New Linux distro: Chakra

The Alpha 1 is ready for testing.

Chakra is an Arch Linux based system which offers KDE 4.13 with a lot of extra stuff etc... http://kdemod.ath.cx/download-iso.html

Thanks. I know a lot of folks have been waiting a long time for this, including myself. Now to settle in for the full release.

I've already installed it, and it works.

However, I wouldn't call it a new linux distribution, because it isn't new at all. Chakra is Arch, plain and simple. Chakra is really just a live CD of Arch with KDEmod as default.

I'm not even sure I would call it a remix, since every Arch user creates their customized Desktop.

I'm not sure what to call it honestly.

Anyhoo, Tribe, the installer worked well for me. As did the update process, but I've used Arch for about a year now, so it's all very familiar to me. I would recommend that users be familiar with Arch before using this LiveCD.

OMG. They have the best disclaimer CYA legalese document ever.....

I'm definitely going to play with it once it reaches a more stable state. Anything entitled alphas are to risky for me, usually-especially entire OS/DE compilations.

Disclaimer

No warranties, either express or implied, are hereby given for anything provided by the Chakra Project ("Software"). All software is supplied as is, without any guarantee. The user assumes all responsibility for damages resulting from the use of the software, including, but not limited to, frustration, disgust, system abends, disk head-crashes, general malfeasance, floods, fires, shark attack, locust infestation, cyclones, hurricanes, tsunamis, local electromagnetic disruptions, hydraulic brake system failure, invasion, hashing collisions, normal wear and tear of friction surfaces, cosmic radiation, inadvertent destruction of sensitive electronic components, windstorms, the riders of nazgul, infuriated chickens, premature activation of a distant early warning system, peasant uprisings, halitosis, artillery bombardment, explosions, cave-ins, borg-assimilation, america bringing democracy to your country and/or frogs falling from the sky.

:lolflag: Fantastic

namegame said: I'm not sure what to call it honestly.

Preloaded. I admit I don't see a need for there to be a whole LiveCD of it, but it's convenient if you want to just get right to it without going through the normal steps. Still, it seems like a lot of unnecessary work for the team since there's nothing really done outside of choosing the DE.

SomeGuyDude said: Preloaded. I admit I don't see a need for there to be a whole LiveCD of it, but it's convenient if you want to just get right to it without going through the normal steps. Still, it seems like a lot of unnecessary work for the team since there's nothing really done outside of choosing the DE.

Perhaps its a step towards an easier versions of arch

SunnyRabbiera said: Perhaps its a step towards an easier versions of arch

+1.

Users afraid of the command-line default of Arch may find themselves better off starting with something like Chakra. KDEmod is a great implementation and should make the Arch experience that much easier for new users. In some ways I think of it as doing for Arch what Arch did for CRUX.

Sorivenul said: +1.

Users afraid of the command-line default of Arch may find themselves better off starting with something like Chakra. KDEmod is a great implementation and should make the Arch experience that much easier for new users. In some ways I think of it as doing for Arch what Arch did for CRUX.

Yes, but Arch is another distro from CRUX. Chakra is Arch with a shiny cover on it.

Not to mention, look through the Archwiki. Look at how things like Wicd or MPD have to be installed. Take a gander at the directions to get CUPS or Samba rolling. Notice how a lot of that involves editing configuraion files? As an Arch user, are you intimidated by that? Probably not, because the installation forced you to get acquainted with all those files.

An "easier" Arch may not be a bad idea, but slapping a cover on it that does all the work for you is a horrid idea because Arch by its very design requires the user to edit stuff in order to get things working. Also, lord help you if something breaks and you've never opened up the hood.

Arch's theory is one that requires users to be unafraid to get their hands dirty. If that's removed from the installation process and it turns into "install CD, press next, have OS", then it's the user who's shortchanged by having absolutely no understanding of the very system they just installed.

Chakra isn't some vastly different system from Arch, it's Arch with KDEMod on it, yes? Well that's still Arch, and Arch still requires a more intimate relationship between user and system, something that's not going to happen if it's being wrapped up in easy-breezy tinfoil.

