General Linux Chat and Small Questions v. I broke my Arch Install - Hardware & Software

Yay a beta driver watermark! :suicide: [t]http://i.imgur.com/8LKxcaH.jpg[/t]

Looks like it has improved, thanks!

Sick of trying to install Arch on my pi already. Following the beginners' guide - [code]pacstrap -i /mnt base[/code] Command not found. Well that's just lovely!

[QUOTE=Leestons;41286350]Sick of trying to install Arch on my pi already. Following the beginners' guide - [code]pacstrap -i /mnt base[/code] Command not found. Well that's just lovely![/QUOTE] Wait, why not just use the AlarmPi image? It's a preinstalled image you just write onto an sdcard.

[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;41287851]Wait, why not just use the AlarmPi image? It's a preinstalled image you just write onto an sdcard.[/QUOTE] Fun fact...I am. No wonder it didn't work. :rolleyes:

snip

[QUOTE=Larikang;41288303]snip[/QUOTE] I have it working now :) I feel quite silly.

[t]http://i1.wp.com/blog.woralelandia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/linux-world-map-large.png[/t]

[QUOTE=nehkz;41311329][t]http://i1.wp.com/blog.woralelandia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/linux-world-map-large.png[/t][/QUOTE] A map about GNU/Linux made with a proprietary font. [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] And it had to be fucking comic sans

I about lost it at "Stallman Sea".

[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;41315394]I about lost it at "Stallman Sea".[/QUOTE] I think "The Great Compile" is the best.

Has anyone here tried [URL="http://elementaryos.org/"]elementary OS[/URL]? I think it looks absolutely beautiful. [img_thumb]http://elementaryos.org/sites/default/files/user/5/Screenshot from 2012-06-20 15%3A55%3A20_0.png[/img_thumb] My main gripe with Linux is that I could never make a DE/WM look nice like this. I love Arch Linux's ease of use and configuration, and I absolutely love how many packages are available in the AUR. But never have I made it look remotely pretty, and it seems like a pain to get GTK themes working properly.

[QUOTE=Zero Vector;41318226]Has anyone here tried [URL="http://elementaryos.org/"]elementary OS[/URL]? I think it looks absolutely beautiful. [img_thumb]http://elementaryos.org/sites/default/files/user/5/Screenshot from 2012-06-20 15%3A55%3A20_0.png[/img_thumb] My main gripe with Linux is that I could never make a DE/WM look nice like this. I love Arch Linux's ease of use and configuration, and I absolutely love how many packages are available in the AUR. But never have I made it look remotely pretty, and it seems like a pain to get GTK themes working properly.[/QUOTE] Its not so much making a DE/WM look nice (that can be done easily) but application consistency is another problem. A lot of apps use different toolkits, are made by different developers, and have different layouts, etc. Everything in Elementary is made to a certain design specification and as such, tends to look nicer when things are used together.

[QUOTE=Zero Vector;41318226]Has anyone here tried [URL="http://elementaryos.org/"]elementary OS[/URL]? I think it looks absolutely beautiful. [img_thumb]http://elementaryos.org/sites/default/files/user/5/Screenshot from 2012-06-20 15%3A55%3A20_0.png[/img_thumb] My main gripe with Linux is that I could never make a DE/WM look nice like this. I love [b]Arch Linux's ease of use and configuration[/b], and I absolutely love how many packages are available in the AUR. But never have I made it look remotely pretty, and it seems like a pain to get GTK themes working properly.[/QUOTE] so you love the fact that Pacman is a piece of shit and that fucks up your custom configs all the time? [editline]5th July 2013[/editline] Also it claims to be a modern OS but it doens't even have an installer.

I sort of gave up on making my DE look nice, and just switched over to making it show up as little as possible :v: i3-wm, no borders, only show system-tray when super-key is held down and viola, its either your desktop background or whatever you're actually using, which like Lyoko said is another can of worms... [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mega1mpact;41318773]so you love the fact that Pacman is a piece of shit and that fucks up your custom configs all the time? [editline]5th July 2013[/editline] Also it claims to be a modern OS but it doens't even have an installer.[/QUOTE] Wow, hostile much? Arch is very modern, in fact it has some of the most up-to-date packages around. The fact that these packages are sometimes unstable (and sometimes change config syntax) is [I]because[/I] it is so modern, not in spite of it. As for the installer, Arch sticks to the KISS philosophy, providing a set of tools that most people would find helpful in setting up a system, not some monolithic system installer with a GUI. Honestly since when is a GUI needed for installation? I have a crappy GPU which nouveau doesn't support, so I can't even install most distros in the usual way (I just get horrible graphic artifacts covering the entire screen in the Ubuntu installer) whereas Arch installs like a dream.

