On 07/22/2012 04:02 PM, Nicholas MIller wrote:
> If we want it kiss for the End User
> we should leave the file as is
>
KISS for the community is key.
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 04:04 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Am 22.07.2012 22:59, schrieb David C. Rankin:
>> > If the systemd benefits outweigh the benefits of the current init and the
>> > time-cost to the community to undergo the change is small, then it is wor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/12 21:15, gt wrote:
>
> LMDE is not the usual mint. It is rolling release based on debian
> testing, so no dist-upgrade stuff.
>
*That* could be very interesting, then.
- --
David Benfell
benf...@parts-unknown.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNAT
Guys,
Why was wv2 dropped from extra? Nothing else provides the headers:
wv2 /usr/include/wv2/associatedstrings.h
wv2 /usr/include/wv2/convert.h
wv2 /usr/include/wv2/dllmagic.h
wv2 /usr/include/wv2/fields.h
wv2 /usr/include/wv2/fonts.h
wv2 /usr/include/wv2/functor.h
wv2 /usr/include/wv2/functor
3) Personally this depends on the final rc.conf, is [1] or [2] going
to be it? I don't enjoy visually collating options across rc.conf
(terminal #1,vim) and rc.conf(5) (terminal #2,man). So if after
actions (2), and (4), nothing remains but "esoteric" options, then
sure, go ahead and do whatever yo
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:39:35PM +0200, Nelson Marambio wrote:
> Am 22.07.2012 10:58, schrieb gt:
>
> >You can try aptosid, or linux mint debian edition.
> >
>
> Really Mint ? I switched FROM Mint TO Arch because upgrading Mint
> ended up in a re-installation of the whole system :-(
On Sun, Ju
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Karol Babioch wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 23.07.2012 02:01, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
>>> You will be able to build your virtualbox modules by running
>>> $ dkms install vboxhost/4.1.18
>>> or you
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 23.07.2012 02:01, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
>> You will be able to build your virtualbox modules by running
>> $ dkms install vboxhost/4.1.18
>> or you can let dkms rc script compile/install/load your modules with
>>
Hi,
Am 23.07.2012 02:01, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
> You will be able to build your virtualbox modules by running
> $ dkms install vboxhost/4.1.18
> or you can let dkms rc script compile/install/load your modules with
> $ rc.d start dkms
Is this supposed once every time your kernel
Hello,
Some changes will be introduced in the next package release of virtualbox.
- vboxbuild will be dropped in favor of upstream provided dkms config.
(FS#30692) (FS#30749) (FS#28792)
You will be able to build your virtualbox modules by running
$ dkms install vboxhost/4.1.18
or you can
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> The dumbest thing I've come across was in Fedora 8 or so where
> some well hidden *binary* file, called from god knows where -
> I never found out - was used to create 'Desktop', 'Music', etc.
> directories in the user's home on each login
[2012-07-22 21:02:00 +] Fons Adriaensen:
> But it *definitely* goes against anything 'upstream' or 'mainstream'.
LOL - You really believe those two things are the same?
No wonder your trolls do not make much sense...
> So if the Arch devs/maintainers are invoking 'upstream' or some
> general
On 22 Jul 2012 20:53, "Leonid Isaev" wrote:
> I wonder why everyone thinks that Archlinux is about a single config
file...
> It is the same myth as "Arch is faster than distro XYZ" or the "simple
BSD init".
No myth it is!
"Arch's simple init system is heavily inspired by the *BSD way of
incorpor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/12 05:29, Karol Babioch wrote:
> I never quite liked the idea of rc.conf, as this was something very
> specific to Arch.
>
This is not true. rc.conf was common on *BSD (and I assume it still is).
- --
David Benfell
benf...@parts-unknown.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/12 05:39, Nelson Marambio wrote:
> Am 22.07.2012 10:58, schrieb gt:
>
>> You can try aptosid, or linux mint debian edition.
>>
>
> Really Mint ? I switched FROM Mint TO Arch because upgrading Mint
> ended up in a re-installation of the whol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
> - The rc.conf used to be the center of all config files.