Take the Arch theory and make a new distro out of it if you want, that's not a bad idea at all. I'd imagine it's VERY possible to make a modular, rolling-release distro that requires little to no CLI usage. But don't go halfway by just fiddling with Arch a little.

SomeGuyDude said: Yes, but Arch is another distro from CRUX. Chakra is Arch with a shiny cover on it.

IMO, Arch is most like CRUX with a shiny cover on it. There may be differences, but there are many similarities that tie the two together.

I get, and agree with, your point that Chakra defeats the general purpose of Arch, and that it may not be the best way to deliver Arch to users that have never looked at a configuration file; however, I believe it may make Arch more accessible for some users, and at least has the potential to provide a more comfortable graphical interface to get familiar with Arch.

Sorivenul said: IMO, Arch is most like CRUX with a shiny cover on it. There may be differences, but there are many similarities that tie the two together.

I get, and agree with, your point that Chakra defeats the general purpose of Arch, and that it may not be the best way to deliver Arch to users that have never looked at a configuration file; however, I believe it may make Arch more accessible for some users, and at least has the potential to provide a more comfortable graphical interface to get familiar with Arch.

On the same note, it could also be a godsend for experienced Arch users that need to have a working OS in a very short period of time. Most every basic need is met by Chakra, Xorg is configured, networking is configured, etc.

<OFF_TOPIC>

I like the new avatar Sorivenul, the best of everything Linux. :P

</OFF_TOPIC>

SomeGuyDude said: Preloaded. I admit I don't see a need for there to be a whole LiveCD of it, but it's convenient if you want to just get right to it without going through the normal steps. Still, it seems like a lot of unnecessary work for the team since there's nothing really done outside of choosing the DE.

Perahps they want people moving over to Arch Linux, that won't even dare to try Arch out because of the "hard" installation.

gjoellee said: Perahps they want people moving over to Arch Linux, that won't even dare to try Arch out because of the "hard" installation.

People have the mistaken idea that the Arch installation is hard. It is not hard, it is just different to what most users are used to; you have to do some typing, or more likely cutting & pasting as you follow the brilliant ***_Beginners Guide_*** installation instructions.

gjoellee said: Perahps they want people moving over to Arch Linux, that won't even dare to try Arch out because of the "hard" installation.

There's a problem with that, though.

It's not like Arch has this balls-exploding difficult installation and then once it's up and running there's never any work that needs to be done. The installation is a primer for the way Arch works in general. It familiarizes users with editing the various *.conf files, acclimates them to a non-GUI interface, and teaches its own way of things.

Arch's installation is not hard. It just requires reading. Quite literally you can go through the Beginners Guide and not change a single thing and you'll be able to install the system no problems. Like I said, Arch itself requires a level of intimacy with the system and if you go through an easy hand-holding GUI to install, operation will prove tricky.

To me, it's like making a stick-shift car that doesn't require any actual shifting of gears until you get on the highway.

Finally, I've been waiting for this for a while now. The cd is downloading now :). Also the only reason I don't have arch installed now is because i could never get xorg to configure it's self.

I recall reading somewhere that the goal of Chakra is to modularize KDE4 into something a bit more organized and customizable.

That's just what I heard anyway.

It sure looks interesting, I hope they get a good amount of custom artwork to set themselves apart from other distros.

I have a friend who likes *buntu but I am trying to get him switched to Arch (pacman pwns apt-get IMHO). This is the perfect thing for it.

I am going to install in VBox as soon as the dl finishes

@Mr. Psychopath: KDEmod's goal is that. Chakra is a LArch CD with KDEmod pre-installed and setup

Wow, an easy installation of a hard to administer distro combined with an unstable desktop environment sounds like a recpie for disaster to me.

If you want hard to administer get Windows. The stuff that makes Ubuntu easy to use (most of it anyway) is present in Chakra. HAL and DBus do automounting. Automatic X configuration is present. Network configuration is there. A nice control center (which is built into KDE4.1) is present. It is actually very stable. And they are (I believe) going to release a KDE3.5 version of it after the LiveCD/Installer is finished.

