Linux

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Alan

Although Unity2D in 11.10 and 12.04 is runs on top of Gnome 3, it's different from Gnome Shell, and I'm wondering if you've tried that? I just ask as we seem to be talking about one and the other interchangably.

Yeah, I'm kind of a tourist with Gnome these days. (Years ago I loved it -- I ran Slack with Dropline.) Anyway, I tried Gnome on Arch after I posted, and it was gnome-shell. That's the one that I liked least well the last time I checked. However, my Arch Gnome is bare bones -- I usually put Gnome, KDE, and XFCE on my installations in order to get all the various apps I like working properly. Xfce is the actual DE I use unless I go for something even lighter.

So I've downloaded Fedora 16, which I heard implements gnome-shell nicely. I'll see what this looks like when I get the time to install it. You see, I really am curious about how the new Gnome will work out

Originally Posted by Alan

I think that using one app per workspace in full screen is what they're going for, with easy tiling if people want that (dragging to a side to make a window cover that half of the screen). I don't use different workspaces.

I should look more closely at their tiling stuff. I do use different workspaces, especially to protect long-running, delicate tasks, such as backing up onto external drives. It's easy to accidentally type into the wrong window when you have too much going on.

I still think that the current Gnome philosophy is questionable. They seem to want to emulate OS X quite a bit (I use OS X myself, sometimes -- I just bought a new MacBook Air), and I think they want a one-size-fits-all interface for reasons that are not practical.

[Alan]

About the one-size-fits-all criticism, https://extensions.gnome.org/ is good for customising Gnome Shell. It needs to be easier to search for things, but it shows that they're supportive of people customising things. It's not quite living up to its promise yet in terms of creative extensions, but I think it has promise.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Alan

https://extensions.gnome.org/

Thanks, I knew about extensions, but never really looked into them.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by eerok

Am I the only one using Arch? I guess it's been eight years or so since I started to prefer it. I've used most everything else, and I've liked FreeBSD and Debian Testing at times during the past, but Arch hits the spot for me.

Originally Posted by jt512

I've been using Arch for about three years, and I am very happy with it.

Originally Posted by eerok

Bleeding edge, rolling release, decent package system, big repos ... there's nothing else quite like Arch.

Arch is one I've never tried, though it looks quite promising. My standby has been Debian and Debian-based distros, mainly due to apt (or aptitude) and the vast amounts of software that is available either in the repos or when people offer software for download, a .deb is almost always a format that is used.

I'd classify myself as a medium level linux user; never built my own kernel, but fairly comfortable with the command line.

What can you guys (or anyone else) tell me that'll sell me on trying Arch? I've read that the package manager is really first class and I like that.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

What can you guys (or anyone else) tell me that'll sell me on trying Arch? I've read that the package manager is really first class and I like that.

The Arch community has a high proportion of power users, which makes it easy to get help (usually you just need to look at the forums to solve any problem you have), things move quickly (new versions of things appear much faster than with Debian), the wiki is very good, the Arch User Repository (AUR) adds tons of software, it's actually pretty easy to make your own packages ...

There's none of the political baloney you get with Debian (I loved Debian for years, but it's true that the purist attitudes get in the way of practicality at times). Arch is inspired by BSD in several ways, and this provides a very solid foundation IMO.

The big thing for me is the rolling release. Just update and you're up-to-date. You don't have to scramble to accomodate big changes every six months (ie, Ubuntu), or wait years for upgrades to the current versions of things (ie, Debian Stable), or ride through rather choppy update cycles (ie, Debian Testing). If you took Debian Sid and made it so it didn't break, you'd have something a bit similar to Arch, though probably not as bleeding edge.

It's easy to make a 20GB partition and throw it on. Why not just take if for a spin yourself? Read the wiki first so that you understand the installation routine.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

What can you guys (or anyone else) tell me that'll sell me on trying Arch? I've read that the package manager is really first class and I like that.

With Arch, you only install the software you actually need. A pure base install includes the kernel, toolchain, and a handful of utilities. No X server, no desktop, no window manager. You have complete control over what additional software you install.

I have Arch on two machines: a small server and my main laptop. On the server, I have the base install, plus CUPS, Apache, iscan (for my Epson scanner), SSH, postfix, ntpd, dovecot, and nfs. I run it headless, so no X server, etc.

On my laptop I have Xmonad as window manager, plus the usual stuff: Firefox, mplayer, etc. I think tiling window managers are brilliant, so that's what I installed. If I liked Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Awesome, etc., I could have installed those instead of, or in addition to, Xmonad. With Arch, you decide, and sit back and just shake your head at the Ubuntards whining about the current state of Gnome, Unity, and whatnot.

