N.B. This post has been completely re-edited. 02-Nov-2014.
About one hour ago, I decided give Evo/Lution-AIS (Evo) another try; after all, some of my assumptions about it had been wrong from the get-go, so I owed that piece of software another go.
I plugged in my USB thumb drive, re-started my system and booted into Evo. I followed the instructions and installed a bare-bones KDE desktop. Once I got that done, I re-booted into a brand new pure Arch install and into KDE.
Then, as per a tip from a gentleman named pjhalsi, I added a repo, typed in 'sudo pacman -Syy" and then installed yaourt, which permitted me to download Octopi, which permitted me to install a fully functional KDE desktop. So far I'm loving it. Stay tuned, because I'm going to give Arch some time to see how it works out for me. I get the feeling I'll be keeping this install.
My thanks to the Evo team.
grgaud
Peace
MIHNBP lol
ReplyDeletejust curious - what did you choose for network? network manager or wicd? I've experienced a lot of problems with network manager myself. Glad you got it up and running - too bad you didn't get the wifi working though. broadcom maybe?
Arch isn't very user-friendly they never tried to be - probably never will. That's the reason for evolution - so people can install arch. You will never learn arch if you can't install it :)
Manjaro is a better choice for many linux users - but some of us want to go further and learn more and for us the next step is arch. There's no hand-holding you got to know and understand how your system is working as opposed to manjaro where you get a distro that's built for you. choices iss always a good thing :)
peace
MIHNBP ( made me chuckle)
I used network manager, maybe I should have used wicd. In any event, I couldn't get it to work. But the after, I installed Arch, on my desktop, using Evo/Lution-AIS, with a hard network connection and got Arch working. See my blog on "Why Arch Is Not For Me." Glad I made you chuckle; life isn't fun when you can't laugh. :)
DeleteHi :)
ReplyDeleteI'm the one who started the thread over at evo after reading your first review. Never meant for it to reach this level - even though I stand by every word I wrote :) I've been subscribing to your blog and still am cause I like your writing style. I see some subtle humour in it also. But yeah, I was offended by your first post 'cause it had several errors in it. Even though everything you write is your opinion I felt that you should base your opinion on facts and not do things the wrong way and then state your opinion. That's just wrong! :) Yes I and others could have pointed out for you what you did wrong but isn't it your responsibility to get the facts straight before writing things? If you've asked about things you don't know and then made an opinion based on the facts I don't think all this s**t would have happened. Just wanted to clarify that. :) Now to your second try...... What kind of network did you choose during the installation. I've had some problems myself with network manager but then I just installed WICD and it all worked out. As you yourself wrote that is not evo's fault :) Arch is not a beginner distro - never was - never will be. The idea behind evo is that if you can't even install it - how can you learn to use it? Therefore the Jeff Story And Carl Duff have made an alternative installer that gives you Arch (MIHNBP - lmao) very easy compared to the recommended way of installing it. Nobody without experience can use Arch ootb without help from a forum or the archwiki. If one want to learn it's a great distro - if not the best. You'll learn to know and understand how your system is working....how it all fits together. :) Manjaro on the other hand is also a great distro but are for a different userbase. You'll get a "complete" product where you can just use it from the get go..... but still got the power of pacman in your system. None of these options are wrong or right. They just target different users. Manjaro is trying to get Arch user-friendly. Evo is trying to help you to install Arch in a very easy way while staying true to Arch. Nothing from outside the official repo is included. Personally I do an Arch install in 10-12 minutes with evo as opposed to a "real" Arch install which takes me about 45-60 minutes.
I'm pretty sure that if you go to archwiki, manjaro forum or evo forum you'll be up and running with wifi working and everything :)
Let by gones be by gones and start over shall we? There's too much bad blood already in the Linux community - we don't need more :)
Keep the posts coming .- but please try to make your opinions based on fact in the future :)
Regards
pj
PJ, thanks for writing, I appreciate your honesty and your sense of humour. I am in the process of writing another blog in which I recognize and admit my errors about Evo, and in which I give the reasons for why I'm not an Arch man. Look for "Why Arch Is Not For Me."
DeleteThat doesn't mean I won't try again with Evo, but I think that Arch is just too much trouble; but that's me and my personal opinion. It takes nothing away from the greatness of Arch (MIHNBP).
Well, it's Love & Kittens all the way to a working Arch, heh ;-) Go Manjaro :-)
ReplyDeleteGo Manjaro indeed! And go Netrunner, which is based on Manjaro. and...
DeleteI actually love Arch, when it been prepared for me by a dev team like Manjaro, or Netrunner. Think of me as a Linux couch potato. ;-)