thelinuxlink.net

I am trying to install arch , but Iam having problems getting xorg.conf correct.
Is it possible to copy a xorg.conf from a ubuntu live session, to arch and use that since the hwd detect in arch is not correct?

When I used to use Arch, I did something similar to this. I booted up with Kanotix, made notes on what the Xorg auto detect had as settings then manually changed my Arch Xorg.conf file.

It worked for me. I don't see why you couldn't do the same.

Thanks for the reply.
I know I will get lit up for saying this but, oh well here goes. But problems like these are a big reason that people don't want to move to linux. Althought I love Ubuntu now with automatix,I can do almost everything that I can do on xp.They are the exception to the rule though. I think they are on the right track.


Whats up with the stupid arch attitude. You have to learn the guts of an os before you can get it to install? Its nothing more that geek machismo. Its better because its harder to use and doesn't have a gui because thats for sissies. Its funny to see though, people ragging on each other" oh you use ubuntu thats for puss*** , I complie all my stuff so I guess my johnson is bigger.

Its like some jazz musicians who play all these crazy scales and it sounds like sh**. But to a select group who are interested in that style they will like it, but it will never be popular.They are cool because they can do something that not everyone can do.

I don't want to assemble a engine before I can drive a car. Don't get me wrong its a good thing to learn how to do it. But only if you want to.

Thats what I see as a part time xp user and ubuntu convert.

Arch is not targeted at noobies. It's targeted at people who are experienced with Linux and not afraid to get down and dirty on the command line. It's not meant for everyone. Especially grandma!
I've used Arch in the past and I think it's a pretty nice distro. Super fast light weight and very configurable. It also has a pretty awesome package manager in it's own right (pacman). The install can be a bitch though. I've been using Linux now for about 8 years? I currently run Debian, Kubuntu and Studio 64 (audio distro based on Debian). Am I a pussy for liking the ease of apt-get? Of course not and neither anyone else who likes using a Debian based distro. If you like compiling everything go use Gentoo, LFS or even Slackware (which has a lot a packages available too).

I may have drawn the wrong conclusions, but this is how it appears to me:

Getting an OS to be able to do everything itself automatically takes a lot of code. As a developer, you have to pretty much throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into it to make it work... just in case someone is using some obscure piece of hardware.

That is why distributions, like Mandriva, SuSE and RedHat, take up 3(+) CDs and why sometimes their desktop interfaces can seem slower, when compared to something like Arch.

Much of Arch relies on the user for information, rather than "smart" GUI interface applications. Arch developers have chosen to take the small and fast route, rather than the bulkier, ease of use approach.

One isn't better than the other... they're just different.

As for the attitudes of some people.... well, unfortunately that's just human nature. There are arse-holes in any group no matter where you go.

One thing that has really turned me off from Arch, is that before installation, they force you to fill in a bunch of blank configuration files by hand. Now, I don't mind editing configuration files by hand, but it's rediculous not to have an "autofill" option. If Slackware, or FreeBSD can do this stuff automatically, I don't see why Arch can't. Hell, even Gentoo is easier to install than Arch.

--

Question for the Arch users around here: Is there a 'stable' branch for Arch? I was looking at the website, and I saw Testing, Unstable, Extra, and Current repositories. Arch looks like a cool distro, but is it that stable? Do I have the option of only getting security fixes, like Debian Stable?

Wally Balljacker wrote:Question for the Arch users around here: Is there a 'stable' branch for Arch? I was looking at the website, and I saw Testing, Unstable, Extra, and Current repositories. Arch looks like a cool distro, but is it that stable? Do I have the option of only getting security fixes, like Debian Stable?

This is the problem with rolling releases. There is no line in the sand.

Generally speaking, Arch's current branch is "stable" and the testing branch is, well, testing. There are no official security patches, but if a package has a security vulnerability, the package in current is updated. But, it's up to the user to keep track of security issues. There is no security mailing list or anything like what Slackware does. I wish Arch had a "security team" like Slackware that releases updates, but then again, since it's a rolling distro, there are no old versions for which security updates would apply. Everyone runs current, in other words, so it's hard to release security updates for a specific version.

As to the overall stability, I have found it to be much more stable than it was when I first tried it 2-3 years ago. There are problems, sometimes, like the move to xorg 7 and the move to kernel init ramdisks, but overall, it's pretty stable. There will be breakages from time to time if you really keep on top of current. If you only update current twice a year, then you are probably ok.

Bottom line for me is that is fun to use and I use it on one of my two workstations and use it every day. It's really nice and has a good selection of very bleeding edge packages.

heh, I like the jazz analogy! And why do you call it "stupid" just because you do not prefer it? I say live and let live. I fall into the Arch camp on some of my systems because I am willing to put up with some of the issues given some of the benefits (perceived or not). Like anything; there are trade-offs.

It seems much of the community takes a missionary-like attitude about conversion of the masses and the need for all distros and projects to participate. Well, I reject that idea. Just let play with my geeky toys. OK?!

ddennedy wrote:heh, I like the jazz analogy! And why do you call it "stupid" just because you do not prefer it? I say live and let live. I fall into the Arch camp on some of my systems because I am willing to put up with some of the issues given some of the benefits (perceived or not). Like anything; there are trade-offs.

It seems much of the community takes a missionary-like attitude about conversion of the masses and the need for all distros and projects to participate. Well, I reject that idea. Just let play with my geeky toys. OK?!

That's what I have been saying about Gentoo. Some like it, some don't. As far as Arch goes I didn't get past making the grub menu.lst file because I wasn't sure what exactly to put so I gave up. Maybe I should give it another go soon with a little bit of research prior to the install.

CptnObvious999 wrote:As far as Arch goes I didn't get past making the grub menu.lst file because I wasn't sure what exactly to put so I gave up. Maybe I should give it another go soon with a little bit of research prior to the install.

I have heard Dann reference this a couple times too. I have done several Arch installs now and the only config file I ever had to touch on install was the rc.conf, well, and the resolv.conf. I never even looked at the grub conf file.

IIRC, all I ever had to do was "hwd -x" to get a good working xorg. There are other tools, though, like xorgcfg and xorgconfig. What was your reason for wanting to try arch? Personally, it's exactly what I want in a distro (well, aside from the occasional major bugs), but it sounds like until you get a little more up to speed ubuntu may be what you're looking for. There is no reason to use arch or gentoo if you aren't into tinkering, and if you read the boards you'll see that even several arch users run more than one distro. I run kubuntu on my lappy, and honestly it drives me up the flippin' wall most of the time.

Its funny to see though, people ragging on each other" oh you use ubuntu thats for puss*** , I complie all my stuff so I guess my johnson is bigger.

Also, I'm assuming this is a broad statement, probably about digg or osnews type places. I have rarely ever seen this type of behavior in the Arch community. This includes both the boards as well as the mailing list. When I do see it, it isn't anyone who represents the community. You might get treated to a link and an RTFM on occasion, but that's common anywhere.