OMG. Thank Goodness for the makers of Chakra. I am an avid fan of distros like arch, zenwalk, and vectorlinux. Arch could have been my favorite, but the process of installing from scratch was a pain. An educational pain I might add. I learnt a lot about linux cli that way.

But Chakra potentially would make me be up and going fast and then I can use the other cli tools with an already existent working desktop.

I know arch is not intended for lazy folks who dont want to read at first to get started, but I think an offshoot like Chakra can seriously get many to go through it once they see the bundle of features it comes with.

On zenwalk for example, I use netpkg cli for most of my things. Zenwalk to date is my favorite and longest running distro since my distro hopping days..

Arch's Kdemod almost single handedly brought me to total convert. Chakra may be the silver bullet.

I shall get this today after work on another machine and play with it.

pacman -S and netpkg are two of my favorite install commands., up there with apt-get Where debian kicks *** is their great matured integration with synaptic., etc Gui installer.

Sometimes, I want to know what I have installed - hard to see in cli environment.

kdemod has shaman in kdemod4.1 :D

shaman is to pacman as synaptic is to apt-get

Out of curiosity, how does Pacman hold up against APT and RPM?

I just know that:

-Apt-Get is decently speedy on this particular computer I'm using. -RPM distros take a near eternity to manage packages.

But I hear Pacman is lightweight and fast. Just wondering.

Pacman is awesome, plus if you change ~/.bashrc to add the line ILoveCandy it will make a pacman eating pills when downloading :D

I'll get this tonight methinks, I love arch and kdemod

Mr. Psychopath said: Out of curiosity, how does Pacman hold up against APT and RPM?

I just know that:

-Apt-Get is decently speedy on this particular computer I'm using. -RPM distros take a near eternity to manage packages.

But I hear Pacman is lightweight and fast. Just wondering.

untill i tried Pacman I used APT, i now use Arch Linux with Pacman an I guess I will never turn back...

Pacman is very simple, smart and avanced (not advances to use)and yet VERY light.

Here is a lightning course:

to Sync packages (apt-get update)

pacman -Sy

to upgrade system (apt-get upgrade)

pacman -Su

to install package with it's dependencies (apt-get install <packagename>

pacman -S <packagename>

to install package without dependencies (not possible in with APT as I know it)

pacman -Sd

to remove packages and it's dependencies:

pacman -R

to remove packageswithout it's dependencies:

pacman -Rd

and you can combind all together in defferent ways, IE:

pacman -Syud

this will synd the repo and upgrade packages witout dependencies

this is the basic (what you must know), there are a lot more to go....

Very handy tutorial there on the commands. pacman is super fast and very very robust.

I think pacman and apt are comparable in their way of use. The commands are simple and it works straight away. But from my experience pacman is faster but that is also due to pacman having (at least originally) only three repositories (core, extra, community) and most of the time you won't use more than 4 repositories. Apt on the other hand has more (in Ubuntu each sync loads 50+ different things). Dependency-wise they are both excellent. At least I never had any problems with them.

RPM .... can't say much concerning that. The only time I used it was when I had OpenSuse installed and so the only comments I can give are for Yast. Compared to pacman or apt the speed was really slow but I could still live with it. What annoyed me more was that sometimes he would show me dependency conflicts with some choices to correct them and each choice would result in more conflicts. Maybe thats some remnant of the RPM dependency hell. Or maybe it was Yast's doing. Anyways, it wasn't fun.

All in all I would say pacman (slightly) over apt over Yast. But

I think, like some others said, they just wanted to make arch available to those who can't quite manage the install and config yet. i suppose if someone tries it and decides to stay, they may well be inclined to learn the 'from scratch' install. It'll be nice for others to see what you arch guys are going on about :)

Arch this Arch that.... now the peasants have Crutch! (and for the love of whomsoever that you may believe in, please get that the last line was in jest)

BGFG said: I think, like some others said, they just wanted to make arch available to those who can't quite manage the install and config yet.

i suppose if someone tries it and decides to stay, they may well be inclined to learn the 'from scratch' install. It'll be nice for others to see what you arch guys are going on about :)

Arch this Arch that.... now the peasants have Crutch! (and for the love of whomsoever that you may believe in, please get that the last line was in jest)

I just worry that those who stay will expect things to be just as easy as it was to install. Then they'll run into a typical Arch moment that requires some digging and get all mad about how "hard this stupid distro is" and go back to Ubuntu.

