Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:47 UTC
Permalink for comment 378265
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-12-05
...but it's just a bit too much manual setup for me, and I never did grasp its package management system enough to be able to use it well (I was lucky to be able to install anything with it at all). pacman seemed to be nicely done from what I read, except its commands were cryptic and made no sense to me. Arch's main system config file was really cool though, (what was it, rc.conf?). And with the introduction of KDE4, my originally-neutral opinion on rolling releases weighed down more on the negative side.
Anyway, with that said, Arch does seem to be a great distro. It's just not for me. In fact, if the package management commands made more sense, I'd probably give it another shot, as that really was one of my biggest complaints.
Edited 2009-08-12 22:25 UTC