[QUOTE=macman2;34448077]Why does everyone use Arch? It seems a pain and (from what I have seen here) looks like its from the 90's.
Ubuntu, Fedora and Mint all look epic, I myself love Unity with Ubuntu 11.10
I just don't see what this huge craze is over Arch Linux :/[/QUOTE]
It gives more leeway on building the install more to what you want it, but still sets up the initial things for you (fstab, locale, etc). You can make arch look like mint, fedora or ubuntu if you wanted to.
You all raise good arguments but 90% of what I see here can be done on Ubuntu, I installed some things like GNOME etc and they all work 100% (and were easy to install) So the whole "interface" argument is out the window. As for package manager I can't comment on as I have never used Arch and probably never will use Arch.
EDIT
Also I don't judge a distro by its appearance I just want to know why everyone on here loves Arch.
[QUOTE=macman2;34451347]You all raise good arguments but 90% of what I see here can be done on Ubuntu,[/QUOTE]
It's not what can be done, but how easily it is done. Sure you can spend hours trying to un-root yourself from gnome and all of it's dependencies in Ubuntu (Without breaking Ubuntu). Or you could just start from scratch and install exactly what you want within Arch linux.
[editline]asdf[/editline]
I personally enjoy knowing exactly what's on my system and how it's configured. I didn't have that kind of knowledge within Ubuntu or Windows.
Just installed Mint 12, liking everything except that damn mouse icon...
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/GcNBo.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=macman2;34451347]You all raise good arguments but 90% of what I see here can be done on Ubuntu, I installed some things like GNOME etc and they all work 100% (and were easy to install) So the whole "interface" argument is out the window. As for package manager I can't comment on as I have never used Arch and probably never will use Arch.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it's 100% of the things done on Arch can be done on Ubuntu. They're both a Linux OS, so whatever works on one, will work on another. The only real big difference is the package manager (and you could even switch package managers if you really wanted to). This is pretty much the magic of choosing a distro; you get to choose which distro to go for. If Ubuntu suits your needs just fine, then by all means go for it over Arch.
[QUOTE=macman2;34451347]You all raise good arguments but 90% of what I see here can be done on Ubuntu, I installed some things like GNOME etc and they all work 100% (and were easy to install) So the whole "interface" argument is out the window. As for package manager I can't comment on as I have never used Arch and probably never will use Arch.
EDIT
Also I don't judge a distro by its appearance I just want to know why everyone on here loves Arch.[/QUOTE]
With enough effort any distribution can be transformed to at least look like any other distribution, as long as the desktop environment software is freely available.
Like I said, with Ubuntu customization is actually harder because you should uninstall the default DE before you install another. I mean you can keep it, but it will just be bloat on your installation.
Desktop I use at Uni - Arch linux with Xmonad and Xmobar and two monitors. Thinking about going for three.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/LiQzn.jpg[/IMG]
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=macman2;34451347]
Also I don't judge a distro by its appearance I just want to know why everyone on here loves Arch.[/QUOTE]
Wish I knew. Just loved it over every other Linux disro. Not sure if its the OCD in me loving up to date packages or the fact that I install everything I only need instead of installing extra.
[QUOTE=Esteedees;34327180][img]http://i.imgur.com/h2gSN.png[/img]
Ubuntu 10.04 with a custom theme (BSM Simple Dark Menu and Faenza icons), along with Avant Window Navigator.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you actually made a dock look good. Nice!
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nLzuY.jpg[/IMG]
I think I finally like my Awesome WM setup enough that I'll stick with it for a while instead of messing with it all the time.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/txs3I.png[/img]
Fully Unicode terminal. Feels good man.
[QUOTE][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7059/6864207527_7578c82a5e_b.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
First time I've installed Linux on my computer, normally just run a live CD. Been using it for about a month and I really enjoy it!
[QUOTE=Esteedees;34327180][img]http://i.imgur.com/h2gSN.png[/img]
Ubuntu 10.04 with a custom theme (BSM Simple Dark Menu and Faenza icons), along with Avant Window Navigator.[/QUOTE]
Now I know where Apple is coming from structuring a Unix OS's UI like this. I think most of the implementations in this thread are absolutely hideous. Second to this particular theme is probably just vanilla GNOME 2.
[b]Edit:[/b] Rate me boxes for an opinion in which a disagree would be more appropriate.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;34672722]Now I know where Apple is coming from structuring a Unix OS's UI like this. I think most of the implementations in this thread are absolutely hideous. Second to this particular theme is probably just vanilla GNOME 2.