To me, the Arch installation is insanely helpful in that once you've gotten through it, maintaining the system is a snap outside of infrequent problems when a new kernel or something comes out and even that's simple enough to deal with.

If Chakra really is an overhaul of Arch entirely, then that's one thing. But if it's just Arch + KDEMod with an idiot-proof installer then that's a problem.

You say 'go back to Ubuntu' like it's a bad thing :) Seriously though, i see your point. When i looked at the Arch wiki (amazing documentation by the way) I realized exactly where i was in the linux world and where i want to be.

I love Ubuntu, but yeah, I'd loke to get to the level of hardware/software understanding where i can install and customize Arch. Something to look forward to.

In the meanwhile, I'll check out Crutch, It looks really interesting and it will be my only opportunity to check out KDE, cause in ubuntu I'm a gnome man.

Why did i type 'Crutch' ? :confused:

SomeGuyDude said: I just worry that those who stay will expect things to be just as easy as it was to install. Then they'll run into a typical Arch moment that requires some digging and get all mad about how "hard this stupid distro is" and go back to Ubuntu.

To me, the Arch installation is insanely helpful in that once you've gotten through it, maintaining the system is a snap outside of infrequent problems when a new kernel or something comes out and even that's simple enough to deal with.

If Chakra really is an overhaul of Arch entirely, then that's one thing. But if it's just Arch + KDEMod with an idiot-proof installer then that's a problem.

I agree. Prime example is the recent update to Xorg, that "broke" it for some users. I can't bear to imagine what an inexperienced Arch user that installed Chakra would do in that situation. They would probably freak out and complain about how terrible Arch is. These people probably don't know how to work from an exclusively CLI system. Give me links and a working internet connection and I'll be fine.

For me, the whole joy of using Arch is the fact that I "made" it. Granted the wiki was there every step of the way, but never before have I had such a detailed understanding of the way my system works.

For me, the whole joy of using Arch is the fact that I "made" it. Granted the wiki was there every step of the way, but never before have I had such a detailed understanding of the way my system works.

Yes it is namegame. I am going to install either free/openBSD or LFS over the holiday break. That is customizability at it's best.

Achetar said: Yes it is namegame. I am going to install either free/openBSD or LFS over the holiday break. That is customizability at it's best.

I'd like to eventually try Crux and then LFS.

namegame said: I agree. Prime example is the recent update to Xorg, that "broke" it for some users. I can't bear to imagine what an inexperienced Arch user that installed Chakra would do in that situation. They would probably freak out and complain about how terrible Arch is. These people probably don't know how to work from an exclusively CLI system. Give me links and a working internet connection and I'll be fine.

I'm a mildly experienced Arch user and I got so annoyed at the break that I almost left Arch. Granted, it wasn't because I couldn't get it fixed, but an annoyance that an update like that could slip through when it was almost universally problematic (meaning the principle annoyed me, not the problem).

I cannot imagine what I would have done in such a situation had I not already been using the thing for a while and was familiar with going into the various files to change things.

One of the crucial lessons of Arch is that your system is indeed modular, so when something goes wrong it isn't "Arch" that broke, it's a package and there's a way to fix it. Arch forces the user to see themselves as the one organizing and putting packages together with Arch being mostly a skeleton upon which things hang, rather than something like Ubuntu or SUSE.

I'm repeating myself now though. Made my point. However, I do agree that it's a quick and easy solution for experienced Archers who just want a LiveCD laying around with KDEMod on it. That's my intention for it.

Every person who installs Arch owes it to themselves to learn how to use the pacman.log & pacman to uninstall packages.

It doesn't matter what problems you download if you know how to downgrade/remove them again if there is a problem that you don't know how to fix.

This is particularly important if the problem breaks your internet.

Here is the quick run-down on how to downgrade this way:

*_http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6283883&postcount=3_*

I think it pays to keep your currently installed packages in the cache after you have done a *yaourt -Syu --aur*, only clearing the superseded packages & database logs from the cache with a *pacman -Sc* when you are happy that no problems came with your recent upgrade.