Secondly, Arch stresses simplicity. Its configuration files are very straightforward. There is no complicated init.d system for daemons, or multiple run levels, like Ubuntu, Fedora, and other distros have. You configure the entire system yourself by editing a handful of files in /etc. Most users can accept 99% of the defaults, but the installation walks you through every file, so you understand its function, and can tweak it later, if the need arises.

Because of the transparency and simplicity of the configuration, the fact that the installation walks you through the configuration files, and the fact that you only install precisely the software you need, you will understand your system very well. Because it is simpler than other Linux distros, there is less that can go wrong, and because it is simple and you understand it well, if something does go wrong, you will likely be able to diagnose the error quickly and fix it. Furthermore, even if you get stuck, as eerok mentioned, most Arch users actually know what they are doing. If you ask a question on the Arch forums, rather than getting 50 responses from people taking wild guesses at the answer (as is de rigueur on the Ubuntu forums), you will likely get a knowledgeable response, often from one of the developers. This assumes that the answer isn't in the extremely thorough Wiki, which it probably is.

Finally, package management and dependency handling are outstanding. Official packages are normally installed as binaries; however, in the rare case that you want to tweak something at compile time, you can download the source code instead, using the Arch Build System, which will still pull in the dependencies for you. Community contributed packages are compiled from source, again, using a system that takes care of dependencies and avoids conflicts.

Arch is a great distro for anyone with a modest amount of Linux experience, who doesn't mind getting their hands a little dirty in exchange for a flexible, well-maintained system that they have full control over and can tailor to their exact needs.

Jay

[The Norseman]

Wow, thanks guys for the excellent summaries! I'm downloading Arch now, as I type. I've got a spare 150gig drive that seems to be begging to be used for a new distro, so...

Couple of quick questions while I peruse the wiki...

I read on slashdot that an updated kernel is out. If I were to want that, how would you suggest I incorporate it into my build? Install the current version, then do a custom build later or what? And I've also read that with processors these days, a custom kernel for my specific machine would give me some performance increases, but it probably isn't worth it. I think I would like to do that anyway, so any advice? My machine is quite decent with an AMD Athlon II X4 630 (2.8ghz) and 4 gigs of RAM. I'm not trying to make it scream or overclock it, but faster boot times would be nice...

And about the Arch Build System -- so what you're saying is that if a binary is available, I can quickly and easily build it to my system specs if a file wasn't available in the repo?

Exciting! This is gonna be fun!

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Wow, thanks guys for the excellent summaries! I'm downloading Arch now, as I type. I've got a spare 150gig drive that seems to be begging to be used for a new distro, so...

Couple of quick questions while I peruse the wiki...

I read on slashdot that an updated kernel is out. If I were to want that, how would you suggest I incorporate it into my build? Install the current version, then do a custom build later or what?

Arch is a rolling release distro. If you follow the recommended installation instructions, your installation will be up to date. In all likelihood, the kernel that you read about will already be included in the distribution. If not, then it will be within a few days, or at most, weeks. With a simple command:

# pacman -Syu

you can update your system, as often as daily, if you wish (I update my laptop daily).

Quote:

And I've also read that with processors these days, a custom kernel for my specific machine would give me some performance increases, but it probably isn't worth it. I think I would like to do that anyway, so any advice?

It probably isn't worth it, but if you want to experiment with custom kernels, there are articles on the subject in the Arch Wiki.

There is also a subset of Arch users who are obsessive about minimizing boot time. You can read their suggestions on the Arch forums.

Quote:

And about the Arch Build System -- so what you're saying is that if a binary is available, I can quickly and easily build it to my system specs if a file wasn't available in the repo?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Arch has parallel systems for officially supported packages. Every package is available as a binary and as source. Unlike Gentoo, you will normally install the binary version of the package.* However, if you do want to do so, you can compile any package from source, and the package management system will still ensure that the package's dependencies are met and that the package does not conflict with other installed packages.

Jay

*Strictly speaking, this is not necessarily true. You could, if you wished, compile every package from source; but, if you were so inclined, then why would you choose Arch over Gentoo?

[eerok]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I read on slashdot that an updated kernel is out. If I were to want that, how would you suggest I incorporate it into my build? Install the current version, then do a custom build later or what? And I've also read that with processors these days, a custom kernel for my specific machine would give me some performance increases, but it probably isn't worth it. I think I would like to do that anyway, so any advice? My machine is quite decent with an AMD Athlon II X4 630 (2.8ghz) and 4 gigs of RAM. I'm not trying to make it scream or overclock it, but faster boot times would be nice...

