General Linux Chat and Small Questions v. Year of the Linux Desktop! - Hardware & Software

[QUOTE=kaukassus;47761171]Decent GUI ontop of what is essentially ubuntu LTS Terrible company behind it.[/QUOTE] I'm asking because I need to use a LinuxOS, but I don't know what to pick... Is Ubuntu that fucked up as /g/ says it is? Should I just install mint and shut up?

[QUOTE=Acti;47761614]I'm asking because I need to use a LinuxOS, but I don't know what to pick... Is Ubuntu that fucked up as /g/ says it is? Should I just install mint and shut up?[/QUOTE] /g/ is like /a/ but with technology. If it's popular, it's being labelled as shit, just because of it's popularity. If the product is good doesen't matter to /g/. Ubuntu is a good OS, and one of the few Linux OS's that run almost flawlessly out of the box. The majority of the hate comes down to how the GUI looks, and the fact that Canonical, the company behind it wants to reinvent the wheel for almost any technology powering ubuntu, but these are things that are not really all that relevant for non-programmers. I've been using Linux for a good 6 years now, and used a lot of different distributions in my days, but Ubuntu has been the most painless option for me. [editline]d[/editline] Debian is good too, but due to it's packages being very old most of the time (unless you switch to the Testing or unstable repository) I always had some feature missing I wanted, and updating individual packages is practical suicide.

[QUOTE=Acti;47761614]I'm asking because I need to use a LinuxOS, but I don't know what to pick... Is Ubuntu that fucked up as /g/ says it is? Should I just install mint and shut up?[/QUOTE] What do you need to use it for?

[QUOTE=Levelog;47761733]What do you need to use it for?[/QUOTE] Academic work I've always been using Ubuntu or a variation of it. Should probably keep doing it. Thanks guys.

[QUOTE=Acti;47761749]Academic work I've always been using Ubuntu or a variation of it. Should probably keep doing it. Thanks guys.[/QUOTE] Does it work for the things you do? Do you like it? If you can answer both of those with a yes, then why should you switch? In the end, it all comes down to personal preferences. Some like Distro X, but hate Distro Y, some hate both and decide that making a distro from scratch is the true way to go, and so on... I've personally settled for now with Ubuntu for Day-to-day activities, Archlinux VM's for Development and CentOS for Servers.

[QUOTE=Acti;47761749]Academic work I've always been using Ubuntu or a variation of it. Should probably keep doing it. Thanks guys.[/QUOTE] If you really want to learn how to use linux, start up an Ubuntu or CentOS server to do just even basic things. Run a TS, set up a VPN, just get familiar with the text only commands. It's free, and can run on any potato you have laying around. Even a VM.

VM's are very good for learning to use Linux. Especially with the ability to have snapshots. With it you can literally fuck everything up, and go back to a working state within seconds and do things right that you previously did wrong. VirtualBox 5.0 is coming out soon, and beta's are already available. 5.0 did some much needed improvements, and it's nice to see it finally getting some good progress. [editline]20th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47761831]Which explains why I can't stop switching Distros every week. I just exactly can't find what I want.[/QUOTE] I tend to not stick to a single distro for every task I need, but rather use fitting distributions for certain special tasks. Archlinux can work for day-to-day stuff, but I always found it bothersome to set it up, and a lot of stuff require configuring and manual intervening. Where it really excels is when developing stuff. Compilers and Libraries are pretty much always up-to-date with the most current version and every library I could possibly need are abailable, and if they are not, there's the AUR which is also a great resource. Setting up the development environment is really easy and painless due to it's up-to-date packages and pacman, especially for Webdev stuff, which moves at a really fast pace. I got a few Arch VM's for various tasks, and even some throwaway VM's with snapshots for doing quick build's and compiles. Ubuntu is a great OS for day-to-day stuff, as everything works out of the box on it and I don't need to bother with installing the correct nvidia driver trough the CLI and adjust the Xorg.conf file to get stuff to work. Also gaming is great on it (Even more so if you don't use Unity), but Stuff like Development and Server stuff is not as good as my other choices. And then there's CentOS, the good and safe choice when hosting Servers, and you don't want to pay a support license for RHEL. Servers are critical machines and I only trust software for the job that are considered "old" and "boring" to most users.

