/tech/ - technology

>>106
if you want a DE thing of some kind, just grab a debian-like with xfce or whatever

if you want to put in a little more work, arch is a little more stripped-down and takes some more time to set up, but would result in a snappy-er system, if done properly

if you want minimalism designed to run in a low-resource environment, could even try alpine

but yeh, probably just go with option number one. or maybe https://www.bunsenlabs.org/ if you want a no-effort openbox system

>>107
I think i'll go with arch-linx. I like the idea of building up the os instead of it just coming in prepackaged(even if it does kind of contradict my original post)

>>108
ah, ok; good luck, then!

if you're running arch, though, try to stay away from "DE things", as they tend to break a lot. fixed-release distros feature-freeze and test them to make sure they work with a particular layout, but arch's rolling release system can't do that, so you end up experiencing all the upstream breakage

>>109
So installing something like xfce or gnome on arch wouldn't be a good idea then? would it be considered a DE thing?
Also, sorry if I don't really know what i'm talking about; the most complicated thing i've done so far is just dual boot windows and Ubuntu (and even that isn't perfect)

>>110
ah yes, that's what i mean. gnome / kde are things to avoid on arch, as they're huge and highly-interconnected, so breakage happens often and affects everything.

lighter DEs, like mate or xfce, will still have problems, but fewer. where arch really shines, though, is for putting together your own system out of lighter discrete components, many of which are made by other members of the community (things like ranger / sxiv / lemonbar etc) as they will all run well on arch but be harder to manage on other slower distros with frozen releases.

put together an arch configuration using those parts, and it will be pretty much rock solid.

>>108
Arch linux is not at all difficult to install. Just follow the text file at ~ from the live cd to the letter, which means almost no effort. Then just go to the arch wiki to learn how to install grub, which is just 2 commands.
But don't get confused, you don't really build up the OS. You just install it semi-manually (as opposed to using a GUI installer).

>>109
how'd the install go, op? any follow-up questions?

>>115
PacStrap does most of the work afterall.

>>160
Well, I havent gotten around to it yet. I did a bit more reaaerch on it and the consensus seemed to be that arch is meant for more experienced linux users. So instead I've decided to install arch on an old android phone first, to have a bit more experience with it. Thats been having some problems too, which I made a topic about

Hrm…

>>164
you can install manjaro and get to know arch from there.

To offer a different recommendation, you can look into crunchbang++. It is Debian stable with preconfigured Openbox. It's simple to install and maintain.

>>164
mmm, that's a decent idea. just play around for a while until you get a grip of things

>>169
don't do this, though. manjaro is small / less-well-maintained. if the extra bit of setup effort is that big a deal, just run debian or something.

>>170
how's it differ from https://www.bunsenlabs.org/ i mentioned above? was there a falling out or something?

>>108

>I think i'll go with arch-linx. I like the idea of building up the os instead of it just coming in prepackaged(even if it does kind of contradict my original post)

If you really want to dive in and build a Linux system from the ground up, give LFS (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/) a try. You'll learn a lot from the experience.

>>172
Read the OP

>>173

I did. I wasn't replying to the original post. I was replying to a later post where OP was interested in non-pre-packaged distros and wanted to try something more step-by-step.

>>172
That looks pretty interesting. Ive been wanting to learn more about how linux works/how to program it, and from skimming through the website, it seems like a pretty comprehensive guide
>>171
It turns out the phone cant be rooted because of a locked bootloader (I think), so I'll have to abandon that idea

I hear Lubuntu is extremely light. I read on Wiki that it uses half the RAM Xubuntu does. But I've never used it, never looked any further into it and have no intention of doing either, so IDK

Debian - install and go:
Plain old debian only running openbox so you have a WM and can set a wallpaper. Smooth for decent yet old machines.

Puppy linux - install and go:
You have to see and test it to know what it is.

Void Linux - A bit more advanced:
Void linux with the XFCE desktop, or you could replace XFCE with the Lumina Desktop. It runs as if its nothing on even a 15 year old computer for as long as you have a decent and supported graphics chip. The system needs manual intervention to fix the installer its "bug" where it does not make a functional hostname, not having a functional hostname screws a few things up at first. after fixing that and updating the system, firmware images, and installing the nonfree repo i can only say that its freaking great.

TinyCore - Absolutely not your daily system
A unique and special system which i would not advice to any person not willing to study it and learn how to use it, or make it usable for yourself.

what do people thing about devuan? anyone switch and have something to say?

>>176
yeh, go for it! just make sure you have a scratch machine to work with

>>180
Lubuntu is my go-to lightweight distro. If the system is very old, maybe DSL. Haven't used that in forever. And if you're after no bullsoykaf minimalism, Alpine.

>>106
gentoo, unironically.
its super minimal just compile stuff over night