Building a desktop OS, almost, from scratch

**jro** · 05-17-2005, 03:27 AM

So I decided that I wanted to start all over. Wipe the system clean and start fresh. So I did just that. Backed up all my docs, wiped the system and started a clean install.

However, rather than do a full install I did a custom install that just put the absolute bare minimum on the machine to operate. So I have been picking and choosing what exactly is being installed by the way of apps. In some ways its been kinda tedious, in others enlightening.

So what do you say? Do you like to have complete total control over every item that goes into you Linux system, or do you like a well put together distro that installs a good base of applications to get you up and running quickly?

**mcangeli** · 05-17-2005, 12:31 PM

I like slackware

**N0thing** · 05-17-2005, 03:57 PM

agreed amd64 gentoo for me on reiser4, i use it as a hobby/gaming system, and it has been a learning experience

i use debian for office work though

**postlogic** · 05-19-2005, 10:04 AM

I use Arch Linux, and it allows me to EXACTLY that. The install takes care of the bare necessities, and then it's just a matter of installing whatever you want.

It's based on Slackware, but with a better package management system and it's faster.

**mcangeli** · 05-20-2005, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by postlogic";p="7664

It's based on Slackware, but with a better package management system and it's faster.

SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

Slackware has both swaret and slapt-get and both work pretty darn good.

**jro** · 05-20-2005, 02:06 PM

Heh, sorry guys. Didn't mean for this to become a religious battle. Just wondering if you liked to build from a VERY base system or start with some base apps to get you started.

I am finding that I like a good assortment of base apps installed. Lately I have been getting annoyed with having to install a program every time I want to do something I haven't since I installed. Then again, I know EXACTLY what is going into my system. I guess its a tradeoff.

**postlogic** · 05-21-2005, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by mcangeli";p="7666

Originally Posted by postlogic";p="7664

It's based on Slackware, but with a better package management system and it's faster.

SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

Slackware has both swaret and slapt-get and both work pretty darn good.

I'm not critisizing Slackware, my good man! I used it for years before Arch.

However, those tools are 3rd party, and are known to break the system from time to time.

Give it a try and make up your own opinion. I do love Slackware as well, but Arch provides more tools suitable for me.

Not trying to start any battle. Arch is very new, but built on top of the best distro ever (IMHO!), so it has so much potential.

**comtux** · 05-23-2005, 07:35 AM

Hmm Arch vs Slackware

Arch is faster because it is i686 -03 or -02 optamized i cant remember plus runs the newst 2.6.11 kernel and from what i have see is faster than the 2.4 series.

Slackware is i486 genaric with the 2.4 based kernel.

Archs package manager is pacman and based off of crux and personaly i do not like pacman at all sure it will install packages and sometimes even perform upgrades properly but i bet if you tried to upgrade something like kde from a 3.1 to a 3.4 all hell is going to brake loose.

Now slackware dosnt have dep checking has we are all use to seeing but just install inkscape and if you dont have all deps you will recive an error message telling you what deps need to be install.

So here is the tree.

Slackware
Crux
Arch

This is the order that they were developed in.
and from what i have seen.

Slackware is the slowst with the most features.

Crux is the fasts with the least ammount of features.

Arch is second in speed second in features but they have done some really strange things to there config files.

Crux config files are the easyist to use slackware is second in this area.

Arch is first in hardware detection.

Slackware second BUT also does the best jod at hardware detection with the least amount of extras.
and what i mean by that is arch uses knoppix hardware detection schem.

Crux you have to set up your own hardware detection.

Now as far as installers go.

Slackware is the most easy to install.
Arch is second easyist.
Crux is third.

Archs installer is really weird when trying to make and mount partitions.

They all use BSD init scripts
They all use tar.gz or tgz packages
And all src build scripts are basicly the same except for slackwares there the most complicated out of the other 2.

And all three use dialog as its installer.

All three are for the most part the same just done differantly.

**comtux** · 05-23-2005, 07:42 AM

Ohh sorry jro everyone here knows me i like to build my own shit but i still use slackware on the side to teach me about stuff i need to know.

Jro what you can do is have a look at eather crux ports build scripts or slackwares src build scripts and once you have your system the way you want you can start rebuilding little by little everything from src.
Makeing binarys in the process.

**postlogic** · 05-24-2005, 02:00 PM

Just wanted to add that Arch Linux has an excellent wiki providing a lot of good information (nowhere near gentoo's, though). As for the config files part being weird, it's just a matter of getting used to.

Personally, I find it easier than Slackware's file tree. But that's just a matter of opinion.