Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Help finding a Distro

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BhaKi View Post
    Slackware and openSuSE are the best KDE-based distros out there. Slackware is faster, bloat-free and more secure. But its package management is less intuitive compared to openSuSE and you need fair amount of experience with Linux (any UNIX-like OS) to be comfortable with Slackware. openSuSE has an excellent GUI control center for everything from package management to server administration.
    Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    arch can't even properly version their kernels.

    if you want 'easy' go opensuse. Good KDE. Pretty recent software. Easy to use.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.s. View Post
    Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.
    might change soon. Opensuse users told novell that they are pissed off with all the gnome crap.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.s. View Post
    Nope, openSuSE state of now is too gnome centric.
    openSUSE at the moment is de neutral. SLED in gnome biased and as energyman says don't be surprised if KDE becomes the default desktop again soon in openSUSE.

    https://features.opensuse.org/306967


    • Votes: 550
    • Positive: 426
    • Neutral: 8
    • Negative: 116

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    arch can't even properly version their kernels.
    Erm, fail
    Code:
    andrew@Serenity:~$ pacman -Qi kernel26 | grep -i version
    Version        : 2.6.30.5-1
    It doesn't add the minor release version to the kernel name however
    Code:
    andrew@Serenity:~$ uname -r
    2.6.30-ARCH
    ...but that's a name, nothing more.
    Last edited by Mora; 08-19-2009 at 07:14 PM.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mora View Post
    Erm, fail
    Code:
    andrew@Serenity:~$ pacman -Qi kernel26 | grep -i version
    Version        : 2.6.30.5-1
    It doesn't add the minor release version to the kernel name however
    Code:
    andrew@Serenity:~$ uname -r
    2.6.30-ARCH
    ...but that's a name, nothing more.
    your point?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdrenalineJunky View Post
    your point?
    That energyman has been reiterating the same moronic argument for months.

    Arch's versioning scheme is working perfectly. The package manager reports the correct version; you can install any version side-by-side; you can change the name to "look ma, no hands" and it will still work fine.

    This argument was stupid when energyman made it last year. It's still stupid now.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    look into boot. What do you find there on an arch system?

  9. #29

    Default

    @blackstar - i don't think i was in my right mind when i asked that question....

    @energy man - that has nothing to do with versioning and everything to do with not having to update the grub menu.lst after every kernel install. there are quite a few distro's that do it that way actually.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    *yawn* you don't have to update menu.lst/grub.conf if you do it right.

    kernel with version + symlink. Works fine, is save. Arch can not do it? Made by idiots or broken? What is it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •