• General Linux Chat and Small Questions v. Install Arch
    4,946 replies, posted
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;39004956]This keyword is very important. Things are still outdated, but they're more recent than Debian Stable.[/QUOTE] If you want to have cutting/bleeding edge then you should just use Arch anyway
[QUOTE=esalaka;39004931]If you use Unstable or Testing it's not that outdated. I think.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but in my experience packages break quite a lot with the unstable debian repos since not everything is kept up to date with upstream even in sid
My windows keeps being like "your computer is shit, off with aero and break it all". Tomorrow if my windows doesn't decide to man up I'll try Arch. Only hard part is it looks so complicated!
[QUOTE=Moofy;39006648]My windows keeps being like "your computer is shit, off with aero and break it all". Tomorrow if my windows doesn't decide to man up I'll try Arch. Only hard part is it looks so complicated![/QUOTE] It isn't that complicated. Most people are just living in a life of abstractions. There's some tweaks you can do in Windows though, to make it force Aero regardless of video settings and whatever. Can't quite remember which though. Good luck on both parts though :)
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;39006672]It isn't that complicated. Most people are just living in a life of abstractions. There's some tweaks you can do in Windows though, to make it force Aero regardless of video settings and whatever. Can't quite remember which though. Good luck on both parts though :)[/QUOTE] I know I tweaked it all, but it sees my computer as shit. I don't know if arch is worth it, all I want is a decent looking distro but also a good one. All I ever asked was Minecraft but I never mange to get over 50 FPS (only using crunchbang) because it is all a pain in my butt with the AMD drivers :/
[QUOTE=esalaka;39005002]If you want to have cutting/bleeding edge then you should just use Gentoo anyway[/QUOTE] that's more like it
[QUOTE=Moofy;39006762]I know I tweaked it all, but it sees my computer as shit. I don't know if arch is worth it, all I want is a decent looking distro but also a good one. All I ever asked was Minecraft but I never mange to get over 50 FPS (only using crunchbang) because it is all a pain in my butt with the AMD drivers :/[/QUOTE] I never mean to enforce this on anyone (and it has honestly started to feel that way, with so many times I have mentioned it), but Sabayon might be a good alternative to Arch for you, especially if you don't want to do a whole lot of setting up. Beware though, that if you're using the closed source AMD drivers you'll need to tweak the grub configuration a with a single line. I haven't had problems with playing Minecraft, but my computers aren't really powerful either, so a 30-50FPS on my desktop is all I could get. My netbook doesn't run it well either, somewhere between 3-10FPS on the open source drivers. But if you're using somewhat recent GPUs I don't see why Minecraft wouldn't run great.
[QUOTE=lavacano;39006903]that's more like it[/QUOTE] Except that even with our new fancy processors compiling shit [I]still[/I] takes ages. (And I swear Firefox takes longer to compile than the fucking kernel.)
[QUOTE=esalaka;39007985]Except that even with our new fancy processors compiling shit [I]still[/I] takes ages. (And I swear Firefox takes longer to compile than the fucking kernel.)[/QUOTE] It does actually. And Chromium is even worse. A problem that can be solved using A) Better compilers, or at least faster ones. Not really a possibility right now B) Wait for faster processors. Doesn't solve the problem though. C) Use another language, something like Go, that compiles stupidly fast. Cons: Requires re-programming of every package ever that isn't Go.
