snip for unobvious sarcasm
I just upgraded my arch linux packages and my kdm stopped working..
i checked kdm log at /var/log/kdm.log
and i had this error at the log..Code:/usr/lib/kde4/libexec/kdm_greet: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/libXi.so.6: undefined symbol: _XGetRequest
btw, while upgrading pacman asked me if i want to replace
these packages:with extra/libgl for some reason..Code:mach64-dri mga-dri r128-dri savage-dri sis-dri tdfx-dri
It looks like Arch shipped a newer version of KDM that depends on a newer version of libXi than what Arch has on their repos.
Those are video drivers for really old video cards, I think those drivers were removed from a recent version of Mesa.
I want to setup a VM to have as a webserver/git repo/general server to practice and mess around on but my laptop isnt the best so I want a lightweight distro, I was thinking of going with arch or are there any better solutions?
I have just installed arch in virtual box but I cant get the networking to work, I have tried both NAT and Bridged mode. Is there anything I can do to fix it?
Aha, messed aroundwith some rc.conf settings and it seems to be working now :)
sorry for my newby-ness
Is there a good GUI for Pacman similar to Ubuntu Software Center?
I've asked this before but, should I really repair my disc, repartition and change my bootloader again? Or can I just tell arch to use my existing partition, that would make my life a lot simpler
How would a GUI make pacman any better?
Hey, guys. I've never used linux before and I've got an old laptop that's collecting dust, thinking about formatting it and putting linux on it and use it for school. What distro would be perfect for someone new to linux to start off with? I'm not computer illiterate (if that's useful to know).
Use Arch unless you feel lazy and just want a working computer with no effort at all.
Okay, I'll have a look at Arch. I was told by a friend that uses linux that Arch only gives you a terminal upon a completed installation and reboot (i.e. it being very lightweight). Will the install package give me an option to install a desktop environment as well? Or will I need something like this?
Just a little tip for you guys, when I was installing Arch I decided to use one of the daily snapshot ISOs rather than using the current release (2011.08.19). It's much easier and faster. Everything is pretty much upgraded for you and all you really have to do is connect to the internet and install the stuff you want. Of course, they're not tested that much, but if you're paranoid you can go ahead and do a test install in VirtualBox first.
Or maybe make a script that on launch of the terminal displays a list of the common commands he needs.
Unless this person has some kind of learning problem or disability, I see no reason not to just use the built-in stuff.
You could easily create some aliases to make the basic pacman functions the same as yum.
But yum does have an easier interface than pacman in my opinion.
yum install *package* would be easier to remember than pacman -S *package*
I'm not even sure if I got the pacman one right because it's been so long since I've used it. But what does a capital S have to do with installing anything? I don't know.
It stands for sync. You're syncing your installation with the repository. Or more specifically the specified package.
The latest Linux Mint is actually really nice.
I really liked their idea of using the Gnome shell with extensions and everything, but the entire system was just too slow for me :(
Anyone here do some GFS stuff with Centos 6? Mostly for Active/Active SAN setups?
Question for you guys: What's your favorite interface?
I'm personally fond of openbox because of its simplistic, straight-edged design, and hate KDE and its silly bubbly interfaces. I see a lot of love for some of the tiling interfaces, but I could never really get into those when I could operate openbox much faster than dwm or awesome. Besides, I never really understood how to navigate them.