I think this would be the core of my suggestion: Why not just allow
rc.conf (if it doesn't already) to source additional files? Then
people can divide rc.conf according to whatever makes s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/12 05:50, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Btw., if I recall correctly somewhere in the grub2 docs or Wiki I
> read something that in some cases (BIOS/MBR or something like that)
> a separate /boot partition is necessary.
If I'm understanding correctly,
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:35:33PM -0700, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> A little OT (hence changed subject), but I've sometimes wondered -
> shouldn't it be possible to create a "stub" version of libdbus,
> libconsolekit, et al that does nothing but the least necessary to
> get the calling program work
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
What do you expect the maintainer of these packages to do anyway? In
order to provide useful packages for the majority of people they have to
pull this things in, there is just no way around it.
Yes there is. Take again the xdm example. Why do we hav
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:45:13PM +0200, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Am 22.07.2012 22:26, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> > Simple example: I didn't have consolekit for some years, and I don't
> > care about whatever it has to offer. Recent updates of xdm have pulled
> > it in. So far it hasn't done anythi
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 22:59, schrieb David C. Rankin:
> If the systemd benefits outweigh the benefits of the current init and the
> time-cost to the community to undergo the change is small, then it is worth
> doing.
Once again: The proposed change is not about systemd. The maintainer(s)
plan to su
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 22.07.2012 22:45, schrieb David C. Rankin:
> > I prefer a well commented rc.conf config file to virtually all of the
> other
> > sysv and variations I've seen. A single file, well laid out and easily
> set up
> > with reasonable
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:01:02AM -, Arch Linux: Recent news updates:
Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> New iso images containing a current Arch Linux snapshot have been released and
> can be found on our [Download][1] page.
I have not used the install scripts so far (probably will in a few
days) but
On 07/22/2012 02:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> probably beating a dead horse here, bu IMO it's just blatantly
> superior all ways imaginable ... this becomes increasingly obvious the
> longer you work with it (check out user-sessions! yay!).
With anything like this consideration all I care
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:
> On 07/22/2012 11:35 PM, Nicholas MIller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM, v01...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> >> Why don't you want to use `pacman -Ss` for a list of available packages?
> >>
> >> Since I've yet to try the "new" method of
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 22:45, schrieb David C. Rankin:
> I prefer a well commented rc.conf config file to virtually all of the other
> sysv and variations I've seen. A single file, well laid out and easily set up
> with reasonable defaults by Arch and simple to customize for the user. KISS in
> the be
On 07/22/2012 11:35 PM, Nicholas MIller wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM, v01...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Why don't you want to use `pacman -Ss` for a list of available packages?
>>
>> Since I've yet to try the "new" method of installing, I suppose i could,
> however i was under the impressi
On 07/21/2012 11:59 PM, fredbezies wrote:
> But developpers must know better than users what is the best for the
> distro. Killing /etc/rc.conf ? Why not. But for me, it is more KISS
> oriented than /etc/locale.conf, /etc/vconsole.conf,
> /etc/modprobe.d/*.conf files.
>
> As I said, it is my $0.02
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 22:26, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> Simple example: I didn't have consolekit for some years, and I don't
> care about whatever it has to offer. Recent updates of xdm have pulled
> it in. So far it hasn't done anything evil except being useless and
> consuming system resources (50 o
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:30 PM, v01...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why don't you want to use `pacman -Ss` for a list of available packages?
>
> Since I've yet to try the "new" method of installing, I suppose i could,
however i was under the impression pacman -Ss required an arguement for
what you are sea
On 07/22/2012 11:19 PM, Nicholas MIller wrote:
> I just looked over the install script wiki page, and was curious if there
> was any plan on adding something similiar to AIF where you could browse the
> avalible packages, I know for me at least during install I may know what i
> need to install but
Why don't you want to use `pacman -Ss` for a list of available packages?
2012/7/22 Nicholas MIller
> where you could browse the
> avalible packages
>
--
Sincerely,
Andrew Trabo
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:52:49PM -0500, Leonid Isaev wrote:
>
> > I wonder why everyone thinks that Archlinux is about a single config
> file...
> > It is the same myth as "Arch is faster than distro XYZ" or the "simple
> BSD
> > init".
>
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:52:49PM -0500, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> I wonder why everyone thinks that Archlinux is about a single config file...