[b]Edit:[/b] Rate me boxes for an opinion in which a disagree would be more appropriate.[/QUOTE]
It's dumb because you seem to think Apple based their ui on Linux or Unix interfaces.
[QUOTE=FPtje;34676643]It's dumb because you seem to think Apple based their ui on Linux or Unix interfaces.[/QUOTE]
Wow, way to misread. I'm saying that they have a Unix OS, and structuring the UI with the top bar and the app tray, similar to GNOME 2's implementation, is much preferable to just about any other Unix UI, past or present.
I thought Facepunch users only glazed over political text before blurting out something stupid, but now Apple mentions get to be part of that club.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;34684191]Wow, way to misread.[/QUOTE]
Even after ten times reading the quote, it still means the same to me.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;34684191]I'm saying that they have a Unix OS, and structuring the UI with the top bar and the app tray, similar to GNOME 2's implementation[/quote]
Except GNOME doesn't implement the app tray. It's a separate application. On top of that, when you say "Structuring the UI ... similar to GNOME 2's implementation", it makes it sound like you think they structured the UI, similar to GNOME 2, as in, basing the UI desing on that of GNOME 2.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;34684191]
is much preferable to just about any other Unix UI, past or present.
[/quote]
Okay. I think I like Esteedee's setup more.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;34684191]I thought Facepunch users only glazed over political text before blurting out something stupid, but now Apple mentions get to be part of that club.[/QUOTE]
I was not aware you were gazing over my shoulders when I read what you said in that post. Assuming that you didn't, though, I read your quote at least a couple of times before responding. I am responding to a post, of course I read what you said.
Besides the entire point, I was the second person to rate you dumb and I had already seen your comment that "a disagree would be more appropriate". I was hoping the ratings were simple enough for the raters to understand.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;34245347]that's a common bug in KDE, I'm sure it'll be fixed rather soon.[/QUOTE]
Had to say Ulrich Schnauss.
[editline]15th February 2012[/editline]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/tKWcy.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=FPtje;34699751]Even after ten times reading the quote, it still means the same to me.
Except GNOME doesn't implement the app tray. It's a separate application. On top of that, when you say "Structuring the UI ... similar to GNOME 2's implementation", it makes it sound like you think they structured the UI, similar to GNOME 2, as in, basing the UI desing on that of GNOME 2.
Okay. I think I like Esteedee's setup more.
I was not aware you were gazing over my shoulders when I read what you said in that post. Assuming that you didn't, though, I read your quote at least a couple of times before responding. I am responding to a post, of course I read what you said.
Besides the entire point, I was the second person to rate you dumb and I had already seen your comment that "a disagree would be more appropriate". I was hoping the ratings were simple enough for the raters to understand.[/QUOTE]
You have the thickest skull I've ever seen.
GNOME has a top bar with status information and controls. So does OSX. Windows go below it. There's the similarity. Everything else I said about aesthetic was opinion.
[QUOTE=q0q;34716340]Had to say Ulrich Schnauss.
[editline]15th February 2012[/editline]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/tKWcy.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
yurp :D
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;34718290]You have the thickest skull I've ever seen.
GNOME has a top bar with status information and controls. So does OSX. Windows go below it. There's the similarity. Everything else I said about aesthetic was opinion.[/QUOTE]
Gnome is to Mac OS, as KDE is to Windows. These DE's (and others) are similar to the major operating systems out there. If they're similar, then that's beneficial to users that are new to Linux, or are comfortable to those specific styles. It doesn't really matter which came first. If you don't like the style, but like how the DE functions, you can just change the appearance. Nothing special. It all comes down to functionality and style. This is what Linux is about. As for mine, I tweaked mine for simplicity in terms of functionality and appearance, which makes it look very similar to OS X. There are other ways, but I like having a Dock :smile:
[QUOTE=Esteedees;34720951]Gnome is to Mac OS, as KDE is to Windows. These DE's (and others) are similar to the major operating systems out there. If they're similar, then that's beneficial to users that are new to Linux, or are comfortable to those specific styles. It doesn't really matter which came first. If you don't like the style, but like how the DE functions, you can just change the appearance. Nothing special. It all comes down to functionality and style. This is what Linux is about. As for mine, I tweaked mine for simplicity in terms of functionality and appearance, which makes it look very similar to OS X. There are other ways, but I like having a Dock :smile:[/QUOTE]
And Xfce/Lxde are to Linux. Hah.
[QUOTE=q0q;34720993]And Xfce/Lxde are to Linux. Hah.[/QUOTE]
Hehe if you wish :D
Speaking of which, I'm on LXDE right now. Netbooks are very underpowered, so I need something light for it.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/V5pVh.png[/IMG]
WattOS. Its perfect for this little piece of technology. I love how it uses very little ram.
