Linux

TheL8Elvis said:
Thanks for the overview.

I'll stick with my initial impression:Sounds kind of like debian testing. I may have to fire it up in a VM and give it a whirl, but not so keen on having to learn the syntax of one more different package manager.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't let that stop you. About all you have to know is:

# Upgrade the system
pacman -Syu

# Install one or more packages (and its dependencies)
pacman -S <package ... >

# Uninstall one or more packages
pacman -R <package ... >

# Query the repositories for packages whose names include 'string'
pacman -Ss <string>

There are other things you can do with pacman, but those are the most common operations. 'man pacman' concisely tells you everything you'd ever need to know.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman
Q: An update to package XYZ broke my system!
A: Arch Linux is a rolling-release cutting-edge distribution. Package updates are available as soon as they are deemed stable enough for general use. However, updates sometimes require user intervention: configuration files may need to be updated, optional dependencies may change, etc.

Sounds kind of like debian testing. ;-)
Click to expand...


Except that Debian doesn't update their packages until they're at least one or two full versions out of date and nobody is using them anymore. ;)


TheL8Elvis said:
Anyhow, sounds like an interesting distro. If I wasn't already so attached debian, I might look into it.

Aside from being more current then debian (stable) due to rolling release, any other major differences that you think worth pointing out ?
Click to expand...


I installed Arch on one of my computers a long time ago. I don't even remember any more exactly why I stopped using it.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
The Mac keyboards that I still have work too, but they aren't really good. Either too small and lacking a bunch of keys, or just a nightmare to type on. Any cheap (PC) stuff is better than what Apple ships with their machines apparantly. Back in the 90ies, when the company was almost dead, this was all different.
Click to expand...
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

The (still) current aluminum Mac keyboards are the best keyboards I've typed on, ever. Both the large wired USB (with number block) and the small wireless. It helps running them with Mac OS X, but they do work fine on PCs, too. And Linux (I know Ubuntu for sure) has maps for them already built in.

I cannot imagine going back to these bulky standard PC keyboards. Or these really old IBM keyboards that feel they came out of an IBM Selectric that some oldsters still swear on. Ugh.
 
elgarak said:
Or these really old IBM keyboards that feel they came out of an IBM Selectric that some oldsters still swear on. Ugh.
Click to expand...

Did you just dis the old IBM keyboards? The ones that go "clack!"? You insensitive clod! :)

I still have a love-on for them. My brother in law recently found one in a stack of old pc's at work. He has it at home now, on his Ubuntu server. He clacks at me and smiles beatifically. I grimace. Me want.
 
Donn said:
Did you just dis the old IBM keyboards? The ones that go "clack!"? You insensitive clod! :)

I still have a love-on for them. My brother in law recently found one in a stack of old pc's at work. He has it at home now, on his Ubuntu server. He clacks at me and smiles beatifically. I grimace. Me want.
Click to expand...

:)

Just to trigger such a response!

If you like them, so be it.

But myself, I'm so used to flat low-travel keyboards like the aluminum Apples that I find the old clickies just clunky.
 
My brother in law runs a youth centre. He's a social worker.
They run Linux on the systems there as there is no money for software licences.

I was wondering:

The school my kids go to, has quite a few computers.
There is a classroom full of them, for computer lessons and every classroom has a smartboard.
That's essentially a whiteboard with a beamer attached, hooked up to a PC.

Could such a school save a significant amount of money, switching to Linux?
They run Windows XP now.

Or is that a run race, as they already own the software?
 
Eddie Dane said:
Or is that a run race, as they already own the software?
Click to expand...

I think you suspect the answer will be mixed. Yeah .. no ... maybe.

Yes, the money has been handed-over to Windows. That's done.
New machines? Savings could be had; it depends on quantity and what kind of software the kids are being taught to use.

The momentum to stay with what you know is huge. To shift to a new O/S and all that brings is a big ask.
Even I, who use and love Linux, am stuck in a Debian-Ubuntu related distro momentum. It's too scary to picture shifting away from what I know (like going to RPM land in Arch/Fedora ville).

I think it (the issues) should be less about the money and more about the idea behind free and open software (fropen - my word).
In a way I think of fropen source as being skepticism and closed source as being woo :
fropen is open, challengeable, visible, thoughtful, engaging, fun, etc.
closed is closed, hidden, accepted, dogmatic, revelation-based, branded, etc. It's the default and that is like woo.

Methinks I ramble :)
 
John Albert said:
Except that Debian doesn't update their packages until they're at least one or two full versions out of date and nobody is using them anymore. ;)
Click to expand...

Debian stable is getting better. It used to really behind, now is only sort of behind. :) And Ubuntu takes care of that if you don't want to use stock debian. Or, just use testing and some apt-pinning. Testing is completely usable on a day-to-day basis.

Anyhow, I wasn't to familiar with arch, so I've learned something and may look into it, so thanks to all for that.
 
Donn said:
Did you just dis the old IBM keyboards? The ones that go "clack!"? You insensitive clod! :)

I still have a love-on for them. My brother in law recently found one in a stack of old pc's at work. He has it at home now, on his Ubuntu server. He clacks at me and smiles beatifically. I grimace. Me want.
Click to expand...