> It is the same myth as "Arch is faster than distro XYZ" or the "simple BSD
> init".
A single config file or a few of them won't matter. As long as you can
I just looked over the install script wiki page, and was curious if there
was any plan on adding something similiar to AIF where you could browse the
avalible packages, I know for me at least during install I may know what i
need to install but don't think about it until i read it.
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 22.07.2012 21:26, schrieb Nicholas MIller:
>> Though your(Karol) right, that a few bytes doesn't matter in the days of
>> TB+ hard drives, it might be something worth looking at (how much more
>> space will systemd use/save). And
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 16:17:13 +0200
Karol Babioch wrote:
>
> Maybe this is what it is really about: These changes come - more or
> less
> - from Poettering and there is quite a bunch of people who for
> whatever reasons don't like that idea.
Most certainly not liked at all
in my view it makes
Hi again,
Am 22.07.2012 21:54, schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas:
> In modern filesystems (Btrfs, NTFS, Reiserfs), sufficiently small
> files can be stored in the inode itself, taking up zero blocks.
Offtopic: Calling NTFS "modern" is quite ironic ;).
Best regards,
Karol Babioch
signature.asc
Descript
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 21:54, schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas:
> In modern filesystems (Btrfs, NTFS, Reiserfs), sufficiently small
> files can be stored in the inode itself, taking up zero blocks.
But even then: With a bunch of more files, you'll need a bunch of more
inodes. So unless your original file itse
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 22.07.2012 21:26, schrieb Nicholas MIller:
>> Though your(Karol) right, that a few bytes doesn't matter in the days of
>> TB+ hard drives, it might be something worth looking at (how much more
>> space will systemd use/save). And
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 13:36:59 +
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 03:02:05PM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
> > Am Sun, 22 Jul 2012 12:43:39 +
> > schrieb Fons Adriaensen :
> >
> > > Fair enough, but for this sort of thing, who is 'upstream' ?
> >
> > In this case the super-ing
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 21:26, schrieb Nicholas MIller:
> Though your(Karol) right, that a few bytes doesn't matter in the days of
> TB+ hard drives, it might be something worth looking at (how much more
> space will systemd use/save). And on some systems (mostly older) it may
> matter.
No, it doesn't
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Nicholas MIller wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 22.07.2012 21:11, schrieb Myra Nelson:
>> > On my system rc.conf is 716 B. The three files
>> > (hostname 8 B, vconsole.conf 47 B, and locale.conf 30 B) take up less
>
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 22.07.2012 21:11, schrieb Myra Nelson:
> > On my system rc.conf is 716 B. The three files
> > (hostname 8 B, vconsole.conf 47 B, and locale.conf 30 B) take up less
> > space. Granted at the moment it's more but that will be offset
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 21:11, schrieb Myra Nelson:
> On my system rc.conf is 716 B. The three files
> (hostname 8 B, vconsole.conf 47 B, and locale.conf 30 B) take up less
> space. Granted at the moment it's more but that will be offset when
> the move to systemd can be completed.
You don't really tr
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> I've followed this discussion closely and, as can be seen in one of
> the posts below, I initially objected to it. I had previously tried
> systemd with little success. Next I carefully re-read all the
> objections, complaints, rants, raves, e
I've followed this discussion closely and, as can be seen in one of
the posts below, I initially objected to it. I had previously tried
systemd with little success. Next I carefully re-read all the
objections, complaints, rants, raves, etc, and decided to try systemd
again. This isn't the place for
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Damjan wrote:
Wrong, they are going to ram systemd down our throats. Believe you me.
And why
is the onus always on the end-user?
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of us who work on initscriptst agree that systemd is superior and
>>> that most people will move to it
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
>
>> Wrong, they are going to ram systemd down our throats. Believe you me.
>
> I hope they will ;).
>
Well, this certainly sheds some light on the mindset informing this brave new
world.
Thank you for your candour.
Jorge Almeida
On Sunday 22 Jul 2012 6:28:58 PM Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> > I didn't mean the Arch devs, I meant Mr. Poettering & friends.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> > I made clear
> > that I think the Arch devs have a difficult task, trying to keep the Arch
> > spi
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Nicholas MIller
> wrote:
> > I'm also curious how the people who work on initscript believe systemd is
> > superior.
