Why do people install Arch, then slap Gnome on top?
Doesn't that defeat having a minimal distro?
Is there a 'stripped down' gnome that doesn't install all the shit as well?
>>53488439
MATE
>>53488439
Most people who use arch don't really want "minimal." I just use it because of pacman, the aur, and because it's flexible as hell.
>>53488486
Why a DE at all? Can one not just get the gnome WM, taskbar and shit, but not all the faggy other shit like calculator, webcam app etc
>>53488523
I totally get that, but I quite like gnome 3, just don't like having to *un*install everything I don't want after installing gnome
>>53488544
You could try installing gnome and gnome-extra together, and then removing gnome-extra. Or looking at the gnome group and only installing the core packages.
>>53488544
To further clarify, I've set up Fedora with G3, disabled the shitty hotcorner, added a taskbar. I like it, by Fedora feels heavy in itself, doesn't have the AUR and has a load of useless shit I'll never use, will uninstall and then leave me with scattered unused "dependencies"
>>53488589
That sounds pretty dirty
>>53488439
>Is there a 'stripped down' gnome that doesn't install all the shit as well?
Isn't that what gnome-shell is?
>minimal
Literally every package is built with every possile feature
>>53488615
Does yum seriously not have a cascading remove? If you're using pacman -Rc will remove the package and all orphaned dependencies that the package you are removing used to rely on.
Also, it's pretty dirty but it works. As long as you cascade it.
>>53488651
But then if X and Y depend on Z, you cascade remove X, will Y not be broken as well..?
>>53488651
>>53488695
And thanks for the tip
>>53488695
No. Rc will only remove orphaned dependencies.
If you have libX that program X and Y use, and libY that only Y uses, running pacman -Rc Y will remove libY but not libx because X still uses libX.
>>53488709
>>53488695
WAIT SHIT DON'T DO THIS, Rs IS THE SAFE CASCADE, Rc IS THE FORCED ONE.
>>53488843
Hahaha just as I wrote it down as well for reference. Cheers
Genuine question, why do people keep banging on about X breaking in Arch?
Is this just bullshit, or was it once bad?
>>53488651
>>53488695
>>53488790
>>53488843
>>53488883
Is it really that hard for you fags to just open a man page?
>>53488990
Is it really that hard for you fags to just talk to someone, get opinions, advice from an actual person instead of just flaming others for doing so?
I installled arch beacause i have a mbp 13 inch mid 2012 that is really unstable on linux. Apple makes it hard to change your OS if you somehow managed to boot it (a f*king miracle) and you enter a desktop enviroment your cpu starts to melt until it shutdowns the computer for safety.
After a lot of work im trying kde desktop at 60° c idle which is really stable I guess.
This isn't the 90s anymore.
Arch isn't necessarily supposed to be minimal, it's supposed to be the most vanilla distro out there.
Why should people not install a DE on arch if they want to?
Anything that is in the arch repository should be installed if the user wants to use it.
Since arch is made for desktop computers, it makes sense that some people want a DE
>>53489528
I'm not saying they shouldn't, I was asking why. I'm curious.
>>53488637
>>minimal
>Literally every package is built with every possile feature
Minimal as in KISS
>>53489424
Did you disable one of the gpe interrupts? Symptoms are a 80+% kworker
>>53489543
Because they find it more convenient than making your own DE?