[QUOTE=Esteedees;34721135]Hehe if you wish :D
Speaking of which, I'm on LXDE right now. Netbooks are very underpowered, so I need something light for it.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/V5pVh.png[/IMG]
WattOS. Its perfect for this little piece of technology. I love how it uses very little ram.[/QUOTE]
You should look into installing Arch with Openbox running standalone. If you aren't comfortable enough with the linux enviroment to do that take a peek at Archbang or Crunchbang.
also, charge that fucking battery.
[QUOTE=q0q;34721905]You should look into installing Arch with Openbox running standalone. If you aren't comfortable enough with the linux enviroment to do that take a peek at Archbang or Crunchbang.
also, charge that fucking battery.[/QUOTE]
I prefer Lubuntu or Mint LXDE. I'm too lazy to build an OS, I need pre-configurtation. Customizations come later.
[QUOTE=P320;34724974]I prefer Lubuntu or Mint LXDE. I'm too lazy to build an OS, I need pre-configurtation. Customizations come later.[/QUOTE]
Lubuntu and Mint are super, super, super duper dumbed down though. You'll never successfully feel comfortable in a Linux environment if your hand is being held.
[QUOTE=q0q;34721905]You should look into installing Arch with Openbox running standalone. If you aren't comfortable enough with the linux enviroment to do that take a peek at Archbang or Crunchbang.
also, charge that fucking battery.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually going to install Arch on this thing. After playing around with it on a virtual machine for a short time, I've decided on doing so.
I've also tried Archbang on this thing, but it doesn't really recognize the proper resolution for the netbook screen, so might as well build my way up to my own customized setup. Using Linux for 4 years, and I haven't even thought about customizing from the root-up.
I hate this thread.
First, I felt like "Goddamn, these desktops look awesome! Why can't my linux look this good?" I guessed that it was because I was using Unity, so I uninstalled unity-2d.
I felt like trying out a new Desktop Environment; my linux machine (a laptop) isn't that powerful, so I looked around for a lightweight one, and settled on LXDE. I played around with it for a couple of hours, trying to change some default settings to make it feel a bit more like GNOME. It was pretty cool, but my brother (who was looking over my shoulder at the time) said it looked like shit, and wanted MATE, so we could use GNOME 2 again. I botched the removal of LXDE, so it remains on the logon screen, and MATE irritatingly brings its own versions of GNOME applications, so I've got 2 copies of system monitor for example.
Now I'm considering making a backup of my linux folders and setting up Arch Linux with MATE or something else on the recommendations of everyone on this thread. It was 3 PM when I started this. Now it is half past midnight. Damn you guys.
[QUOTE=Poke-Dude;34733304]I hate this thread.
First, I felt like "Goddamn, these desktops look awesome! Why can't my linux look this good?" I guessed that it was because I was using Unity, so I uninstalled unity-2d.
I felt like trying out a new Desktop Environment; my linux machine (a laptop) isn't that powerful, so I looked around for a lightweight one, and settled on LXDE. I played around with it for a couple of hours, trying to change some default settings to make it feel a bit more like GNOME. It was pretty cool, but my brother (who was looking over my shoulder at the time) said it looked like shit, and wanted MATE, so we could use GNOME 2 again. I botched the removal of LXDE, so it remains on the logon screen, and MATE irritatingly brings its own versions of GNOME applications, so I've got 2 copies of system monitor for example.
Now I'm considering making a backup of my linux folders and setting up Arch Linux with MATE or something else on the recommendations of everyone on this thread. It was 3 PM when I started this. Now it is half past midnight. Damn you guys.[/QUOTE]
I guess everyone have their own taste when it comes to desktop customization. But, yea, setting Arch up is a good idea if you want to shape it in your own way. If you need a lightweight Desktop Environment, use LXDE as you mentioned. Or if you want to try out a pre-configured distro, try WattOS. Very lightweight, and you can customize it as you wish (after all, it is a stripped down version of Ubuntu using LXDE)
I constantly change distros, and right now, I'm on Linux Mint using Cinnamon. I like it, but it is kinda buggy, as it IS in development. With the right theme, Cinnamon can look really nice.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/QR5KF.jpg[/IMG]
I really want to set up Arch on my netbook. I can't risk losing all my games that I have on Windows :v:
[QUOTE=q0q;34727448]Lubuntu and Mint are super, super, super duper dumbed down though. You'll never successfully feel comfortable in a Linux environment if your hand is being held.[/QUOTE]
I just need a Windows replacement, I don't want a bunch of terminal hangups. Just want to install, customize, and get working.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