>
> I think it's a consensus! Take a close look, there is no doubt.
>
> --
> Sébast
Wrong, they are going to ram systemd down our throats. Believe you me. And why
is the onus always on the end-user?
Most of us who work on initscriptst agree that systemd is superior and
that most people will move to it one day. However, we are trying very
That's what worries me, that you since
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Nicholas MIller wrote:
> I'm also curious how the people who work on initscript believe systemd is
> superior.
I think it's a consensus! Take a close look, there is no doubt.
--
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
www.seblu.net
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 17:07, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> For any serious audio (music production, acoustic research, etc.) the
> first thing to get rid of is PA. It maybe great for the typical desktop
> user but is quite useless and a pita otherwise.
Yeah, PulseAudio is mainly aimed for the desktop. I
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> I didn't mean the Arch devs, I meant Mr. Poettering & friends.
Ah, I see.
> I made clear
> that I think the Arch devs have a difficult task, trying to keep the Arch
> spirit while keeping in sync with upstream. This may prove impossible if
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
>> Wrong, they are going to ram systemd down our throats. Believe you me. And
>> why
>> is the onus always on the end-user?
>
> Most of us who work on initscriptst agree that systemd is
I will admit I have yet to try systemd, however the current init/rc.conf
was a major reason for me coming to archlinux. I found the ease of not
having to think about where a lot of configuration files was quite KISS.
I'm also curious how the people who work on initscript believe systemd is
superi
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> Wrong, they are going to ram systemd down our throats. Believe you me. And why
> is the onus always on the end-user?
Most of us who work on initscriptst agree that systemd is superior and
that most people will move to it one day. However, we
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 22.07.2012 15:36, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
>> to get rid of all that
>> Poetterix
>
> Once again this is not a technical argument, but a very subjective
> reason with - at least for me - no basis. Its more of a philosophy and
> tha
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 04:17:13PM +0200, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Am 22.07.2012 15:36, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> > to get rid of all that
> > Poetterix
>
> Once again this is not a technical argument, but a very subjective
> reason with - at least for me - no basis. Its more of a philosophy and
I have used Arch for more than a year, and I can say that it still does more to
keep things simple yet powerful for as many users as possible than any other
distro I have tried. Ubuntu is still one of the best for n00bs, but I
personally can't stand Unity, and package creation and maintenance ca
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 15:36, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> to get rid of all that
> Poetterix
Once again this is not a technical argument, but a very subjective
reason with - at least for me - no basis. Its more of a philosophy and
that's not what this should be about.
If you *really* like an audio st
On 22 Jul 2012 12:49, "Damjan" wrote:
>
> ps.
> any special reason that you have a separate /boot partition?
>
I think it was a requirement for when using btrfs.
>
> --
> дамјан
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 03:02:05PM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Sun, 22 Jul 2012 12:43:39 +
> schrieb Fons Adriaensen :
>
> > Fair enough, but for this sort of thing, who is 'upstream' ?
>
> In this case the super-ingenious Lennart Poettering, I guess.
I switched to Arch some years ago to
Am Sun, 22 Jul 2012 12:43:39 +
schrieb Fons Adriaensen :
> Fair enough, but for this sort of thing, who is 'upstream' ?
In this case the super-ingenious Lennart Poettering, I guess.
That said, Gentoo always had separate config files located
in /etc/conf.d. So the idea of not having one singl
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 14:43, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> Fair enough, but for this sort of thing, who is 'upstream' ?
Then let us call it commonality in this case. Although it was introduced
by systemd, in principal it has nothing to do with it. Probably most of
the major distributions will implement
Am 22.07.2012 14:50, schrieb Heiko Baums:
Am Sun, 22 Jul 2012 14:34:12 +0200
schrieb Nelson Marambio :
Am 22.07.2012 13:50, schrieb Damjan:
ps.
any special reason that you have a separate /boot partition?
/boot is still mentioned in the beginner's guide on
https://wiki.archlinux.org/inde
Am Sun, 22 Jul 2012 14:34:12 +0200
schrieb Nelson Marambio :
> Am 22.07.2012 13:50, schrieb Damjan:
>
> >
> > ps.
