91–100 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What interface are you using? I use wmii on my arch boxes.
From his comment about Haskell, I'm guessing Xmonad.
My config is here: https://github.com/tmhedberg/xmonad.hs/blob/master/xmonad.hs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No package manager should use /usr/local/.
would you elaborate? i guess i agree for historical reasons but for practical reasons i think package managers actually should use /usr/local/. basically everyone uses a package manager now (except lfs). where would you like package managers to install.
"The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten when the system software is updated." [1]
And I believe that "system software" today means "installed by a package manager" (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I personally (rarely) use /usr/local for manually-installed packages. This way there's no risk of a package manager accidentally overwriting stuff outside its control.
[1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- shallow mental model: I know where everything is, I know all the moving pieces How is that different than Ubuntu (or any other distro once you've used it enough)? (serious question, considering the same switch myself)
I have been using Ubuntu now for a little over a year, and honestly, I find it incredibly tedious to do the most mundane amount of configuration. I want to adjust what programs get run at start up. On Arch Linux, I go to /etc/rc.d and remove or modify any scripts, which are clearly labelled. On Ubuntu, I think I need to weed through the dozen or so numbered /etc/rc directories and find what I need and modify. I got p…
To make a program not start on startup, either apt-get remove it, or chmod -x the init script.
I've used both Arch and Ubuntu extensively, and I like them both. For servers, I tend to use Ubuntu server edition, which really isn't that much different to Arch + a few hours of setup. It's really just a stripped down Debian flavored linux... nothing complex about it... but you do get the benefit of being downstream from lots and lots of testing, Arch not so much.
Pacman is 10x simpler then deb/ppa, so Arch is great if you like to tinker, or if you are building a special purpose system - eg for freeswitch, mythtv, xbmc, kiosk browsing, appliances etc.
I never used Arch but I have used Gentoo for really long. Everything what I read about Arch sounded a bit primitive to me. Are there any advantages of Arch over Gentoo? Or are there good comparisons?
However, Gentoo is closer to LFS. I learnt the details of manual configuration and compilation of the linux kernel thanks to Gentoo. I learnt initrc, set up the logging system I wanted, etc... What I learnt using Gentoo lets me sail through Arch administration with zero hassle. After fixing my Gentoo box numerous times, I understand the compromise that is made in Arch between power, simplicity of administration and time consumed doing real work. Arch maintains a "pro" feeling, does not try to hide the internals, while keeping a minimal number of "free variables" for you to tweak. Does that make Arch primitive? Maybe, and in that case, I like primitiveness inmy distros.
I switched from Ubuntu to Arch on my servers and linux desktops a while back. Here's are the key benefits from my perspective: - shallow mental model: I know where everything is, I know all the moving pieces - pacman: outstanding package manager. - aif: dieter has done a great job making a modular install framework. - AUR: compared to PPAs, AUR is simple and easy to contribute to (both commentary and packages) It rea…
I've seen this cycle repeat endlessly in software: 1. New, popular system/language/app appears and gradually adds features and complexity in response to user requests as it catches on. Devs are personal and responsive. Users feel engaged. 2. Users grow disenchanted with the increasing complexity of the system. Developers burn out on support workload and slowly become more remote. 3. A new shiny, simple alternative ap…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen this cycle repeat endlessly in software: 1. New, popular system/language/app appears and gradually adds features and complexity in response to user requests as it catches on. Devs are personal and responsive. Users feel engaged. 2. Users grow disenchanted with the increasing complexity of the system. Developers burn out on support workload and slowly become more remote. 3. A new shiny, simple alternative ap…
Yep. The one exception that immediately comes to mind though is OpenBSD. The devs there have no trouble telling the users "No!", and, although various individuals of them burn out occasionally, as a group they are talented and dedicated enough to keep moving on. The result is an OS that still uses a text-based installer, that is still easy to get accustomed to, and is still for the most part super reliable, even afte…
I never used Arch but I have used Gentoo for really long. Everything what I read about Arch sounded a bit primitive to me. Are there any advantages of Arch over Gentoo? Or are there good comparisons?
So far the main difference I've seen: With Gentoo you have to compile everything yourself (as much as I can tell). With Arch, you _can_ compile everything yourself, but don't have to: official repos have packages precompiled, but the package source is there if you want something different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely agree. The AUR makes it really easy to manage software not in the official repositories- without that it becomes difficult to keep track of what's installed and often impossible to uninstall. However, it would be nice if pacman used signed packages, especially in light of the recent kernel.org situation.
Not done yet, but I think pacman 4.0 has signing support. I also hope the recent events will spur continued development here.