The DUB package manager

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:30:15 +0100
"Moritz Maxeiner" <moritz at ucworks.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 00:53:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
> wrote:
> > Admittedly, most of my linux experience (an unix in general) is
> > Debian-derived stuff. (And a little bit of Mandrake from way 
> > back when
> > it was still called Mandrake, but that's not exactly relevant
> > experience anymore ;) )
> 
> I was hooked on Ubuntu myself, until they began getting all
> "MUST_CLONE_MACOSX", "MUST_TAKE_CONTROL_AWAY_FROM_USER" on 
> everyone's ass (around the versions 8/9, I think).

Yea, same thing here. And I found the help from their ticket support
people to be...irrational.

Incidentally, the "MUST_CLONE_MACOSX",
"MUST_TAKE_CONTROL_AWAY_FROM_USER" just happen to also be the exact same
reasons I'm fed up with all forms of Windows post-XP. I'll never
understand why so many people have been so obsessed with cloning an OS
that's never even managed to reach double-digit market share. It's like
trying to clone the Ford Edsel: Why? Even if some people like it,
they'll just use the real thing anyway.

With Linux, when I outgrew Ubuntu I went upstream to Debian. Seemed the
most sensible choice given their close relationship and my Ubuntu
familiarity. I've had my eye on Mint, but, I dunno, it seems a little
too "downstream". And like I said, I'm starting to keep an eye on Arch
now too.

> 
> I'll treat that as two seperate points :)
> (1) Setup Arch from install medium to first login:[...]
> 
> (2) X11 setup: Why would you want to configure X11 manually? 
> "sudo pacman -S xorg-server xorg-xinit xf86-input-evdev 
> xorg-video-(ati/intel/nouveau)", then install your desktop 
> environment, e.g. "sudo pacman -S enlightenment17", copy the 
> skeleton xinitrc file "cp /etc/skel/.xinitrc ~/" and change the 
> exec line to your desktop environment, e.g. "exec 
> enlightenment_start". Done. Now "startx" will give you your fully 
> functional desktop environment, no need for any xorg.confs, X11 
> configures itself automatically. Usually the only reason for an 
> xorg.conf is when using the proprietary nvidia/ati drivers, but 
> the Arch wiki has lenghtly (well-written) articles regarding 
> those.

Ahh, thanks for all the info :)

As for the X11 stuff, that's still more manual than I'd like when it
comes to X11. (Like I said, I've had *BIG* problems dealing directly
with X11 in the past.) But I may give it a try. I'm sure it's improved
since the nightmares I had with it back around 2001/2002, but I
still worry *how* much improved... Heck, I've even had X11 problems as
recently as Ubuntu 10.


> 
> I'm not familiar with 0install myself and the truth is I probably 
> never will look at it - unless it can integrate with pacman, that 
> is - I've simply grown to dependent on the convenience of pacman 
> to try anything else :)
> Anyway, I didn't want to put more oil in the fire of the 
> OS-specific-language-independent-package-manager vs. 
> language-specific-OS-independent-package manager debate (because 
> frankly, I can't contribute much in that area, all I want is a 
> package manager that simply works, be it OS or language specific, 
> I really don't care as long as it just gets the job done right - 
> one of the reasons I'm happy with pacman btw.), I just wanted to 
> point out that not all OS-package-managers are evil. Sorry for 
> dragging you slightly off-topic for so long^^


No prob :) But I don't think OS-package-managers are evil (like I've
said, I like "apt-get install" *when it works*). It's just that I
think it's patently absurd when people claim that OS-package-managers
are the *only* good way to go and that there's no good legitimate
purpose for language-based OS-independent stuff. As long as they're
OS-dependent there will always be legitimate reasons for
alternatives.