I'm a fan of the enlightenment basis and they way it can look, but I'm not a fan of the way they lay out their configs and things, ergo I don't use it. On the opposite side, I love the fluxbox configs. They're so easy to understand and edit and it has a little eye candy built in but I can use whatever third-party software I like, so I use fluxbox.

That is what's so fantastic about linux, you like KDE or GNOME for it's usability? Use it, who's stopping you? There's a plethora of software out there, pick a task and there will be numerous programs that allow you to get it done, which one you use it entirely up to you :)

Crashed_Again, I would love to take a look at your config files...PM me

So pacman, is similar to Portage right? I used to be a gentoo'er, but then I got sick of a 2 hour compile every time I wanted to Install something, (a great example would be firefox *shudders*). Arch does sound closley releated to gentoo...

In some ways. You use it to install and remove packages, with automatic dependency checking and resolving. But unlike portage, nothing is compiled from source; it's installed from pre-compiled packages. So it's more like APT, YUM or URPMI.

Neither. Do LFS or something like that (maybe even gentoo if you read slow and careful and pretend it's hard). But between Arch and Slack, I'd say Arch will teach you a lot more (Slack has a better installer).

Something cool with pacman is setup your CFLAGS, pacman -S srcpac and then in ~/.bashrc I've aliased pacman ="sudo srcpac". Now I have this
Easy :)

Hey thanks for the advice, but you see when snobby chumps like you post "advice" it really pisses me off. For a start, I have installed Gentoo 5 times (Yes big deal I know, who gives a shit, and Im not one of those 'l33t' pre-pubescent teens, because I hate Gentoo, the only reason why I use it is because of Portage). Okay, so next you basically say that Im a newbie. "Arch will teach you alot more." Bullshit. You see, Ive concluded that alot of Arch users in particular are snobby teens, Just like Gentoo. Arch is no better, to be honest, it's just like Vidalinux. "Gentoo For Pussies". Indeed with a name like MA_D, (feel free to critzise my name, at least it's got some originality) no wonder you've got those "MA_D" skills. Again thanks, oh powerful Arch User.

I said Arch would teach you more because Slack installations are often almost entirely automated. Its hardware detection is actually pretty good.
I said LFS and Gentoo would teach you more because they automate nothing, so you have to go through it yourself and actually see what's happening.

It's not snobby. Personally, I think distros that make you do the installation are a waste of time unless you:
1.) Really want intimate knowledge.
2.) Want to roll your own dist.

MAD, I used MA_D because MAD is almost always taken and tooo easily confused with the english word, is an acronym. It has political, and geek nostalgia meaning. It may not be original, but it means a whole lot more than "mad skillz."

You should try being nicer to people. I offer you my opinion and you spit it in my face and call me a child. I'd read my profile before calling me a teenager btw ;).


I read my post a couple of times. It could be considered brash, but one would have to look hard to find offense.

Agreed.
Why is it these sort of threads always degenerate so ... ????

Might try Arch on my Mepis machine. That was built for my "better half" to wean her off Win98, and at the time I couldn't get a successful Arch iso download.
Might try again.

Ok I aplogize, Ive just had alot of bad experience with the Gentoo Forums, and another forum Im not going to mention (full of kids). I can't help it, everything pisses me off since then. :)

Ok, no biggie :).

Seems like this would be the right post for me to voice my opinion. I use Slackware 10.1 on my desktop and Arch on my laptop. I've used Slackware longer, but am beginning to like Arch, especially on my laptop. As everyone has said, linux is linux. In some ways, I like LFS more. But really the thing that differentiates Slackware and Arch is package management. Arch is something of a hybrid between Slackware and Gentoo.

I use Arch on my laptop because I have it close a high speed connection and package updating has never been as easy as pacman. I have a setup of Slackware + Dropline on my desktop. Seems like you have a desktop considering you use a 9800. If I were you, I would go with Slackware.

Believe me, I had to learn to a lot in Slackware. It's not all that easy after installation. In fact, I felt very capable in Arch once I was a veteran in Slackware. And to solve the ATI problem, you should check out the ATI binary drivers, which are in rpm format. Simply rpm2tgz [file.rpm] and installpkg [file.tgz] and follow the instructions on a howto you can look for in google. The drivers work great and if you dropline install, it really polishes gnome up. I feel Arch makes things easier consolidating important things in /etc/rc.conf. Slackware makes you search for each config file, which is good in a sense as you get oriented with the file system.

Swaret does a fairly good job, but pacman does an excellent job meeting any dependencies. Both distros have their ups and downs. Be what it may, you can equally learn about unix principles in both distros. In the OS world, I visualize a spectrum like this:

Windows >> Linspire, Fedora, Mandriva, SUSE, Xandros >> Debian, Ubuntu, Mepis (Other Debian Derivatives) >> Arch, Gentoo, Slackware >> BSD (Open, Free, Net, DragonFly), Solaris >> pure UNIX (not the crap SCO sells; stuff older that)

Slackware is known to have a strong adherence to UNIX principles as does Arch. They both use SystemV-init style scripts. You'll learn soon enough that it is both simple and elegant. The choice is yours.

There is a distro called frugalware thats loosely based on Slack but uses Packman for package management. I have never used it myself but it seems like an interesting project.

Haha, I found some funny desktop bg's with sco as the theme, I bet you cant guess. (Involves a toliet seat and a chairman hehe)

No they don't. One of Slackware's most distinctive characteristics is its use of BSD-style init scripts instead of SysV-style. Arch's init scripts are different again, but they're no more similar to SysV-style than Slack's scripts are.

Don't be misled by the fact that the Init package is called SysVInit. That just refers to the program itself, not the style of the scripts it runs.