[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47761831]Which explains why I can't stop switching Distros every week. I just exactly can't find what I want.[/QUOTE] I think I've just about settled. Fedora is great, but there have been an issue or two finding RPM's over DEB's. If I ever end up switching again it will probably be to just Debian with XFCE. I still use Ubuntu for my servers though.

[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47762125]I do want to move onto Arch though but I really wanna know how to set it up so it works. Last time I couldn't even get it to install. I know I was fucking it up some how.[/QUOTE] Don't do it. I got it to install once. It broke on the first update.

[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47762125]I do want to move onto Arch though but I really wanna know how to set it up so it works. Last time I couldn't even get it to install. I know I was fucking it up some how.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://awoo.moe/docs/archlinux/000-BIOS-Base-System-Installation.html[/URL] [URL]http://awoo.moe/docs/archlinux/001-After-Install-Setup.html[/URL] My checklist for installing archlinux

[QUOTE=Levelog;47762126]Don't do it. I got it to install once. It broke on the first update.[/QUOTE] I think with the amount of vocal Arch Linux users – with almost no exception – seize the opportunity to state that they use Arch (and love it, or whatever), your post is nothing but a stereotypical anecdote. The sad part about this is that I've come across lots of people say that they don't want to try Arch because of what they've "heard". With the right amount of patience and ability to follow basic instructions, it's really not a big hassle to get Arch up and running. That said, it never hurt to have some interest in how a system works on a layer below the usual UI. btw i use arch on my laptop

[QUOTE=Firewave;47762149]I think with the amount of vocal Arch Linux users – with almost no exception – seize the opportunity to state that they use Arch (and love it, or whatever), your post is nothing but a stereotypical anecdote. The sad part about this is that I've come across lots of people say that they don't want to try Arch because of what they've "heard". With the right amount of patience and ability to follow basic instructions, it's really not a big hassle to get Arch up and running. That said, it never hurt to have some interest in how a system works on a layer below the usual UI. btw i use arch on my laptop[/QUOTE] It was more of a joke. I have no issues with arch, I just prefer not to use it due to past experiences and the fact that I don't wish to put the effort in. I'm still glad I did it though, for the same reason you put at the end of your post.

Archlinux itself is an alright system. The main problem from my point of view comes from the community who's as far as witnessed it was pretty elitistic and sometimes very unhelpful towards non-archlinux users. For example, When I ask on IRC on why Package X Seems to have a problem with something in CentOS, I really don't want to hear "Works in Archlinux, you should really give it a go" as an answer. It's neither useful, nor does it contribute to anything other than religious Distribution Wars. And then there's the Dev team behind Archlinux, which from time to time do some weird changes to the system and the only warning is an announcement on the website after it happened. For example this breaking change made a few days ago explains my point pretty well. [url]https://www.archlinux.org/news/puppet-40-enters-community/[/url] Applied updates to a puppet client? too bad, you can't use that puppet client anymore and you need to update the server and all clients to version 4.0 aswell, or painfully trying to revert to an old version.

[QUOTE=kaukassus;47762226]Applied updates to a puppet client? too bad, you can't use that puppet client anymore and you need to update the server and all clients to version 4.0 aswell, or painfully trying to revert to an old version.[/QUOTE] Is it the Arch devs' fault for having an upstream package break compatibility with an older self?

[QUOTE=kaukassus;47761785]Does it work for the things you do? Do you like it? If you can answer both of those with a yes, then why should you switch? In the end, it all comes down to personal preferences. Some like Distro X, but hate Distro Y, some hate both and decide that making a distro from scratch is the true way to go, and so on... I've personally settled for now with Ubuntu for Day-to-day activities, Archlinux VM's for Development and CentOS for Servers.[/QUOTE] If I may ask, when you said "Archlinux VM's for Development" Can't you just do those things on Ubuntu? Why use a different OS for that? What kind of advantage does Arch gives you when it comes to development?

