Go me, burned out a x64 copy of Arch, when I've got a x86 CPU. I sure do kick ass... :frown:
It was my last CD aswell :crying:
[QUOTE=KillerTele;25091680]Go me, burned out a x64 copy of Arch, when I've got a x86 CPU. I sure do kick ass... :frown:
It was my last CD aswell :crying:[/QUOTE]
lol.
That's like a 1/3 shot if you were just guessing randomly. They've got x86, x86_64, and dual arch (which would've also worked).
x86_64, That's the one that I downloaded.
[editline]06:55PM[/editline]
It said something about me having an i868 processor or something?
[QUOTE=KillerTele;25091892]x86_64, That's the one that I downloaded.
[editline]06:55PM[/editline]
It said something about me having an i868 processor or something?[/QUOTE]
I think you mean i686.
i686 = pentium pro or better. "x86" is short for i386/i486/i586/i686.
Yep, that's what it said.
I've never had a problem with WUBI. But that was just me. Depends per user I'd guess. Took like 45 minutes total for it download and install.
Thank god I have windows installed on this computer - the only software that could pick up my Ubuntu partition was
FUCKING
WINDOWS
PARTITION
MANAGER.
Crazy shit
[QUOTE=wlzshroom;25097347]Thank god I have windows installed on this computer - the only software that could pick up my Ubuntu partition was
FUCKING
WINDOWS
PARTITION
MANAGER.
Crazy shit[/QUOTE]
95% confident that you're doing something horribly wrong.
[QUOTE=wlzshroom;25097347]Thank god I have windows installed on this computer - the only software that could pick up my Ubuntu partition was
FUCKING
WINDOWS
PARTITION
MANAGER.
Crazy shit[/QUOTE]
Wat.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;25098006]95% confident that you're doing something horribly wrong.[/QUOTE]
I did do something horribly wrong.
I deleted the partition, which fucked up GRUB, then I reinstalled Ubuntu and it worked again.
And if it's gonna fuck up again I'm going to Arch.
[QUOTE=wlzshroom;25100249]I deleted the partition, which fucked up GRUB[/QUOTE]
This is why you keep a separate /boot partition.
It won't fuck up if you install arch because Arch will overwrite Ubuntu's GRUB with its own.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;25090765]Everything about Arch is simple and transparent. So in many cases, Arch ends up being easier to work with even without all the autoconfig of a "newb-friendly" distro like Ubuntu.[/QUOTE]
I had quite some trouble installing and configuring arch. Arch requires more problem solving etc. (my WiFi didn't work, had to install a deamon, compiz made my windows not update at times, conky doesn't parse Lua)
I haven't solved the last problem yet, I don't know why it doesn't parse Lua :/
[QUOTE=FPtje;25106005]I had quite some trouble installing and configuring arch. Arch requires more problem solving etc. (my WiFi didn't work, had to install a deamon, compiz made my windows not update at times, conky doesn't parse Lua)
I haven't solved the last problem yet, I don't know why it doesn't parse Lua :/[/QUOTE]
The latter two issues are problems with the software, not the distro.
Neither is something you [i]must have[/i] either. They're just eye-candy.
Having to install an extra daemon for wifi is not a problem like having everything blow up in your face and cause actual irreversible damage like Ubuntu has done to me a few times.
For example, any reasonable distro [i]specifically asks[/i] the user where to install grub during installation. I went through the install process on my friends laptop knowing exactly where I wanted to install grub. I got to the "confirm install" screen without ever seeing a grub prompt, so I just assumed that bootloader setup would be afterwards.
Nope. It went off on its own and installed in the [i]complete and total wrong place[/i], destroying his hardware-software mixed RAID-0 which it totally didn't understand.
I know now that it's hidden away in a submenu, but it's an extraordinarily poor design choice on Canonical's part. Making an assumption about where most people would like to install grub is like making an assumption about how most people want their drives partitioned.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;25107246]The latter two issues are problems with the software, not the distro.
Neither is something you [i]must have[/i] either. They're just eye-candy.
Having to install an extra daemon for wifi is not a problem like having everything blow up in your face and cause actual irreversible damage like Ubuntu has done to me a few times.[/QUOTE]
It was quite hard to do, and I was surprised that it didn't work upstart. Ubuntu just works, you click a few buttons and you have it installed. Arch is just a lot more difficult. That doesn't mean Arch is bad, it just means you can't really say it's "simple" for the avarage user to install.
I bet most people who install arch use the beginner's manual. Few people use a manual for installing Ubuntu.
Arch' strength is that it uses this difficult system to be more flexible.
