Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Weapons? What do you own?||
|Win with NeoWin... Hello!||
|Justice Department Brings The Hammer Down On FIFA||
|Bar vs. Church||
|5 Tech Predictions You Should Actually Pay Attention To||
Posted 09 September 2012 - 21:09
Posted 09 September 2012 - 21:25
I'm really sorry guys, had a lot of stuff on my plate atm. I know it isnt cool for me not to post anything, and I apologise, but now that everything personally is sorted, I am still here, and I still want to get this going.
Looking at a few peoples comments, is Arch the best way to go forward, if it looks like there are people that still want to contribute, but wont because of the base choice, would it not be best to change it so we can actually get something started?
Posted 09 September 2012 - 21:26
If you take another poll on this, the outcome will point right back to using Arch again. Your the project lead. Take awhile weight the pros and cons, find the best avenue and you make the decision. But no more polls on what it should be based on.
Posted 09 September 2012 - 21:52
Sadly, I can't see a shift in base for the benefit of one extra developer.
Because I hate Arch. Might as well be Egyptian hieroglyphics. If we can actually base this on Fedora or Debian, then I am all in.
Posted 09 September 2012 - 22:13
Posted 09 September 2012 - 22:15
Edited by n_K, 09 September 2012 - 22:19.
Posted 09 September 2012 - 22:21
I'm only working on shift2 if it's arch.
Fedora is distinctly outdated with it's reliance on such an outdated package management system and debian has been forked so many times it's unbelievable.
The point of arch was to get things set up starting from a minimalistic base and do everything manually, if you're using fedora or debian all you'd do it install some defaultly-compiled packages, make an ISO and that's it. I don't see anything skillful, technical or experience-giving about that.
Arch on the other hand, you've got to make your own repos, compile your own packages and set everything up by hand, and that's pretty involved.
Anyway, I'm not sure if we're going with the C# installer? I can get PHP 5.2 compiled with GTK2 support and make a basic installer GUI if not, or unless someone wants to do it in python2 and GTK?
Not sure if it's worth making a live-CD before we've got an installer created? Making a live CD won't be too hard, to get X working you just need to load basic vesa drivers or do lspci and check if an intel/nvidia/ati GPU is present and load the right config and kernel modules or load svga as a backup.
EDIT: In-fact, as choice is best for everyone be involved in, why not all (that want to) make a basic installer in C#, PYGTK oh PHP-GTK or alternative and submit it for people to see what it looks and handles like and we can see which one people prefer?
Posted 10 September 2012 - 01:13
That is the benefit of going with Arch, more control
It is more complex but it pays off.
At the end of the day n_K you are right, if anyone wants to make a basic installer and submit it so we can call all go over it then that is great.
Posted 10 September 2012 - 01:52
Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:55
Posted 10 September 2012 - 12:07
As i say once the basis GUI is done and it gets me to a desktop
I have tried countless times to get this working and cant
maybe i am just a complete dumbass
at first i thought it was my hardware but then i used archbang which is a Arch Live CD
i then tried to install gnome and borked it
Arch seems way too easy to break, i have even seen some of you guys leaving messages saying broken my arch VM need to redo it
Posted 10 September 2012 - 12:38
Posted 10 September 2012 - 13:53
Posted 10 September 2012 - 18:09
Glad to see you took the time to think it over. Typical.
Posted 10 September 2012 - 21:02
.At the end of the day n_K you are right, if anyone wants to make a basic installer and submit it so we can call all go over it then that is great.