian installation via synaptic (or apt) is very > organised and simple for me. > > So this query also: is .deb packages a better alternative than > .tar.bz2? What are the pros and cons if the two are compared? .tar.bz2 is not easy to install. > I tried to add a menu item to the right click, drop down menu in LXDE, > but failed to find any information on this. > > I moved away from LXDE as a result and have begun using OpenBox. > > So my question becomes all the more pertinent. Go with Gnome Desktop. Gnome is easy and friendly. Also i am using Gnome Desktop under Debian 11 Bullseye. Sincerely, Byung-Hee
Learning resources and material-wise, which distro has an easier learning curve - Debian or Arch?
My dear illustrious leaders and senior list members of debian-user ML, I hope I will have a clear reply on the matter by the end of the inputs received for this query. For example, in Debian https://wiki.debian.org/LXDE has almost nothing. Whereas Arch has at least a better wiki documentation on LXDE. Also, as described in the earlier post: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/05/msg00792.html, the native wiki website of LXDE is non-existent. ArchLinux LXDE is not Debian LXDE. The corresponding packages available in any one of the two isn't compatible with the other (.tar.bz2 vs .deb). Debian installation via synaptic (or apt) is very organised and simple for me. So this query also: is .deb packages a better alternative than .tar.bz2? What are the pros and cons if the two are compared? I tried to add a menu item to the right click, drop down menu in LXDE, but failed to find any information on this. I moved away from LXDE as a result and have begun using OpenBox. So my question becomes all the more pertinent. Best wishes, Rajib B Etc.
