Ubuntu, Arch, Chakra?

I would like to try out Chakra Linux, it is based on Arch Linux, since it is based on Arch, can I still do apt-get and have access to debain repos?

No, you will switch to pacman and AUR primarily.

I believe Chakra uses it's own repos and does not use apt-get, I believe it is pacman it uses.

Chakra uses pacman: http://chakra-project.org/wiki/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions

galacticaboy said: since it is based on Arch, can I still do apt-get and have access to debain repos?

arch uses pacman and has its own repositories

galacticaboy said: i would like to try out chakra linux, it is based on arch linux, since it is based on arch, can i still do apt-get and have access to debain repos?

[color="black"][size="4"]no![/size][/color]

@galacticaboy: You will really be better off if you do at least your first Arch installation by following the Beginners' Guide to the letter, as it teaches you the fundamentals of how Arch works, which is quite different to the way that Ubuntu & other distros work.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide

If you do go with Arch, there are a few how-tos in this sub-forum:

http://spiralinear.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=17

Look for the [Arch] at the beginning of the thread title.

handy said: @galacticaboy: You will really be better off if you do at least your first Arch installation by following the Beginners' Guide to the letter, as it teaches you the fundamentals of how Arch works, which is quite different to the way that Ubuntu & other distros work.

That is sort of the point, you learn Arch by installing arch. After the install you know all the config files.

Arch is the new gentoo, IMO, and is intended for a hands on experience.

You can skip the beginners guide after the first install, but you are doing yourself and Arch a disservice if you skip straight to Chakra.

bodhi.zazen said: ...

You can skip the beginners guide after the first install, but you are doing yourself and Arch a disservice if you skip straight to Chakra.

Apart from my 3+ year old install on No.1.box, I've installed it a couple of times on No.2.box. The problem for me (poor memory), is that the installations are so far apart that it is almost like doing it for the first time again. ;)

Not really like the first time, as I'm at home here now, but you get my drift...

How is Chakra? Is it like what ubuntu is to debian? Kind of pre-setup? May have to check it out one of these days.

wolfen69 said: How is Chakra? Is it like what ubuntu is to debian? Kind of pre-setup? May have to check it out one of these days.

Personally, I think a better analogy would be that it is similar to the Sabayon/Gentoo relationship.

I don't know what your personal experience with Linux, or especially Arch, is, so please don't be offended if this seems stupid or low to you. I'm just trying to help. :)

By default, the default Arch install only includes a CLI system and pacman, the Arch package manager. If you want X, you must install and configure it. If you want KDE/Gnome/whatever, you have to install and configure it. If you want any graphical applications, you must install and configure them.

Chakra hides most, if not all of the installation and configuration process from the end-user. After install, Chakra is set up with a full DE and application suite.

There was quite a big uproar in the Arch community against the inception of Chakra as it doesn't really follow the "Arch-way," but I'll leave that up to the reader to find out what that was all about.

unknownPoster said: ...

There was quite a big uproar in the Arch community against the inception of Chakra as it doesn't really follow the "Arch-way," but I'll leave that up to the reader to find out what that was all about.

Some people reacted, though many of the dev's such as Alan, thought it was really cool.

If I was in the situation where I had to do a lot of Arch installs I would probably use Chakra to save time if I couldn't do it by casting images onto the HDD's of said machines.

unknownPoster said:

There was quite a big uproar in the Arch community against the inception of Chakra as it doesn't really follow the "Arch-way," but I'll leave that up to the reader to find out what that was all about.

I find that to be one of the best things about linux. The freedom to take something and change it to whatever you want. It's just one more choice that isn't being forced upon anyone, so who cares? Really, I just don't understand some people.

Btw, I tried arch, but it wasn't my thing. I'd much rather do a cli of a debian based distro. Nothing against arch though.

wolfen69 said: How is Chakra? Is it like what ubuntu is to debian? Kind of pre-setup? May have to check it out one of these days.

Debian is as easy to install as Ubuntu. Getting codecs and proprietary drivers, etc., are only a few degrees more complicated because you don't have recourse to a GUI front end to get them.

galacticaboy said: I would like to try out Chakra Linux, it is based on Arch Linux, since it is based on Arch, can I still do apt-get and have access to debain repos?

If you intend to try out Chakra, I also recommend you try out Arch. Arch has the advantage of top-notch documentation and quite an active, established community.

The two projects have very different goals, of course, but you may just like the Arch way. Enjoy.

P.S. handy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MisfitI38 said: ...

P.S. handy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's OK Misfit, I'd find when I actually gave Chakra a go that what I said here was just me showing my ignorance to those that are in the know... :)

I haven't tried Chakra, & really have no desire to, as Arch is well & truly my happy home. :D

*[edit:] You've made me think about this some Misfit, I could be mixing Chakra up with another LiveCD project that I think flamelab (?) was working on some time back.*

Debian is as easy to install as Ubuntu.

Lucas

handy said: It's OK Misfit, I'd find when I actually gave Chakra a go that what I said here was just me showing my ignorance to those that are in the know... :)

I haven't tried Chakra, & really have no desire to, as Arch is well & truly my happy home. :D

*[edit:] You've made me think about this some Misfit, I could be mixing Chakra up with another LiveCD project that I think flamelab (?) was working on some time back.*

I've made you think about it? Hmmm.. I was merely shouting your name to say "Hi!". ;)

Chislucas said: Debian is as easy to install as Ubuntu.

Lucas

its installer kind of sucks compared to ubuntu's though.

screaminj3sus said: its installer kind of sucks compared to ubuntu's though.

It's not as pretty and doesn't automatically detect open wireless networks (you have to manually type the name of the network in) as it should by now (only non-user friendly thing I've encountered in Debian 6), but it's essentially the same thing. Manual partitioning is just as easy.

MisfitI38 said: I've made you think about it? Hmmm..

I was merely shouting your name to say "Hi!". ;)

Hi Misfit. ):P

My response was due to a combination of my respect for your knowledge of Arch, & the reality of my poor memory, which does tend to rob me of the confidence that comes with clear recall... all too often these days.

But that's OK, I'm enjoying becoming more Zen like as I mature... :)

krapp said: It's not as pretty and doesn't automatically detect open wireless networks (you have to manually type the name of the network in) as it should by now (only non-user friendly thing I've encountered in Debian 6), but it's essentially the same thing. Manual partitioning is just as easy.

It's not super difficult but its still not very good IMO. Linux mint debian edition's is better too. You still gotta manually partition, but it configures wireless and such fine and is more streamlined.

Debian's has too many pointless steps, the partioning gui sucks, and as you said it doens't configure wireless.