[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;41318966]Wow, hostile much? Arch is very modern, in fact it has some of the most up-to-date packages around. The fact that these packages are sometimes unstable (and sometimes change config syntax) is [I]because[/I] it is so modern, not in spite of it. As for the installer, Arch sticks to the KISS philosophy, providing a set of tools that most people would find helpful in setting up a system, not some monolithic system installer with a GUI. Honestly since when is a GUI needed for installation? I have a crappy GPU which nouveau doesn't support, so I can't even install most distros in the usual way (I just get horrible graphic artifacts covering the entire screen in the Ubuntu installer) whereas Arch installs like a dream.[/QUOTE] I've run arch for a while and I've had nothing but issues.

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;41319327]I've run arch for a while and I've had nothing but issues.[/QUOTE] I'm not disputing that, I am however disputing your logic; you complain that Arch messes up your configs, when in fact Arch respects your custom configs, and instead of overwriting them it [i]tells[/i] you in the update output that they may be out of date and that it is writing a .pacnew config which you should compare to your current config to be sure the new version of package X has not made backwards incompatible changes to how it parses its config files. At this point I can't think of anything else a bleeding edge OS can do better (except maybe refrain from the install, but Arch does keep a cache of recent package versions so you could even roll back to the older version if you don't have time to update your configs), but perhaps you just don't want a bleeding edge system. However, you then go on to claim Arch isn't modern, even though your first gripe is a direct result of how modern Arch is. [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=PelPix123;41319328]I have converted to Mageia. Where has this distro been all my life?[/QUOTE] It's only been around since 2011, so I'm assuming it just wasn't for most of your life :v:

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;41318773]so you love the fact that Pacman is a piece of shit and that fucks up your custom configs all the time?[/QUOTE] Pacman won't overwrite configs except when 1) the package author has fucked up 2) you made it do that. It has been designed that way. It works that way. Like every fucking package manager I've ever seen. [editline]5th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mega1mpact;41318773]Also it claims to be a modern OS but it doens't even have an installer.[/QUOTE] I don't even see how this makes sense, really. The arch live media are perfectly functional Arch installations that also contain the facilities to self-replicate. And the instructions to do so. It's not harder than the old arch installer, really, and at least you know which part went wrong if something does.

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;41319327]I've run arch for a while and I've had nothing but issues.[/QUOTE] I've run arch for a while and I've had no issues.

Is it safe to update my Arch install right now?

[QUOTE=PredGD;41320881]Is it safe to update my Arch install right now?[/QUOTE] As opposed to when? It's always safe so long as you don't force it and you read the latest news.

[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;41321458]As opposed to when? It's always safe so long as you don't force it and you read the latest news.[/QUOTE] Might be a while ago now, but I was thinking of the issue where the entire system broke upon updating?

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;41318773]Also it claims to be a modern OS but it doens't even have an installer.[/QUOTE] ok I hate on Arch all the time but Arch is also meant to be "hard mode", so the fact that it doesn't have an installer is quite fitting. Also, it did at one point but whoever was supposed to maintain it sucked at his job so bad it had to be discontinued.

I like the fact that Arch doesen't have an installer. Same with gentoo. More freedom for people who know what they are doing. The Arch install script was fucking terrible and unreliable.

The fact that arch doesnt have an installer is good imo. It makes you actually learn what you're doing.

Could we stop hating on distros, now? They're basically the same but with other outfits.

[QUOTE=supervoltage;41325518]Could we stop hating on distros, now? They're basically the same but with other outfits.[/QUOTE] The daily distro drama keeps the thread alive.

[QUOTE=kaukassus;41325586]The daily distro drama keeps the thread alive.[/QUOTE] Somewhat sad, but true :v:

[QUOTE=kaukassus;41325586]The daily distro drama keeps the thread alive.[/QUOTE] It's not even proper drama, it's basically the Argument Clinic sketch featuring Arch Linux

[QUOTE=esalaka;41326410]It's not even proper drama, it's basically the Argument Clinic sketch featuring Arch Linux[/QUOTE] No it isn't.