[QUOTE=Firewave;47762256]Is it the Arch devs' fault for having an upstream package break compatibility with an older self?[/QUOTE] No. But knowingly breaking userspace with an update with no heads-up is not really a good process either. A proper deprecation process like would be appreciated. [QUOTE=Acti;47762266]If I may ask, when you said "Archlinux VM's for Development" Can't you just do those things on Ubuntu? Why use a different OS for that? What kind of advantage does Arch gives you when it comes to development?[/QUOTE] For example, when I used to do nodejs developments, certain things required npm version 2.4 But Ubuntu had npm version 1.9. No PPA available and my only option would have been to compile from source, which did more problems than it did solve. Same version dilemma happened for me with Ruby on Rails. Installed Arch and never worried again. It mainly gives me the advantages of always having the most recent version of Compilers, Interpreters, Libraries, etc... Depending on what kind of dev work you do, this can be either great, or terribly bad. But yes, you can do the same thing pretty much on any other Linux distribution, but Archlinux gives me the biggest amount of convenience when working with programming related stuff.

[QUOTE=kaukassus;47762226]Archlinux itself is an alright system. The main problem from my point of view comes from the community who's as far as witnessed it was pretty elitistic and sometimes very unhelpful towards non-archlinux users. For example, When I ask on IRC on why Package X Seems to have a problem with something in CentOS, I really don't want to hear "Works in Archlinux, you should really give it a go" as an answer. It's neither useful, nor does it contribute to anything other than religious Distribution Wars. And then there's the Dev team behind Archlinux, which from time to time do some weird changes to the system and the only warning is an announcement on the website after it happened. For example this breaking change made a few days ago explains my point pretty well. [url]https://www.archlinux.org/news/puppet-40-enters-community/[/url] Applied updates to a puppet client? too bad, you can't use that puppet client anymore and you need to update the server and all clients to version 4.0 aswell, or painfully trying to revert to an old version.[/QUOTE] Most of these problems are solved with manjaro, an Arch derivative. The packages aren't as bleeding edge and the community seems less elitist. The only problem I had was that ghc was suddenly updated to 7.10, which also breaks compatibility with older libraries.

I don't see how people are having issues with Arch, as long as you follow the wiki for installation the rest is going to work just fine.

I've been running two Arch installations (desktop, laptop) for over a year now, and I haven't broken anything I couldn't fix.

I did my Arch install following the documentation I wrote for myself almost 2 years ago, still worked great.

[QUOTE=Acti;47761614]I'm asking because I need to use a LinuxOS, but I don't know what to pick... Is Ubuntu that fucked up as /g/ says it is? Should I just install mint and shut up?[/QUOTE] Mint (at least with Cinnamon) isn't that great IMO, I'd look into an alternate Ubuntu distro like Ubuntu GNOME or Kubuntu. I'd personally argue going LTS for stability but you may like the bleeding edge stuff for whatever reason; just know that a lot of software aims to run on Ubuntu LTS releases.

out of interest how many distros does everyone here use in day to day life? i use opensuse and xubuntu for desktop shit and centOS on my server. i'm guessing 2 or 3 is pretty average yeah?

Arch Linux laptop, Raspbian RPi2, Debian wheezy dedicated server at a datacenter. I'll probably migrate the server to Ubuntu 16.04 when it comes out, and stick to that.

Xubuntu LTS and Debian Stable. I'm the boring sort.

I run Arch on at least three devices and my Windows VM on my desktop. I also ran Arch on my server, but I'm not paying for hosting at the moment I've had no issues with Arch as a distro, I find it fairly simple to use [editline]20th May 2015[/editline] I use CloneZilla all the time at work, so Debian too I guess?

I use Arch for my desktop and laptops, while I use Debian on my VPS'

I run CentOS because for some reason my providers Debian images are double the size

Debian VPS, Debian rPi, Arch desktop. Only place where I have the effort to spend time doing updates constantly is my desktop really.

I've had more issues updating Ubuntu than Arch. I mean shit, I've broken X more times on Ubuntu than Arch. Don't ask me how, it was just standard upgrading packages and everything died and I had to... well I don't actually remember what I had to do but it was a pain in the ass.

[QUOTE=DerpishCat;47762491]I don't see how people are having issues with Arch, as long as you follow the wiki for installation the rest is going to work just fine.[/QUOTE] Until they decide to delete /lib again for cheap laughs. [editline]eh[/editline] RE: What's everyone running My primary distro is Gentoo, and I default to that, but I've got a pair of crap computers here that really ought not to be compiling anything, so I'm running Debian on one and openSUSE Tumbleweed on the other. Debian's pretty alright once you use testing/unstable, not quite sure what I think of SUSE yet.