Quoting: slaapliedjeThe main reason for Arch over OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is probably that Tumbleweed is more of the bleeding edge, rolling release version of OpenSUSE, whereas it's just what Arch does.

So stability wise, Arch is more likely to be stable than Tumbleweed is.

So, Arch is better than Ubuntu/Fedora because it has newer software, and is better than Tumbleweed because its software is older? I wouldn't say that one distro is better than another just because of packages versions. Some people want to have everything as new as possible, some people don't.

Quoting: slaapliedjeI've tried out Tumbleweed in the past, and while stability wasn't really an issue, I just can't use Yast. It's funny, those that started out Linux with that distribution probably love Yast, anyone who started out with other distributions despise it. I kind of fall into that latter group.

Yast seems like Ubuntu's Synaptic. Anyway, I thought Linux users prefer CLI package managers.

Quoting: slaapliedjeAnyhow, Arch may have a lack of what most people would say is a real installer, but it doesn't matter because once you have it installed, it just works.

It probably does, but sometimes an OS needs reinstalling. I got a bigger SSD this winter, so I had to install it. I recently bought another one, even bigger, haven't got it yet, but already annoyed by an idea of another installation.
I also have about 20 computers with Ubuntu-based Linux at my work, and I would have gone crazy if I had to spend so much time on installing and tweaking systems on every of them. But with Ubuntu all I need is to:
1. boot from an USB drive;
2. add IP of my "server" with APT cache, so I could get updates via LAN with 100/1000 Mbps speed (one minute of time);
3. click "next, next, install", type a couple on line (one more minute);
4. boot into the installed OS, enable APT cache again (one minute);
5. run a bash script that installs software I need and removes that I don't (two seconds);
6. tweak some UI settings (one or two minutes).

That's few minutes of my time I must spend on a computer. The rest of time I can rest, everything is automatized. So, quick and easy installation is a must-have feature for me since I have to manage many computers.

Quoting: slaapliedjeThough with Arch, you should have a phone or some other device to read wikis while installing :)

I actually installed Arch yesterday, couldn't get graphics working though. I had to read wikis, look into config files on my system and on VMs as well to check what should I have done. I installed xorg, lightdm, lightdm-gtk-greeter, xfce4, wrote many configs, but for some reason I don't see a GUI greeter, and after i type my username and password all I get is a blank dark screen. I think I didn't configure xorg right.

Installing Arch the hard way sure hepls to understand how Linux works, but does it make it a better distro than others?
I made less effort to install FreeBSD once (and I thought THAT was hard), and at least I succeeded.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: razing32If you really don't like the setup of Arch , try Manjaro or one of the helper scripts.

The problem with distributions derivatives is that their support can be dropped, like Antergos.
If, say, Xubuntu ends someday, I can always use Ubuntu mini CLI installer and simply choose xfce as DE. But I have problems with installing Arch. I tried several times, and succeeded only once, and I'm not sure what was different that time. It's something with a bootloader. I chose its every option in the installer, but the system did not start after installing. So, I don't want to use Arch-based distros if I cannot even install Arch.

Also, I don't see any reason to use Arch. Having a rolling release distro, so I wouldn't ever have to upgrade or reinstall? OpenSUSE is one too. Many software distribute as deb or rpm files only, which can be converted to each other with "alien", but Arch supports neither. More nuisances, no benefit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I installed openSUSE Tumbleweed with xfce recently in VirtualBox, and it seems to be a very good Ubuntu replacement. It's a rolling-release distribution, like Arch, but very easy to install and use, unlike Arch. Steam and other software can be installed by the same way as in Ubuntu, just replace "apt" with "zypper". But beware of the Linux kernel bug [External Link] which prevent Steam from connecting. It was fixed in kernel 5.1.14, but openSUSE has 5.1.10 so far.

If I ever have to leave Ubuntu-based distros, I'll probably switch to openSUSE Tumbleweed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Go team Penguin!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: einherjarThey want one reliable OS --> MS gives it to them.

Do you mean Windows 7? Or 8.1? Or 10? Which build, 1703, 1709, 1803, 1809 or 1903? LTSC maybe? 32 bit or 64 bit?

Quoting: einherjarWe need a big popular and reliable Distro, to have enough marketshare and live the "diversity". With 1% marketshare distributed across more then 10 Distros, we will remain irrelevant (on Desktop) for most of the companies.

How having many distros can harm Linux? Imagine if there is only one Linux distro, and that distro drops 32-bit support...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Resident Evil 4 with HD textures from http://www.re4hd.com/?page_id=6064 [External Link] and d9vk.
I had to use a Windows VM to apply the 4GB patch tool and install new files. Is it possible to execute Windows .bat files with Wine? I couldn't do.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: bird_or_cage

Quoting: sub

Quoting: TemplateRI personally think, that Valve should create a Linux-Distribution, which is NOT based on Debian or Arch. It would be much better to have more controls, hat should remain and what not.

BUT Valve should also recreate a new desktop environment, which aims more for PC instead of Console.

And call it

Crowbar Linux

Or Free Man's Linux

Linux 2 Ep 1

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestI could never get into those games. CS was so good because it had fun gameplay, and it ran even on your toaster. Can't say the same of the new ones (Source, GO), even though i still like them. I don't really understand the argument that it was dated, since before GO none of it's successors or other games offered a comparable experience. (for me at least)

All you can do in CS is shoot and crouch behind boxes (I'm not saying about tactics, just about basic controls). In CoD4 you can go prone, crawl, aim down sights, use perks, unlock stuff, play more game modes. I hoped Valve would release a modern online FPS, but CS:GO appeared to be a CS:S reskin. It's not a bad game, just inferior to other online games for me.

Quoting: ElectroDDRemember that in official matches, we had 5 sec to buy equipment... And autobuyers and macros and scripts were forbidden in tournaments.

It takes only one second to b42o2o4.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I had been playing CS 1.6 very much when I was a University student. I played rather well on LAN servers. I wish I spent time more on studying than on Counter-Strike though. My favourite maps were aztec and cbble.
I still keep screenshots made those years (2005-2007). But when I saw Call of Duty 4 multiplayer first time, I immediately realized how outdated Counter-Strike was and lost interest in it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Their Dota card game failed, so they are making a Dota chess game... What's next, a Dota board game?

View this comment - View article - View full comments