SomeGuyDude said: ...but an annoyance that an update like that could slip through when it was almost universally problematic (meaning the principle annoyed me, not the problem)...

I disagree with you on this one (no offence though). I don't see what was wrong with that update. X.org 7.4 just uses a completely different way of handling the input devices (meaning the current configuration files may not work). Nothing wrong with that if you as me.

If you were effected negatively or at all by the that upgrade comes down to your hardware configuration, I think.

Nepherte said: I disagree with you on this one (no offence though). I don't see what was wrong with that update. X.org 7.4 just uses a completely different way of handling the input devices (meaning the current configuration files may not work). Nothing wrong with that if you as me.

Well that's what I mean. It made almost all of my config files cease to function. An update that does that is going to irk me.

But then again, that's a part of the Arch way. You're expected to take responsibility for any and all updates and do the reading (I didn't, freaked out, acted kinda dumb). I would have given up ENTIRELY if I hadn't been acclimated to Arch's system.

If I had installed Arch with a LiveCD that took care of the grunt work of configuration, when the new X came out, you can bet I'd have had absolutely no clue what was going wrong and would have likely scrapped it.

SomeGuyDude said:

If I had installed Arch with a LiveCD that took care of the grunt work of configuration, when the new X came out, you can bet I'd have had absolutely no clue what was going wrong and would have likely scrapped it.

I agree, the effects of not having installing Arch from the command line has to be a huge disadvantage to the user when a bug hits their system.

From what I have seen in the forums here & over at Arch, there are extremely few users who have a successful Arch install that don't find the installation process fun, educational & stimulating. Even those that get stopped by a hardware incompatibility often comment on the positive aspects of the install.

Most first time Arch installers say that they learned more about how Linux works in the install of Arch than they ever had before & praise the brilliant Beginners Guide.

handy said:

From what I have seen in the forums here & over at Arch, there are extremely few users who have a successful Arch install that don't find the installation process fun, educational & stimulating. Even those that get stopped by a hardware incompatibility often comment on the positive aspects of the install.

I remember, my first time installing Arch about a year ago, there was nothing more satisfying than when after I did the proper configuration/installation procedures, I typed in "startx" and there was my first vanilla-gnome Arch system.

It's satisfying to know that I "built" it.

For you people that questions Pacman, you can compare it to other pacmage managers on this page: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_rosetta

i just tried the chakra live cd and have to say it has some promise. i was even able to get my tvtuner going with little fuss. not bad for a live cd. it won't relace ubuntu or debian for me, but it's something to keep an eye on.

the idea of using arch is cool, but i'd much rather do a net install of debian and build it up. it's so much easier (for me) to work in apt.

wolfen69 said: the idea of using arch is cool, but i'd much rather do a net install of debian and build it up. it's so much easier (for me) to work in apt.

Is it easier or more familiar?

I was the same way, but after a week, I couldn't imagine going back to apt, if for no other reason than the pure brilliance that is the AUR.

SomeGuyDude said: Is it easier or more familiar?

I was the same way, but after a week, I couldn't imagine going back to apt, if for no other reason than the pure brilliance that is the AUR.

Ditto. I was more familiar with apt, but I just do aliases on either distro now anyway so that I don't have to remember (or type out fully) the commands to install/remove/search/list files/etc. ;)

wolfen69 said:

the idea of using arch is cool, but i'd much rather do a net install of debian and build it up. it's so much easier (for me) to work in apt. You are completely entitled to your own opinion, but I feel the exact opposite. I have found that APT has the worst command line output of any package manager I've tried.

SomeGuyDude said: Is it easier or more familiar?

I was the same way, but after a week, I couldn't imagine going back to apt, if for no other reason than the pure brilliance that is the AUR.

how is using arch going to make my life better? is using less ram going to complete me? i would use my computer in the same fashion whether i used arch, opensuse, fedora, etc. so please enlighten me as to how using arch is going to make my computing experience better. my computer runs perfect as is with intrepid. will arch fill the void in my life and make everything better?

cardinals_fan said: I have found that APT has the worst command line output of any package manager I've tried.

doesn't surprise me. you are generally against most things. you go out of your way to be different. but that's OK. ):P

wolfen69 said: doesn't surprise me. you are generally against most things. you go out of your way to be different. but that's OK. ):P

I go out of my way to use apps that I find functional, whatever they might be. I certainly find APT output (1st pic) harder to interpret at a glance than, say, pacman (2nd pic).