I wish my desktop experience was SO mission critical that I was willing to spend a large chunk of my CPU time compiling. Is there really that big of a performance boost? In overall performance I feel like any advantage gained through self-compilation is lost in time/CPU spent compiling. I've never used Gentoo so I shouldn't run my mouth, but I've also never jumped off bridge and yet I feel confident I can predict the ramifications :v:
[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;39008408]I wish my desktop experience was SO mission critical that I was willing to spend a large chunk of my CPU time compiling. Is there really that big of a performance boost? In overall performance I feel like any advantage gained through self-compilation is lost in time/CPU spent compiling. I've never used Gentoo so I shouldn't run my mouth, but I've also never jumped off bridge and yet I feel confident I can predict the ramifications :v:[/QUOTE] performance boost is minimal, but it's easier to not include stuff into the program that you might not end up using anyway, like printer support
Again I don't mean to offend anyone. It is my own shortcoming that I've yet to even compile the kernel myself, but when I download AUR packages it is a major inconvenience to watch CC scroll down my screen for half and hour just to upgrade a package. [editline]28th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=hpqoeu;39008452]performance boost is minimal, but it's easier to not include stuff into the program that you might not end up using anyway, like printer support[/QUOTE] Ah, this makes sense; there are times where compiling is the only way to customize. I prefer this to be the exception though, not the norm.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;39007154]I never mean to enforce this on anyone (and it has honestly started to feel that way, with so many times I have mentioned it), but Sabayon might be a good alternative to Arch for you, especially if you don't want to do a whole lot of setting up. Beware though, that if you're using the closed source AMD drivers you'll need to tweak the grub configuration a with a single line. I haven't had problems with playing Minecraft, but my computers aren't really powerful either, so a 30-50FPS on my desktop is all I could get. My netbook doesn't run it well either, somewhere between 3-10FPS on the open source drivers. But if you're using somewhat recent GPUs I don't see why Minecraft wouldn't run great.[/QUOTE] See this is what I mean, I don't even know if I have closed source drivers. But I mean I know my specs should get me smooth Minecraft, it does in windows atleast, like 120 FPS is a standard there for me!
I need a good way to encrypt data on my disk. I don't want to encrypt an entire partition. I want more of a virtual encrypted filesystem in a file type thing. I'm not sure what I should use.
Truecrypt is probably the easiest.
[QUOTE=IpHa;39013477]Truecrypt is probably the easiest.[/QUOTE] Yeah, just go for this, it's fine.
Installing Nvidia drivers with out breaking everything is today's hilarious task.
I tried yesterday. I got as far as getting TF2 start with a black screen.
Welp, it's totally deleted my xorg config. Lovely! [editline]29th December 2012[/editline] Okay, reinstalled. It was easy the last time I did it! Just update to latest kernel, kill x then run the file :-/
Doesn't Mint have the drivers in it's repo?
Yes, just run Software Sources, click on Additional Drivers tab, click 310, and then click enable and restart.
[QUOTE=Ol' Pie;39017293]Yes, just run Software Sources, click on Additional Drivers tab, click 310, and then click enable and reset.[/QUOTE] I'll give that a try again, cheers.
No probs.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/S1p5K.png[/t] It keeps happening! [editline]29th December 2012[/editline] I tried doing nvidia-xconfig and it has created a new xorg.conf shown [URL="http://pastebin.com/deuEak4j"]here[/URL] but Nvidia settings is saying Nvidia X driver is not being used. I cannot select my native res or anything.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;39008148]It does actually. And Chromium is even worse. A problem that can be solved using A) Better compilers, or at least faster ones. Not really a possibility right now B) Wait for faster processors. Doesn't solve the problem though. C) Use another language, something like Go, that compiles stupidly fast. Cons: Requires re-programming of every package ever that isn't Go.[/QUOTE] It's not that the compiler is necessarily slow, it's that there's [I]so much shit to compile and link[/I]. Seriously.
[QUOTE=esalaka;39018845]It's not that the compiler is necessarily slow, it's that there's [I]so much shit to compile and link[/I]. Seriously.[/QUOTE] And the fact that sometimes that shit is linked more than once, even if it doesn't have to. Go's compiler/linker fixes this, but it doesn't seem to be the case for most other stuff.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;39019191]And the fact that sometimes that shit is linked more than once, even if it doesn't have to.[/QUOTE] what
[QUOTE=esalaka;39020014]what[/QUOTE] It could be that I'm just a dumb shit that didn't pay enough attention to the outcome of linking, but IIRC library B could link to library C, and then library A to C and B, and would end up linking both causing library C to be linked twice for no reason.
[QUOTE=esalaka;39007985]Except that even with our new fancy processors compiling shit [I]still[/I] takes ages. (And I swear Firefox takes longer to compile than the fucking kernel.)[/QUOTE] see i'd rather it take a long time and be guaranteed to work than take instantly and be suddenly screwed over because some jackass upstream decided it'd be a good idea to fundamentally change the way /lib worked. also i'm a cheater and i just use firefox-bin :v:
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;39021674]It could be that I'm just a dumb shit that didn't pay enough attention to the outcome of linking, but IIRC library B could link to library C, and then library A to C and B, and would end up linking both causing library C to be linked twice for no reason.[/QUOTE] Unless you're statically compiling that's not how it works, the only situation that library code would be duplicated is if some functions in the library's headers were inlined.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.