> > any special reason that you have a separate /boot partition?
> >
> >
>
> /boot is still mentioned in the beginner's guide on
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Arch was always - if nothing else - about upstream
> compatibility and this is just the next step.
Fair enough, but for this sort of thing, who is 'upstream' ?
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an uto
Am 22.07.2012 10:58, schrieb gt:
You can try aptosid, or linux mint debian edition.
Really Mint ? I switched FROM Mint TO Arch because upgrading Mint ended
up in a re-installation of the whole system :-(
Am 22.07.2012 13:50, schrieb Damjan:
ps.
any special reason that you have a separate /boot partition?
/boot is still mentioned in the beginner's guide on
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide#Selecting_a_partitioning_scheme
Maybe it should be removed there ?
Kind regar
2012/7/22 Damjan :
> On 22.07.2012 13:40, fredbezies wrote:
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> I've done today an install of archlinux in a virtualbox session.
>>
>> When I installed grub2 using pacstrap /mnt grub2-bios, I noticed that
>> generated grub.cfg is not usable easily.
>>
>> As a workaround, I installed
Hi,
Am 22.07.2012 10:18, schrieb Jorge Almeida:
> what should they do when the KISS
> principle is in a collision course with upstream trends?
You could easily argue that a single rc.conf file is *not* very KISS,
whereas on the other hand a bunch of small files - with a name already
telling you w
On 22.07.2012 13:40, fredbezies wrote:
Hello.
I've done today an install of archlinux in a virtualbox session.
When I installed grub2 using pacstrap /mnt grub2-bios, I noticed that
generated grub.cfg is not usable easily.
As a workaround, I installed syslinux, and after first boot, I tweaked
g
Hello.
I've done today an install of archlinux in a virtualbox session.
When I installed grub2 using pacstrap /mnt grub2-bios, I noticed that
generated grub.cfg is not usable easily.
As a workaround, I installed syslinux, and after first boot, I tweaked
grub.cfg file.
First, I removed "/boot" f
2012/7/22 Uli Armbruster :
[...]
>
> In the first moment when seeing those changes I had the same feeling. But
> after taking some time thinking
> about it, I changed my mind. Here's why:
So :)
>
> - The rc.conf used to be the center of all config files. But this has been
> changing for quite s
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 02:11:00PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/20/12 15:34, John Briggs wrote:
> > General Discussion about Arch Linux
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:41:08PM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote:
> >>> pacman -Su
> >>>
> >
* fredbezies [22.07.2012 07:00]:
> Hello.
>
> I've read all the arguments of Tom and Ionut. Here is my own $0.02 on
> it. When I started using archlinux back in end of 2008, the winning
> point was this file. A centralized one where you can set up a lot of
> single options.
>
> It is *far* simpl
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 09:18:50AM +0100, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> I'm worried about all this too. I have an Atom at home, so moving back to
> Gentoo is not an option. I have some programs made to be compiled against
> dietlibc, which does not support *BSD, so this is not an option either. I took
> a
On 22 July 2012 06:26, wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> But developpers must know better than users what is the best for the
>> distro. Killing /etc/rc.conf ? Why not. But for me, it is more KISS
>> oriented than /etc/locale.conf, /etc/vconsole.conf,
>> /etc/modprobe.d/*.conf files.
>
>
> That's exactly my
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:18:50 +0100
Jorge Almeida wrote:
> I have many customizations, and a rolling release seems essential to
> me. So, what to do?
Probably it's not ideal, but I'm considering to switch to Frugalware
(already running frugalware-current on my netbook).
It's systemd-based, but t
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 8:07 AM, fredbezies wrote:
> 2012/7/22 Myra Nelson :
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 12:26 AM, wrote:
>>>
I'm worried about all this too. I have an Atom at home, so moving back to
Gentoo is not an option. I have some programs made to be compiled against
dietlibc, which does no
2012/7/22 Myra Nelson :
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 12:26 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> I've read all the arguments of Tom and Ionut. Here is my own $0.02 on
>>> it. When I started using archlinux back in end of 2008, the winning
>>> point was this file. A centralized one where you can set up a
83 matches
Mail list logo
