LinuxQuestions.org
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Newbie (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/)
-   -   Arch Linux or OpenSUSE? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/arch-linux-or-opensuse-4175554689/)

basica 10-10-2015 06:41 AM
1. Once a week is fine, people have gone longer without issues but it has also bitten others. I do it more often but it's no biggie.

2. a. If you weren't using pantheon, gnome/mate is the closest developmentally speaking since they're both gtk based. There's a bunch of dock programs, docky is probably the most popular and probably the one you ought to go for.
2. b. If there aren't themes available, you'll have to make your own. good luck with that as I don't have much of a clue about theming.
2. c. If at all posible, I avoid anything that's not in the main repos. Pantheon is buggy in elementary, so it's going to be at least as buggy in arch (but realistically more so). I like stable environments, while it might be still usable, for me I wouldn't want it on any machine I'm running that I depend on.

Feliks 10-10-2015 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by basica (Post 5432488)
1. Once a week is fine, people have gone longer without issues but it has also bitten others. I do it more often but it's no biggie.

2. a. If you weren't using pantheon, gnome/mate is the closest developmentally speaking since they're both gtk based. There's a bunch of dock programs, docky is probably the most popular and probably the one you ought to go for.
2. b. If there aren't themes available, you'll have to make your own. good luck with that as I don't have much of a clue about theming.
2. c. If at all posible, I avoid anything that's not in the main repos. Pantheon is buggy in elementary, so it's going to be at least as buggy in arch (but realistically more so). I like stable environments, while it might be still usable, for me I wouldn't want it on any machine I'm running that I depend on.
Thank you. And for 2B; what is a theme in terms of Linux? (Sorry, again it's been a while and I don't want to get it mixed up with theme for Windows, etc)

basica 10-11-2015 07:55 AM
Well, you have themes for the desktop, for your icons and so on. Sometimes you can get themes that are completely comprehensive (icons, desktop, fonts and so on).

Head_on_a_Stick 10-11-2015 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks (Post 5432425)
Arch seems very simple past set-up, even though everyone makes it sound super difficult. Am I doing something wrong?!
Not at all, the main reason most people stick with Arch is because it is such a simple and stripped-down system with as little abstraction as possible and this makes it easier to maintain.

Arch is designed from the ground up to work as a rolling release and has no complicated system of multiple repositories (even when tracking [testing] the main repositories are left in place) and pacman is one of the most flexible and powerful package managers around. [1]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks (Post 5432425)
are there config files I need to edit or anything or no.
Probably, make sure you read the General Recomendations page in the ArchWiki [2]; one of the joys of an Arch system is gradually optimising and honing it so it's just right. This can take a while but it is refreshing & rewarding to see your system *improve* over time :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks (Post 5432425)
1) How often do I REALLY need to update it though? I'm feeling more like every week, but if you think that sounds too long please let me know.
Once a week sounds fine to me.

The important thing to remember is that the longer you leave it between updates, the greater the number of packages that can potentially bring new bugs into the system.

It is *much* easier to track down & troubleshoot new bugs with a shorter upgrade interval.

Arch is like a bike -- it's only stable when it's rolling.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_tips
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ecommendations

Feliks 10-11-2015 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head_on_a_Stick (Post 5433004)
Not at all, the main reason most people stick with Arch is because it is such a simple and stripped-down system with as little abstraction as possible and this makes it easier to maintain.

Arch is designed from the ground up to work as a rolling release and has no complicated system of multiple repositories (even when tracking [testing] the main repositories are left in place) and pacman is one of the most flexible and powerful package managers around. [1]

Probably, make sure you read the General Recomendations page in the ArchWiki [2]; one of the joys of an Arch system is gradually optimising and honing it so it's just right. This can take a while but it is refreshing & rewarding to see your system *improve* over time :)

Once a week sounds fine to me.

The important thing to remember is that the longer you leave it between updates, the greater the number of packages that can potentially bring new bugs into the system.

It is *much* easier to track down & troubleshoot new bugs with a shorter upgrade interval.

Arch is like a bike -- it's only stable when it's rolling.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_tips
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ecommendations
Excited to get more in to Arch. :) With the config files, do they need to be edited more to "hone" my system as you said or should I expect something to break unless I go through config files?

m.a.l.'s pa 10-11-2015 09:48 PM
Re: updating Arch --

Quote:
It is recommended to perform full system upgrades regularly, at least weekly, both to enjoy the latest bugfix and security updates, and also to avoid having to deal with too many package updates that require manual intervention at once.
(from https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/System_maintenance)

Also check out the "Maintaining Arch" section and other important info here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...stem_stability

And generally get used to referring to the Arch Wiki because most of the time that's the best place to find answers. In my opinion, at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliks (Post 5432425)
I am a bit concerned though... Arch seems very simple past set-up, even though everyone makes it sound super difficult. Am I doing something wrong?!
:cool:

Nope; Arch isn't really all that difficult.

Feliks 10-13-2015 01:09 AM
Hey guys, I'm doing a multi-boot so how big should I make my Arch partition at the least (to where I'll still have a little breathing room though)

Head_on_a_Stick 10-13-2015 03:19 PM
^ You could probably get away with 15GiB.

I find 30GiB to be plenty unless I have Steam games on the system.

Feliks 10-14-2015 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head_on_a_Stick (Post 5434122)
^ You could probably get away with 15GiB.

I find 30GiB to be plenty unless I have Steam games on the system.
The way I have it set up, I have a 3 TB HDD for my Steam games and general storage and then a 225GB SSD for my OSs. It's a triple boot though so I have to admit it's a little complex; it's my first time doing it so I'm just confused on how to go about the different file systems.

Currently my plan is to have the following partition layout:
80 GB - Windows 10
30 GB - Arch Linux
30 GB - Mac OSX El Capitan
80 GB - Storage / Empty Space (to not use over 80 of SSD)

The thing is, will all my Linux programs have to go on the SSD, and in to that partition? I don't want to divvy up my 3TB into different partitions; I plan to just keep it NTFS. 1) But does that mean all my Linux programs have to stay on that partition then, or is there a way I can put them on my NTFS 3 TB?

and 2) Do you see anywhere I could shrink space perhaps to allow for more storage space? 60GB should be fine for storage; I mainly plan to have all my Elder Scrolls games there and then whatever else. But I'll take whatever more storage space I can get ;3


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page