Use what works for you :D

wolfen69 said: how is using arch going to make my life better? is using less ram going to complete me? i would use my computer in the same fashion whether i used arch, opensuse, fedora, etc. so please enlighten me as to how using arch is going to make my computing experience better. my computer runs perfect as is with intrepid. will arch fill the void in my life and make everything better?

Well, for me, PKGBUILDs allows me to easily build a package for my favorite (unpackaged) application, or update my favorite packaged application, with little stress. There is no equivalent when it comes to APT.

Originally Posted by Chakra EULA

Disclaimer

No warranties, either express or implied, are hereby given for anything provided by the Chakra Project ("Software"). All software is supplied as is, without any guarantee. The user assumes all responsibility for damages resulting from the use of the software, including, but not limited to, frustration, disgust, system abends, disk head-crashes, general malfeasance, floods, fires, shark attack, locust infestation, cyclones, hurricanes, tsunamis, local electromagnetic disruptions, hydraulic brake system failure, invasion, hashing collisions, normal wear and tear of friction surfaces, cosmic radiation, inadvertent destruction of sensitive electronic components, windstorms, the riders of nazgul, infuriated chickens, premature activation of a distant early warning system, peasant uprisings, halitosis, artillery bombardment, explosions, cave-ins, borg-assimilation, america bringing democracy to your country and/or frogs falling from the sky.

Classic

smartboyathome said: Well, for me, PKGBUILDs allows me to easily build a package for my favorite (unpackaged) application, or update my favorite packaged application, with little stress. There is no equivalent when it comes to APT.

that doesn't answer my question. once i get my computer setup within the first hour of installing, i generally don't add anything. so how is arch going to make my life better when i'm just doing the same old things anyway?

SomeGuyDude said: Well that's what I mean. It made almost all of my config files cease to function. An update that does that is going to irk me.

But then again, that's a part of the Arch way. You're expected to take responsibility for any and all updates and do the reading (I didn't, freaked out, acted kinda dumb). I would have given up ENTIRELY if I hadn't been acclimated to Arch's system.

If I had installed Arch with a LiveCD that took care of the grunt work of configuration, when the new X came out, you can bet I'd have had absolutely no clue what was going wrong and would have likely scrapped it.

Meh..

As someone posted in the Arch forums, Arch is Linux + a package manager. Botched updates are not Arch's responsability (IMO), since they just package the software as is. A botched xorg-server version should be X.Org's responsability.

wolfen69 said: that doesn't answer my question. once i get my computer setup within the first hour of installing, i generally don't add anything. so how is arch going to make my life better when i'm just doing the same old things anyway?

It isn't. Use what works for you.

wolfen69 said: that doesn't answer my question. once i get my computer setup within the first hour of installing, i generally don't add anything. so how is arch going to make my life better when i'm just doing the same old things anyway?

Only you can answer this, of course.

Have you ever tried Arch?

Arch might be good for the advanced user with KDE 4.

macintosh said: Arch might be good for the advanced user with KDE 4.

I don't categorize myself as an advanced user and I managed to install Arch+Kdemod on my system. Dear God, Arch is a truly simple and beautiful OS. Chakra shows a lot of promise, no doubt. Its a good platform for users to dive into Arch I believe.

macintosh said: Arch might be good for the advanced user with KDE 4.

It would but advanced in that post more like "advanced". You do actually not require any specific more skill to use Arch, just learn a few things (for me it took 2days) and now Arch is something I wont ever leave before I find something better which I doubt for at least a year!

