Hi /g/ !
Which Linux distro do you use ? Why not an other ?
Mint. Facile à installer, à utiliser, c'est une Debian-based donc les dépôts sont ce qu'il y a de mieux, et je bénéficie du support d'Ubuntu sans avoir à me coltiner les merdes de Canonical.
I like the social contract and community involvement of Debian. It makes me proud to use an operating system that isn't controlled by one major source such as Fedora but that is also popular enough to have a sizable user base to share experiences with and at times get assistance from.
Every operating system is a compromise but Debian, for me, is the best compromise.
Really? IIRC, #! just uses the standard Debian install, which is piss-easy.
I run arch linux because I wanted to try something new after using Debian for about a year and have yet to have the desire to try something new again.
To be fair, I'm a total noob and tried mounting and installing it on a virtualbox machine. For some reason I seem to get errors, mostly telling me to "install the system", or "failure to run chroot, proc proc proc, etc..."
I dunno. I must be doing something obviously wrong and not realize.
If you're just trying to try it out, it might be easier to use a live CD/USB. I'd reccommend a usb since it'll be much faster than a CD, but not all BIOS's let you boot from USB I think. Not sure about UEFI.
Slackware. I yused SUSE furst, cause my dad had a set of SUSE 8 disks, which I later upgraded to 10. After upgrading to 11 though, YAST and KDE started to fuck with each other's settings, and my graphics started fucking up (later found out that was the 6 year old integrated graphics finally burning out) I heard Slackware was good with older hardware, so I fired it up, and love at first command. The god tier documentation and everything being in curses were my favourites.
>why don't you use anything else
Ive tried others, crunchbang on a netbook for a while, but nothing else ever felt as raw and ready as Slackware does. And now everything else is infested with systemdicks (except based Gentoo, god speed openRC) so I doubt I'll be switching any time soon
Cheers guise. I thought I would just be fine mounting the #! .iso and just installing with that. I tried making a live USB the other night, but for some my laptop wouldn't let me boot it. (Fujitsu A512, not too sure if it's a BIOS thing) But I'll give the live USB thing another shot.
... I guess I'll just keep working at it... (.__. )
Not this guy, haven't taken french in two years, but here it goes.
Mint is easy to install, it's a debian based distro, which makes it nice, and I benefit from the support of Ubuntu without the load of shit that is Canonical.
debian because it seemed like a good idea 2 years ago and i can't be bothered to install and set up something different now. once in a while I try something out in virtualbox but until this stops working for me as a good productive solution I probably won't switch. I am not particularly bothered by systemd, I use testing so I have it already and the transition was completely painless and almost invisible. It's nice for a desktop user but I can undersatnd why some sysadmins don't like it.
If I had to pick another I'd probably go with arch or manjaro. I wouldn't consider Ubuntu another distro really just another flavor of Debian. So Arch because of the wide availability of packages. I'd have to figure out how to make it more stable so I could upgrade without worrying about breakage. Although there looks to be a massive amount of packages available for FreeBSD as well, I'm not sure how stable it is when using ports. Even though I use Debian testing it has been extremely stable for me, the only few issues that I had concerns about were easily avoided because apt-listchanges prompts me before installing anything that has open bugs or breaking changes with severity above medium.
>it now has the MATE desktop in the package manager!
I'd just like to interject for a moment and point out that the MATE desktop is not included in the package manager (or at least I hope it isn't), but the MATE desktop is included in the official software repositories.
Thanks, I've always wondered what it must be like to live on the bleeding edge. I wanted to do arch on my laptop a while back, and keep the desktop stable, but then I started hearing about shit red hat was pulling (pushing broken packages anyways so the arch community would fix their shit) and noped my way out of that idea
Co-sign. I'm not a l33t Arch or Gentoo fag either. I just want an OS that isn't Windows and I really can't stand Ubuntu's shitty Unity. All I do is watch Stallman videos and do old bbs/mud shit.
It's nice that you get to see some radical redesigns early (like KDE 5 + Plasma Next), but occasionally you get to say hello to glaring bugs (though for the most part, keeping your packages up to date is stable). Arch's most crazy on-the-edge changes have been making changes to the file structure, like moving all libraries into /usr/lib, and all binaries into /usr/bin, instead of having an /sbin/, et al.
THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM
Is KDE5 as flat and awful as the shots I saw floating around /g/?
>instead of having an /sbin/
For what reason? That's almost as dumb as moving the service data from /var/ to /srv/, it just fucks with people who use partitions. Why must we move things, one arbitrary location is just as arbitrary as the last
>but occasionally you get to say hello to glaring bugs
So far, the only bugs I've encountered using Arch stemmed solely from upstream. And the bugs have been few and far between, although maybe I'd run into more bugs if I used a more complex desktop environment.
Yeah, KDE 5 is flat as fuck. And I'm not sure why exactly, because there are still fucking symlinks to match the original file structure.
Exactly, it's upstream bugs. Really, it just tellls you which devs and organizations are shit.
zomg I had the live USB actually boot up! I had to go into my laptop's BIOS to disable secureboot 'cus of Windows 8 shilling by the manufacturer.
I'd still like to try to get it work on virtual machine though. But this is a good start.
Exactly how I feel, but I also haven't been liking what systemd is doing to my testing systems. The interface for the init daemon is all kinds of obtuse and I'd rather save obtuseness for redhat and microsoft machines. I'm considering gentoo/funtoo, but I might just try out debian's OpenRC package. I don't use anything that depends on systemd so it shouldn't be a problem.
>Arch's most crazy on-the-edge changes have been making changes to the file structure, like moving all libraries into /usr/lib, and all binaries into /usr/bin, instead of having an /sbin/, et al.
This is not crazy, or on-the-edge, or an Arch change. It was first done in Fedora.
>restrictedboot fucking with you for trying to install GNU/Linux.
Fuck you Microsoft!
Well there is also Salix OS which is comparable to to heavyweight like Arch, but based on Slackware.
And Porteus which is a very lightweight, complete, pre-customizable OS that can also be used as Live cd.
Both with the advantage of Slackware but without the difficult setup.
....soo, this was all done cause it hurt their autism and to be compatible with solaris? I agree with half of it, most of what was in /lib should have been in /usr/lib anyways, but there is a stron reason for having /bin and /sbin separate.
YOUR SYSTEM CAN BOOT IF /usr IS ON A SEPARATE PARTITION AND CAN'T BE MOUNTED.
Holy fuck freedesktop, this is a new level of fucking the system. /usr is great to mount on a separate partition cause it's just userspace binaries, libraries, and documentation. This way / is a few MB and is enough to boot the system, and all your confic files are in /etc, so if you mount /usr, /tmp, /home, and /var on separate partitions you can reimage in a snap, or use nfs mounts for thin clients. But no, Red hat want us to only be able to do that with their PXE shit, so they fuck the whole OS for us. Thanks you fucks
ubuntu. i first switched to it because it is babbies first linux. but once i learned enough about it and removed unity, i saw no reason to switch to anything else. it does exactly what i want it to and runs very well on my machine
I don't mind using whatever for work, but at home I like to have something comfortable.
the interface to the init system. it's full of problemfactories, for lack of a better word. I think lennart calls them generators.
systemctl someshit.otherfuckingshit.holyfuckingshit -rtlf
trying to do anything always requires a fuckton of dicking about.
I like some of the stuff that systemd does, but for the most part I don't want all that junk on a fresh install.
What distro should i install on my laptop?
I have never used Linux but might as well just dive in. Learning programming right now so that's what i'll use it for.
Is there a rolling release Ubuntu? By that I mean a handy and not fugly default config. Though it seems like Canonical's worked out the version upgrades so that they actually function without breaking everything. Or at least 12.04 to 14.04 worked well.
It's not cosmetic. One of the really nice things the systemd guys are working on now off the back of this is factory resets and stateless Linux.
I forgot to select USB 3.0 in the kernel options or realtek codec support. Woops. Hopefully I didn't forget anything this time. If it fucks up again I'll use a generic kernel build I guess.
Which package manager is the best? Apt(-get), yum, dnf or zypper? And why? I'm trying to decide what distro to install next. I've tried all the major distros except for OpenSUSE and am mostly basing the decision on which package manager objectively is the best. Apt-get bricked my system once so I'd rather not use that...
Arch is so perfect
Slackware is a difficult setup?
It pretty much holds your hand through the entire thing aside from partition creation and encryption so long as you don't decide to be a dweeb and selectively install packages from the base. It's all there for a reason.