The simpler the less options you have
the more difficult the more things you can customize.
I'm going to stick with arch :keke:
I miss Linux after a day of Windows. BACK TO ARCH!
I figured out Arch conky doesn't have Lua support enabled. To have it enabled, you need conky-lua from the AUR. I'm installing that now, the AUR method is nice for making packages available that aren't officially supported. However installing it can sometimes be a bitch (with dependencies ><)
Ah at least conky parses the Lua functions now :D
[QUOTE=FPtje;25108842]I figured out Arch conky doesn't have Lua support enabled. To have it enabled, you need conky-lua from the AUR. I'm installing that now, the AUR method is nice for making packages available that aren't officially supported. However installing it can sometimes be a bitch (with dependencies ><)
Ah at least conky parses the Lua functions now :D[/QUOTE]
Use 'clyde' for a AUR-enabled pacman replacement.
Quick question:
Ubuntu and Knoppix both are based on Debian, correct?
So explain to me why Xorg refuses to recognize my video card in Ubuntu, yet on Knoppix it recognizes it and switches automatically to the "vesa" driver.
Also, what driver do I need to use for the Intel HD graphics chipset? Is it "i915" or is there a special one?
You shouldn't be using Arch if you don't know how to use it/follow the guide.
[QUOTE=Lego399;25108898]Use 'clyde' for a AUR-enabled pacman replacement.[/QUOTE]
Clyde? What ever happened to yaourt?
[editline]04:17PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=nos217;25109343]You shouldn't be using Arch if you don't know how to use it/follow the guide.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you [i]should[/i] use it, and learn by doing so.
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;25109361]Clyde? What ever happened to yaourt?
[editline]04:17PM[/editline]
Actually, you [i]should[/i] use it, and learn by doing so.[/QUOTE]
I use aurget. It's arguments are identical to pacman which makes things easier for me.
I was just wondering
Why do you guys use Linux when Windows has pretty much everything you need and hundreds of programs are more compatible.
Don't get me wrong, im not having a go at Linux, just wondering why you use it?
[QUOTE=Adzter;25111953]I was just wondering
Why do you guys use Linux when Windows has pretty much everything you need and hundreds of programs are more compatible.
Don't get me wrong, im not having a go at Linux, just wondering why you use it?[/QUOTE]
cause it runs better.
This computer I'm on is 7 years old and runs smoother on Ubuntu 9.10 with XFCE4 than it did the first day it booted with Windows XP. It's even somewhat fast compared to my brand new laptop with 4 gb ram and a 2 ghz processor.
[QUOTE=Adzter;25111953]I was just wondering
Why do you guys use Linux when Windows has pretty much everything you need and hundreds of programs are more compatible.
Don't get me wrong, im not having a go at Linux, just wondering why you use it?[/QUOTE]
Speed. Efficiency. Control. Freedom.
That's what it boils down to.
[QUOTE=eXeC64;25110951]It's arguments are identical to pacman which makes things easier for me.[/QUOTE]
Same can be said for yaourt. If they're not identical, they're pretty damn close.
[QUOTE=Adzter;25111953]I was just wondering
Why do you guys use Linux when Windows has pretty much everything you need and hundreds of programs are more compatible.
Don't get me wrong, im not having a go at Linux, just wondering why you use it?[/QUOTE]
Because it makes sense. The dudes at Bell actually thought about how things should work when designing UNIX, unlike Windows which was totally ad-hoc and inherits way too much brain damage from its GUI-for-DOS origins.
The filesystem structure is logical and consistent, unlike Windows which changes with every release. Networking, multiple user management, and security were considered right from the start, unlike Windows where it was intended for isolated single-user systems and then had things hastily tacked on later. *nix prefers small, simple solutions that work together rather than these big monolithic applications that try to do everything and usually fail.
The overall design of Windows is really just bad, any way you look at it.
Modern Linux distros add conveniences like easy package management and updating, LiveCDs, support for lots of filesystems and obscure hardware features, and rolling-release schedules.
I'd take the unix filesystem over windows ANY day of the week. It's so much more.... logical. Once you understand it it is great to work with.
I am free to do a hell of a lot more in Linux than I can in Windows (at least without spending ridiculous amounts of money on shitty bloated software).
Plus there's lots of choice of distros and customization.
[QUOTE=Adzter;25111953]I was just wondering
Why do you guys use Linux when Windows has pretty much everything you need and hundreds of programs are more compatible.
[/QUOTE]
What you think I need and what I actually need are two different things. Everything I need runs on Linux.
Those "hundreds of other programs" on Windows are things I don't want or need.
even more, things I need don't run on Windows.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