To be honest, I haven't built a custom kernel for years. I disagree that you need one¸ but you can certainly achieve some hobby-level satisfaction from playing with things at this level. For example, I spent a couple of years with Gentoo, compiling and optimizing everything, and when I finally got tired of it (actually this was around the time I first tried Arch), I realized that I wasn't getting discernable gains from all that fussing and compiling anyway. If you find it fun or interesting, though, by all means go for it.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

And about the Arch Build System -- so what you're saying is that if a binary is available, I can quickly and easily build it to my system specs if a file wasn't available in the repo?

Sure, though it's unusual not to find the software you want packaged already, either in the official repos or in the AUR. And of course you can also build from source.

I just noticed Jay's post as I'm previewing mine. It's funny that we both mentioned Gentoo, but actually there have been many Gentoo users who've jumped ship for Arch over the years. There are some design similarities since they're both inspired by BSD, and Arch packages pretty much use the compile flags I used on Gentoo anyway.

[The Norseman]

Have it downloaded and burned to a CD. Have the 150gig drive hooked up and have been reading the Wiki. It looks like I'll have to print a portion out before I attempt it, so I don't forget the path or command to switch to the man page during installation.

I was thinking of going ahead with XFCE as my WM. I liked KDE the best of the big bloats, but overall, my work and play habits are such that I really don't need much in the way of bling and/or eyecandy.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Have it downloaded and burned to a CD. Have the 150gig drive hooked up and have been reading the Wiki. It looks like I'll have to print a portion out before I attempt it, so I don't forget the path or command to switch to the man page during installation.

I was thinking of going ahead with XFCE as my WM. I liked KDE the best of the big bloats, but overall, my work and play habits are such that I really don't need much in the way of bling and/or eyecandy.

The Beginner's Guide is essential for ensuring a smooth installation. I strongly suggest that you print it out in its entirety, and follow it closely during installation.

Jay

[eerok]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

It looks like I'll have to print a portion out before I attempt it, so I don't forget the path or command to switch to the man page during installation.

I debated posting this link previously (I was afraid this install method might detract from the first-install experience), but here's how I install Arch:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...Existing_Linux

Saves you paper, anyway, but you should still read all the beginner stuff on the wiki first.

You might still want to do it from the install CD -- it's fun to fight your way up to a full install from a minimal CLI environment. But you don't strictly have to. Your call.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by jt512

The Beginner's Guide is essential for ensuring a smooth installation. I strongly suggest that you print it out in its entirety, and follow it closely during installation.

Jay

Will do, and thanks for your help!

Originally Posted by eerok

I debated posting this link previously (I was afraid this install method might detract from the first-install experience), but here's how I install Arch:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...Existing_Linux

Saves you paper, anyway, but you should still read all the beginner stuff on the wiki first.

You might still want to do it from the install CD -- it's fun to fight your way up to a full install from a minimal CLI environment. But you don't strictly have to. Your call.

Thanks and I think I'll stick with the install CD to a fresh HDD. I'm currently running Win7 because it was a pain with my previous school's requirements to use a VM, but was running Debian Mint before that. I have two hard drives as data storage and so I just swap out another hard drive that I always use as the OS drive. So I'll end up copying whatever I want to keep off of the Win7 disk and then maybe make a compressed image of it just in case I ever need to run Windows again.

[mikeyx]

just installed the latest zentyal server for the hom server and reinforced any holes with webwin, latest project..

[Genesius]

Originally Posted by jt512

With Arch, you decide, and sit back and just shake your head at the Ubuntards whining about the current state of Gnome, Unity, and whatnot.

Do we really need the childish namecalling?

I'm an Ubuntu user, currently running Xubuntu 12.04 beta. I've tried a bunch of other distros, including Arch, and so far Ubuntu best suits my needs. Your mileage may vary.

[nathan]

quite. If I want name calling, I'll read The Register. Ubuntu's fine for many users. It's just no longer fine for one set of users, who are having to change. That's life.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by jt512

On my laptop I have Xmonad as window manager, plus the usual stuff: Firefox, mplayer, etc. I think tiling window managers are brilliant, so that's what I installed. If I liked Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Awesome, etc., I could have installed those instead of, or in addition to, Xmonad. With Arch, you decide, and sit back and just shake your head at the Ubuntards whining about the current state of Gnome, Unity, and whatnot.

You can install Xmonad, Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Awesome, etc. in Ubuntu.

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by Alan

You can install Xmonad, Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Awesome, etc. in Ubuntu.

Yep, just I have done with Suse, opencaldera, redhat, opensolaris and BSD, I use ubuntu on my netbook cuz it picks up the wifi driver without my having to fart with it. Boo hoo.

Zentyal is proving a complex little challenge though, so far Iz having fun with it.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Alan

You can install Xmonad, Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Awesome, etc. in Ubuntu.

I would have thought so. But then why is whining about Unity so ubiquitous among Ubuntu users?

Jay

[Alan]

Originally Posted by jt512

I would have thought so. But then why is whining about Unity so ubiquitous among Ubuntu users?

Jay

Criticism is hardly ubiquitous (lots of people like it overall), but Unity is fairly young and issues are being worked out. Just like Gnome Shell (3.0), KDE 4.0 and so on.

Unity in 12.04 is very good for my needs. I prefer Gnome Shell 3.4, but Unity is catching up.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Alan

Criticism is hardly ubiquitous (lots of people like it overall), but Unity is fairly young and issues are being worked out. Just like Gnome Shell (3.0), KDE 4.0 and so on. Do you forget the reactions to those?

No. I remember. I just don't understand why so many Ubuntu users who don't like the default window manager suffer with it and complain, rather than install a different window manager.

Jay

[Alan]

I hear a lot of people who don't like Unity talk about how they've changed to Gnome Shell, XFCE, KDE etc. I'm sure that many others like Unity overall, but not certain elements of it and they complain about those parts.

There was a poll on OMG! Ubuntu! last November with 15,988 votes.
"Which desktop environment do you use as your default in Ubuntu 11.10?"
Unity: 46.78%
Gnome Shell: 28.42%
XFCE: 7.58%
KDE: 6.92%
GNOME 3 (Fallback): 5.95%
LXDE: 2.7%
Pantheon: 1.65%
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/11/w...tu-11-10-poll/

[eerok]

I don't agree with the Ubuntu bashing, but there's some elitism among the more hardcore Linux users. I guess I'm more practical than that, because I find Ubuntu useful on new machines that I want to get working quickly, and I always leave it on as a fall-back distro because I'm a big fan of reliability through redundancy. All my machines have at least two distros installed, and at the height of my experimentation phase, I'd run as many as ten on one machine. I don't see the point of being partisan about distros.

The complaint against Ubuntu is most commonly that it's too bloated, but I don't notice any performance shortfalls in day to day use. Underneath it all is likely the bias against Ubuntu making Linux easy and accessible for anyone -- sort of leaving the door open for the riff-raff -- but I think that's silly. The more the merrier.

We should save our negative energy to use against the real enemy: Microsoft!

[eerok]

Originally Posted by jt512

I just don't understand why so many Ubuntu users who don't like the default window manager suffer with it and complain, rather than install a different window manager.

I think a lot of newer Linux users are boggled by the range of choices Linux offers. Experienced users revel in it, but if you don't know what to choose, or even how to discover and implement the choices, then it can be intimidating.

For the average computer user, things are made simple and "friendly" by having choices made for them. There's nothing wrong with this in itself, but it's opposite to what the technically competent user usually wants.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by eerok

Underneath it all is likely the bias against Ubuntu making Linux easy and accessible for anyone -- sort of leaving the door open for the riff-raff -- but I think that's silly.

Well, since it's your straw man, I guess you're entitled to think of it any way you want.

Jay

[eerok]

Originally Posted by jt512

Well, since it's your straw man, I guess you're entitled to think of it any way you want.

I've seen tons of ridiculous posturing from those who imagine themselves the Linux elite. It this attitude doesn't apply to you, then that's great. Don't call it a straw man when it's not even an argument, merely an observation.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by eerok

I've seen tons of ridiculous posturing from those who imagine themselves the Linux elite. It this attitude doesn't apply to you, then that's great. Don't call it a straw man when it's not even an argument, merely an observation.

Well, everyone I know who doesn't like Ubuntu has a pretty good reason for it, so apparently our observations differ.

Jay

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by jt512

Well, everyone I know who doesn't like Ubuntu has a pretty good reason for it, so apparently our observations differ.

Jay

Ubuntu is the end users distro, how many of you elitists know what Oberon system 3 is?

[Dessi]

I wiped out my Win7 today, replaced it with Mint. Motivation was primarily to try it out, gain experience using Linux.

Had a bit of trouble getting my dual screen monitors to work, turned out to be a damaged cable. Replaced cable, now works beautifully with Nvidia and dual-monitor setup.

So I guess I'm officially part of the Linux cult.

[Alan]

Ah, so that's what caused linux's desktop share to go up today.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Dessi

I wiped out my Win7 today, replaced it with Mint. Motivation was primarily to try it out, gain experience using Linux.

