Discussion in 'General Linux' started by Jeff Story, Feb 17, 2014.
The best option for end-users, but Manjaro is Manjaro, while ArchBang is Arch...
I disagree with most of you. The Arch way has never been about the gui, and this removes the entire concept of system configures emphasis--plus learning from the installation becomes moot by this method.
This installer has gone through an interesting update. It now runs over OpenBox and has discarded the graphical element.
It is now more like a bunch of command line scripts and more transparent.
I disagree. There is nothing that can compare to using bash scripts or bash commands directly. Editing a conf file directly affects a program to make it yours.
I have to agree with your point. It is not against the Arch Way. But to many of us it feels like it is.
While I won't give you the heck that you got in the Arch forum one of the nice things about Arch is the install. In a way it's like ironing you clothes or shining your shoes it prepare you for whats ahead.
The whole point of using Arch Linux is to be able to use the shell. This makes no logical sense.
Not completely true. If you add "For some people" at the beginning of that sentence then yes. But not everyone wants a shell interface only. Heck I am using Ubuntu's Unity on Arch.
Unity is a fine desktop you're one of a great many that use Unity on Arch.
There IS firefox-x11 which doesn't use GTK(or QT).
I would like arch to convert.
Separate names with a comma.