• General Linux Chat and Small Questions v. Install Arch
    4,946 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lyoko774;38853690]But it's not as fun to update :v:[/QUOTE] I got rid of arch because I got sick of it breaking so often when I updated. It annoyed me, because it struck me at the times I needed to do other things.
using arch on a productive system since july now. and I have yet to break my installation.
I tried using Debian as a server. Lasted 3 weeks before I got fed up with it. Happily running three Arch servers. One of my Arch servers has being running for nearly a year with no break.
What was wrong with Debian?
[QUOTE=FPtje;38854300]What was wrong with Debian?[/QUOTE] It did not have the same DIY feel to it. I love pacman more than apt. Pacman gives more 'useful' information. Hated how everything was split into sub packages. On another note. What happened to the [URL="http://www.archserver.org/"]ArchServer[/URL] spin-off; not seen anything about it for a long time. Not sure if they are dead.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38852847]Archbang as a server? Really?[/QUOTE] Why? Plesase tell me. I've just tried out how to run virtualbox in headless mode and connect to the guest via ssh. Nothing special. Yes, I want to run a server someday, but I don't have any idea what to run on it.
[QUOTE=ichiman94;38855059]Why? Plesase tell me. I've just tried out how to run virtualbox in headless mode and connect to the guest via ssh. Nothing special. Yes, I want to run a server someday, but I don't have any idea what to run on it.[/QUOTE] Web-Server, Bit-Tracker, Local DNS caching, Caching proxy, Game Server (TF2, Empires, Garrysmod).
[QUOTE=TheCreeper;38855134]Web-Server; Bit-Tracker; Local DNS caching; Caching proxy; Game Server (TF2, Empires, Garrysmod).[/QUOTE] I don't believe that's how semi-colons work, but those are some of the things you could do. You could also just smack something like BOINC on it and waste CPU cycles, have a bitcoin daemon or whatever. There's plenty of stuff you could be running.
How do you all manage to break arch so much? I've survived the great /lib symlink fiasco of 2012, as well as the move to systemd also of 2012.
[QUOTE=danharibo;38855788]How do you all manage to break arch so much? I've survived the great /lib symlink fiasco of 2012, as well as the move to systemd also of 2012.[/QUOTE] same here. The only time I had issues is when I broke pacman when trying to upgrade yaourt. :v: (don't ask, I don't know how either)
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38855651]I don't believe that's how semi-colons work.[/QUOTE] My apologies.
[QUOTE=danharibo;38855788]How do you all manage to break arch so much? I've survived the great /lib symlink fiasco of 2012, as well as the move to systemd also of 2012.[/QUOTE] Carefree updating.
I hate wine with a passion, it's so messy. Pacman -Rs wine Pacman -S virtualbox I'll never go back.
While I respect the WINE developers more than anyone else in the developer world...I just can't use WINE. I'd rather just use a VM for anything and everything windows related.
I planned on installing windows 8 as a VM, I have a key that I purchased a few weeks ago. Problem is Microsoft don't offer official download links you need to go through their software which works on windows only. Forcing me to source pirated versions..
the guys developing Wine are a bunch of bros but i can't get that thing to work for shit
[QUOTE=kaukassus;38853126]Also, they ditched i386 support in 3.8[/QUOTE] No, i386 is still supported in 3.8. The actual 386 processor isn't.
[QUOTE=gparent;38864758]No, i386 is still supported in 3.8. The actual 386 processor isn't.[/QUOTE] Can you elaborate on that? I don't really understand what that means.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38864775]Can you elaborate on that? I don't really understand what that means.[/QUOTE] 80386 is the name of microprocessor, which is what the i386 architecture (aka x86) stared on. Though people take to calling the (80)386 i386 too which is a little confusing. [editline]17th December 2012[/editline] Disambigation: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-32]The Architecture[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386]The Microprocessor[/url]
I find it hilarious that the kernel still had support for that fucking thing.
[QUOTE=nikomo;38864863]I find it hilarious that the kernel still had support for that fucking thing.[/QUOTE] When Linus merged the tree, this was part of the commit message: [quote=Linus]Unfortunately there’s a nostalgic cost: your old original 386 DX33 system from early 1991 won’t be able to boot modern Linux kernels anymore. Sniff. I’m not sentimental. Good riddance.[/quote]
ah, I knew I got something wrong.
[QUOTE=nikomo;38864863]I find it hilarious that the kernel still had support for that fucking thing.[/QUOTE] And you have Windows users saying that Linux doesn't have good hardware support... really what they mean is that it doesn't have support for their favorite video card, because in reality if you're trying to make an old machine work, Linux has much better support than Windows hardware wise.
[QUOTE=danharibo;38864844]80386 is the name of microprocessor, which is what the i386 architecture (aka x86) stared on. Though people take to calling the (80)386 i386 too which is a little confusing. [editline]17th December 2012[/editline] Disambigation: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-32]The Architecture[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386]The Microprocessor[/url][/QUOTE] Ahh, yeah, now I got it! The i386 thing went completely over my head, and for some reason I thought that it was a processor as well, and not the architecture. But I suppose those are easily confused.
The following processor is i486, though, because something law-related prevented them from trademarking numbers. ...Which is probably why the earlier one is called i386 on the occasion.
[QUOTE=esalaka;38867085]The following processor is i486, though, because something law-related prevented them from trademarking numbers. ...Which is probably why the earlier one is called i386 on the occasion.[/QUOTE] How come that Arch Linux append i686 to their packages, and not i386 then? Different "specification" of the x86 architecture, or ..?
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38867209]How come that Arch Linux append i686 to their packages, and not i386 then? Different "specification" of the x86 architecture, or ..?[/QUOTE] Arch is probably built for the P6 microarchitecture, which means it won't support earlier processors.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;38867209]How come that Arch Linux append i686 to their packages, and not i386 then? Different "specification" of the x86 architecture, or ..?[/QUOTE] Yeah, probably additions to the instruction set, although I don't know the details.
[QUOTE=HubmaN;38867299]Yeah, probably additions to the instruction set, although I don't know the details.[/QUOTE] That is the most likely reason. [editline]17th December 2012[/editline] Basically the earlier a processor you build for, the less new hardware features you can use. Maybe i686 is a good compromise that supports most processors but also gets you a bit more features than building for a 486. [editline]17th December 2012[/editline] Also, what comes to the matter of the x86 architecture, the 386 was the first 32-bit 8086-compatible processor which is why the architecture is named after it. x64 (or x86_64) is sometimes called AMD64 because AMD called it that upon release.
[QUOTE=gparent;38865926]it doesn't have support for their favorite video card[/QUOTE] and even then, yes it does. essentially if you can't get a piece of hardware working in Linux and it's not some super exotic one-of-a-kind specialty device with install instructions in Icelandic then you're an idiot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.