i3 is nice, but Awesome is better, in my opinion. Lua is so easy to configure, and it has huge support and roots in the Linux community. Not that i3 isn't a good option, but Awesome is just better.
I just wish Awesome didn't depend on half the known universe to compile from source.
Yeah, I'm exaggerating just a tad, but seriously the dependency on LGI is causing me so much frustration when I try to build on OS X.
Back in Arch-land where nearly everything is a package... Anyone aware of some in-depth material about configuring Awesome? I'd like to do stuff like hide certain windows by default (like the Awesome bar and Conky) but have them appear whenever mod4 is held down.
I'm having problems with dhcp - I can connect to my local wlan with a static ip-address but when i try to do this via dhcp (good for the wlan in my university) its somehow broken. NetworkManager is always trying to connect (i can only tell by looking at those fancy loading-animations), but i have access to the internet. Other services (icq and dropbox) are'nt working.
I went through the whole set-up-your-networkcommunication-arch-wiki-sites but i'm running out of ideas where to look at - any ideas?
Everyone should run systemd-analyze, so we can generate a boot speed chart :)
Nope, a dual boot, not a VM.
Is Manjaro not based on Arch linux? I apologize for my ignorance of this OS, but from what I have been told, Manjaro is based of Arch and I run that on my laptop. I keep putting off getting into Linux, i guess I'm waiting for the Steam OS to really make the hop over. But in any case does Manjaro count?
In my understanding SteamOS isn't intended as a fully functional OS for any purpose.
You should just switch to Arch ;). Its superior, anyhow.
I might try it. I just like how user friendly Monjaro is though, is Arch like that?
If you install it via 'Antergos'.
problem solved - NetworkManager was in conflict with dhcpcd - so i disabled dhcpcd. Everything is working now.
I find Arch very user-friendly. You just have to use the wiki and the forums - everything is far less difficult than i expected. But i suggest to start with a virtualbox, if you havent a second computer for tests like that.
edit: Btw. - since today steam is working nativly on my Arch Laptop. Arch is becoming more and more an alternative for my Desktop-Allday-OS
Linux isn't meant to be an alternative, it's meant to be an independent option, but I get where you're coming from.
Also, I've had Steam running natively for a while... Don't know what you had going on.
nono i meant as an alternative distro.
I only use windows for making music (Reaper, ASIO-drivers, VST's) and 70% gaming (the rest is already on linux \o/ ) for ~2-3 years now.
Before I waste my time with Arch, what are the advantages over other distros? I am a pretty big noob to Linux, I've had Ubuntu 12.04 installed on my main rig for a week now. I really like the Arch GUI though, nice, flat, and clean.
If I remember correctly, the installation is done through a command line type interface correct? Scary :(Â
I want to try it, but is it a viable option? Because I still like to play games sometimes, I'm just starting to become more interested in productivity and creation. Also if you need my specs, check my profile.Â
Should I wait until I am more familiar with Linux to try Arch?
Anyone?
Well, first of all, there is no Arch GUI - when you install it, it is a base system; raw CLI. Then, you can install and configure whichever WM or DE you want. The pictures you've seen in this thread just happen to be minimal and/or clean configs of various WMs / DEs (I run Awesome and sometimes Openbox, others use XFCE, some KDE, some Gnome, etc.)
However, the advantage of Arch is just that - it installs only the base system, so you get a lightweight, minimal, but incredibly powerful setup, tailored to what you need, not what Canonical thinks you might need. It has a great community, is bleeding edge, and the AUR is one of the most complete software centers out there.
Pure Arch is installed via CLI, but Antergos is a good alternative for a lightweight Arch install that's preconfigured. I have a guide for a raw Arch install, though - it isn't that hard, can be done in 20-30 minutes if you're comfortable with what you're doing - 40 minutes to an hour for a new guy.
Okay, I like that it comes as a clean system. I didn't like that Ubuntu came with a bunch of BS I will never use. May I ask what a WM and DE is? Also how easy are they to install?
WM - windows manager. E.g., AwesomeWM.
DE - desktop environment. E.g., Gnome3.
DEs provide a more complete integration, and additional features (additional memory use and cycles, as well), but I find the waste to not be worth the features. I run a WM without a DE, and just have scripts/configs/software that make up for any "special features," but you may not want that.
My Openbox uses ~22MB, my Tint2 ~6MB, and I don't run Conky anymore. That's sub 30MB when I'm on Openbox, and I've never seen my AwesomeWM go above 15MB. Compare that to Gnome3, default setup, running a single workstation - starts at 120MB, ended up at 2GB before I reloaded gnome-shell. That was due to a memory leak in Gnome3 and the Nvidia proprietary drivers, but under normal use with Intel, ATI, or Nouveau drivers, then memory usage starts at 120MB and can go up to 500MB easily. Sure, Gnome gives you all of the eyecandy and nifty little features, but it just isn't worth it to me.
Installing WMs/DEs is easy, though. Most are in the official Arch repos, and if not, they're in the AUR. # pacman -S xfce4, pacman -S gnome, pacman -S awesome, pacman -S openbox, pacman -S i3wm, and so on.
Then, go into your ~/.xinitrc, and after other startup settings, type "exec " + whatever WM or DE you setup. With a non-compositing WM, like Awesome or Openbox, you will want to initialize whatever compositor you use. I'm still running X for now (going to Wayland whenever Arch goes to Wayland, which should be within a year), so I use xcompmgr. Just put "xcompmgr &" before your "exec" command for your WM/DE.
KDE has a lot more eyecandy. You should try running that for a bit.