Had a bit of trouble getting my dual screen monitors to work, turned out to be a damaged cable. Replaced cable, now works beautifully with Nvidia and dual-monitor setup.

So I guess I'm officially part of the Linux cult.

"That's good! You've taken your first step into a larger world."
-Obi Wan

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Dessi

So I guess I'm officially part of the Linux cult.

Welcome to the fold. Sometimes this fold translates to an origami of the brain, but that's half the fun.

[Alan]

I've been reporting lots of bugs in Unity lately. My karma on launchpad got up to 330! One of them got marked as High Importance and a fix is set for a stable release update of the latest LTS!

I saw this:

Quote:

Ubuntu is on course to ship on 5% of the worlds PCs next year, Canonical’s Chris Kenyon has revealed.

Kenyon, who helps lead sales and business development at Canonical, announced the gains during a plenary discussion at the Ubuntu Developer Summit on the company’s work with OEMs and ODMs.

Between 8 and 10 million Ubuntu units shipped ‘last year’, equating to around 7.5 billion dollars worth of hardware sales. That figure, Kenyon expects, will double to 18 million ‘next year’ which, he says, relates to some 5% of the world-wide PC market.

http://omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/05/ubunt...old-next-year/

Their current figures are much higher than I thought, let alone their expectations!

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by Alan

I've been reporting lots of bugs in Unity lately. My karma on launchpad got up to 330! One of them got marked as High Importance and a fix is set for a stable release update of the latest LTS!

I saw this:

http://omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/05/ubunt...old-next-year/

Their current figures are much higher than I thought, let alone their expectations!

I stay with MINT until they fix the bleeping wifi. No issues from 9.04 through 11.04, then 11.10 boom, they crap out. Fix it and make with the clear wimax drivers!

[xtifr]

Hmm, I think I should definitely jump into this thread somewhere....

I first tried Linux shortly after the first public announcement (version 0.12). I played with it off-and-on over the years, but didn't make the jump to being a full-time Linux user until '96 or '97. I had tried various distros (SLS, Ygdrassil, Slack, Red Hat), but the one that really won me over was Debian. By the end of '98, I'd joined the Debian project, and was a contributing, voting member till just a couple of years ago.

The main thing I liked about Debian was that it allowed you fairly fine-grained control if you wanted it, but provided reasonable defaults if you didn't. The other two biggies at the time were Slackware, which forced you to micromanage the whole system, and Red Hat, which basically forced you to roll your own if you didn't like the defaults. Debian was (and to a lesser extent, still is) a more complex system than either of those two, but it was so well-designed that you'd barely notice unless you went digging beneath the surface.

The other thing I've always loved about Debian is the ease of upgrading. Ubuntu users talk about how nice and "clean" a new install feels; Debian users brag about how long it's been since their last full install (2002 for me). Which is sort of peculiar, since Ubuntu is basically Debian-simplified-for-the-masses, but then Ubuntu has its fixed release schedule, which takes priority over smooth upgrades, while Debian follows a release-when-it's-ready approach.

Anyway, I'll keep an eye on this thread. I'm sure I have tips and tricks that some folks will find useful.

[Eddie Dane]

How do I install programs in Crunchbang?

I can download via Synaptic, but have no idea where they go after that.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

How do I install programs in Crunchbang?

I can download via Synaptic, but have no idea where they go after that.

Synaptic has probably already installed the package. You just need to know how to start the program.

I don't know if Crunchbang automatically installs start-up entries in your desktop menus. If it does, you should be able to find the program name there. Alternatively, you can start the program from the command line. Often, the command to start the program is the name of the package.

[AgeGap]

This post coming from Mint 13. I was happy with 12 but had trouble getting GIMP 2.8 to work. Added another panel to make it more like Mint 12.

Hard to believe this stuff is Free.

ETA: GIMP 2.8 is fantastic. Cinnamon looks slightly tweaked but is good.

[Alan]

Remastersys is great. It lets you install customised Debian and Ubuntu isos. For example, Ubuntu 12.04 plus all the updates since release, with your custom theme (if you use the backup option) and applications you like. I wish I started using it earlier.
http://www.remastersys.com/

And possibly best of all: It takes me just five minutes for the entire installation procedure, when using one of these isos, compared to 20 minutes (add the installation of updates and other custom things, it takes about an hour to get up to where you can get in five minutes with remastersys). Nice!

But sometimes the installation does fail as ubiquity sometimes decides not to let me create a user account. Other times, it does. I don't know the reason behind that but I have submitted a bug report. It's still a huge time saver.

[AgeGap]

Ten... Linux apps you must install