SomeGuyDude said: Well you're a flaming douchebag

was i rude to you? no. and yes, i was being sarcastic. you could have just ignored it and moved on. it was not a personal attack on anyone. but i guess you saw it differently. alot of people here know my posting style, and you just didn't get it.

i am sorry for offending you my lord oh linux god. :rolleyes:

wolfen69 said: was i rude to you? no. and yes, i was being sarcastic. you could have just ignored it and moved on. it was not a personal attack on anyone. but i guess you saw it differently. alot of people here know my posting style, and you just didn't get it.

i am sorry for offending you my lord oh linux god. :rolleyes:

err...wrong thread?

I installed Arch a couple of weeks ago to see what the fuss was about. I didn't know about Chakra then, but it would have been nice just to test the distro and kick the tires.

If I had liked what I saw in Chakra I'm sure I would have installed Arch the "Arch way." I installed Arch using the Beginner's Guide before I knew about Chakra.

I do like Pacman very much. I had installed the LXDE group, then decided I didn't like it a day later. I used pacman -Rs lxde and everything I had added that related to LXDE and wasn't used by another installed package was gone. I was impressed.

I'm still learning Arch, but so far I like it. There is a bit of config file editing which I'm not crazy about, but I guess that's the price we pay for knowing/learning the system.

chakra is a good livecd of arch, but is not useable for me as an install alternative. New kde 4 on Ubuntu replaces need for chakra for me now or kde-mod, but it was a good attempt. Unfortunately, the installer is bugged or never works for me regardless of system i try installing it on.

Arch is nice, but like wolfen says, I can already do all in Ubuntu with apt. pacman has some advantages in usability versus apt seeing as you typically install with pacman. No real gui package manager alternative like Ubuntu has in synaptic.

But in all an OK add. Just too bad you cant install it (chakra). - Unless anyone here has had better luck.

kazuya said: But in all an OK add. Just too bad you cant install it (chakra). - Unless anyone here has had better luck.

If you want to install it, I would recommend doing an Arch Linux install, since Chakra is just starting out and there has never been a real usable GUI installer before Chakra (larch's was half usable at best).

kazuya said: Unfortunately, the installer is bugged or never works for me regardless of system i try installing it on.

You do release you are complaining about software that has not reached final release status yet?

I myself have not even tried it yet simply because it is not a final release yet and there are known bugs.

Apparently there will be no AMD64 .iso so that rules it out for running on my desktop, I will most likely try it on my 32-bit laptop though.

mips said: You do release you are complaining about software that has not reached final release status yet?

I myself have not even tried it yet simply because it is not a final release yet and there are known bugs.

Apparently there will be no AMD64 .iso so that rules it out for running on my desktop, I will most likely try it on my 32-bit laptop though.

There are alot of distros that release stuff not yet at final status, I'm simply stating that, the absence of a working installer when it has an installer icon is a bit misleading. I tried to update the installer, that worked, went therough setting user name, etc., but at end it just hangs there forever.

Best not to include installer icon at all

kazuya said: There are alot of distros that release stuff not yet at final status, I'm simply stating that, the absence of a working installer when it has an installer icon is a bit misleading. I tried to update the installer, that worked, went therough setting user name, etc., but at end it just hangs there forever.

Best not to include installer icon at all

Edit: Never mind...

kazuya said: There are alot of distros that release stuff not yet at final status, I'm simply stating that, the absence of a working installer when it has an installer icon is a bit misleading. I tried to update the installer, that worked, went therough setting user name, etc., but at end it just hangs there forever.

Best not to include installer icon at all

Including the installer at least allows them to get some bug testing on it to see exactly where it fails. ;)

kazuya said:

But in all an OK add. Just too bad you cant install it (chakra). - Unless anyone here has had better luck.

I've installed it successfully. Quite smoothly actually. Compared to some distributions the installer was rather slow. Also some of the options during the install didn't work, but overall it did work.

The only major failure on my end was that it did not correctly identify my windows partition for Grub. (But that was an easy fix after the install.)

wow, it installed. How long was the install? 1 hour? For me it just hangs at hard drive setup.

kazuya said: wow, it installed. How long was the install? 1 hour? For me it just hangs at hard drive setup.

On my hardware, it takes about 30-45 minutes where as other distributions, particularly Ubuntu/Fedora can be installed in roughly 15-20 minutes.

For it being in Alpha stage, I am quite pleased with how well it worked.