Replying on my model M. Love it :-)
 
I imagine "man pacman" is the Bond-like way Pacman introduces himself.

That school won't stay with XP forever. I'd suggest looking into the alternatives. Edubuntu, for example.
 
Hi! sorry to hijack this thread, but it seems like a better place to ask rather than start a new one :)

I recently downloaded the Commodore OS Vision and wondered if it would be possible to have both this OS and windows 7 on my machine, but rather than disrupt my existing OS what I was thinking was that I could unhook my main drive (windows) install the Linux OS on my second hard drive (used to keep media on) and choose which drive to boot from in the start up menu, the theory being that I won't have to mess about with a new install of windows 7?

Thanks in advance!
 
Emerson Street said:
I recently downloaded the Commodore OS Vision and wondered if it would be possible to have both this OS and windows 7 on my machine, but rather than disrupt my existing OS what I was thinking was that I could unhook my main drive (windows) install the Linux OS on my second hard drive (used to keep media on) and choose which drive to boot from in the start up menu, the theory being that I won't have to mess about with a new install of windows 7?
Click to expand...

I don't see why you couldn't have a dual boot setup with the two OSs on separate drives. I don't know what you mean by "unhook your main drive." No "unhooking" that I can think of should be necessary. Give your Linux drive boot priority over your Windows drive in your BIOS settings. Then, after installing Linux, configure GRUB, the Linux boot manager, to provide menu options at start-up to boot into Linux or Windows.
 
jt512 said:
I don't see why you couldn't have a dual boot setup with the two OSs on separate drives. I don't know what you mean by "unhook your main drive." No "unhooking" that I can think of should be necessary. Give your Linux drive boot priority over your Windows drive in your BIOS settings. Then, after installing Linux, configure GRUB, the Linux boot manager, to provide menu options at start-up to boot into Linux or Windows.
Click to expand...

I meant as in disconnecting it, so there appears to be only one drive on the system, what would normally be my secondary drive would become the main system volume. The reason I am a little hesitant is that I tried to do something similar with my old copy of XP and windows 7 did not like it, in fact it took it's ball and went home. :(
 
Emerson Street said:
I meant as in disconnecting it, so there appears to be only one drive on the system, what would normally be my secondary drive would become the main system volume. The reason I am a little hesitant is that I tried to do something similar with my old copy of XP and windows 7 did not like it, in fact it took it's ball and went home. :(
Click to expand...

There should be no reason to physically disconnect your Windows disk to boot into Linux. As far as I am aware, most people with Linux/Windows dual boot setups (including me) use the Linux boot manager, GRUB, for selecting which OS to boot into. If you're going to install Linux on a separate drive from Windows, then you have to adjust your BIOS settings to give the Linux drive boot priority over Windows. Then, all you need to do is to put an entry into your GRUB boot menu configuration file for your Windows OS. There are many guides on the Web explaining how to do this.

For Windows Vista and Windows 7, it is supposedly possible to use Windows BOOTMGR for selecting which OS to boot into, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it, and it sounds to me like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum, or, at least, just another good way to break Windows.
 
*Untested*
If your BIOS is advanced enough, it should allow you to boot off an external USB drive. If you set the boot order to include that drive FIRST then you might get what you want:
1. USB in: whatever o/s is on there gets booted.
2. USB not in/off : Next drive in line gets booted.

hth
 
jt512 said:
There should be no reason to physically disconnect your Windows disk to boot into Linux. As far as I am aware, most people with Linux/Windows dual boot setups (including me) use the Linux boot manager, GRUB, for selecting which OS to boot into. If you're going to install Linux on a separate drive from Windows, then you have to adjust your BIOS settings to give the Linux drive boot priority over Windows. Then, all you need to do is to put an entry into your GRUB boot menu configuration file for your Windows OS. There are many guides on the Web explaining how to do this.

For Windows Vista and Windows 7, it is supposedly possible to use Windows BOOTMGR for selecting which OS to boot into, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it, and it sounds to me like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum, or, at least, just another good way to break Windows.
Click to expand...

grub works fine for dual booting or you can run virtual box and run either under emulation within the other.

I run server 2003 within Ubuntu

and backtrack5 within windows seven, or you can modify the latest hiren's menu and have damn small linux boot through a bootable usb stick as another alternative
 
RANT!

I've just read up on a but of Ubuntu information, and I've discovered that they have stopped including Synaptic in the distro.

Now, I don't care that it's still available in the repositories. This shift is indicative of a shift which had been happening for some time now, and which I had been trivialising at the time.

The shift toward even less ability to customise out of the box, which means that Ubuntu is even less of an all-round distro as it already was.

Well, I won't stand for it any more. I'm moving to LMDE (Linux Mind Debian Edition) as soon as I know whether Synaptic has or hasn't been included again with the new release of Ubuntu (as has happened with Rhythmbox).

Will this affect Ubuntu itself? No.


tl;dr

Ubuntu is excluding synaptic, and I'm miffed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom