You are not logged in.
Hello,
I really like Bunsenlabs and the community and it will be my daily driver for a long time.
But to learn more about Linux and how it works I want to dual-boot it with Arch.
But before I proceed, is there a DIY Distro like Arch that is based on Debian?
Thanks in advance,
Offline
is there a DIY Distro like Arch that is based on Debian?
Yes, use a Debian jessie netinstall ISO image and uncheck all the tickboxes in the tasksel section (the bit where the installer asks which desktop you would like).
Download it from here:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unoff … ch/iso-cd/
This will give you a very basic, CLI-only installation from which you can build your own system.
Be aware though that Debian (and Debian-based) distributions have several layers of abstraction and complication in comparison to Arch and you may find Arch easier to manage.
Offline
@HoaS I don't think debian is harder to maintain than arch. I have a debian sid system installed from a netinstall with i3 as a wm up and running for 3 years and the only glitches i've had so far was the transition to systemd (remember when arch switched to systemd )
@nultweezes If you are not limited to strict debian you can also use a minimal ubuntu image (debian based you know) and go from there. ubuntu mini iso
Offline
@nultweezes If you are not limited to strict debian you can also use a minimal ubuntu image (debian based you know) and go from there. ubuntu mini iso
Out of curiosity, why might you want to go down this route? Take advantage of their repos?
Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 13 | BunsenLabs Hydrogen (x64)
Intel Core i7-3537U | Intel HD4000 | 8GB DDR3 | 256GB SSD
Offline
lowrider wrote:@nultweezes If you are not limited to strict debian you can also use a minimal ubuntu image (debian based you know) and go from there. ubuntu mini iso
Out of curiosity, why might you want to go down this route? Take advantage of their repos?
No, maybe you got me wrong. I just meant it to be an alternative (and my english is not so good, no native speaker)...
Offline
Thanks for the answers everybody! I think an Antix-core install is similair to what I was looking for.
Offline
In my experience, no Debian derivative (other than Bunsen, of course) is as good as a regular Debian netinstall.
Also, as much as fanboys like to get into fights, Debian and Arch are highly similar distros. Both are community produced and maintained, not based on anything else, no testbed for commercial releases, and most importantly, with zero plans for commercialization and shoving things down their users' throats in exchange for something that middle management can report as "workload optimization" to the CEOs.
Last edited by el_koraco (2016-03-11 11:58:38)
Offline
In my experience, no Debian derivative (other than Bunsen, of course) is as good as a regular Debian netinstall.
Also, as much as fanboys like to get into fights, Debian and Arch are highly similar distros. Both are community produced and maintained, not based on anything else, no testbed for commercial releases, and most importantly, with zero plans for commercialization and shoving things down their users' throats in exchange for something that middle management can report as "workload optimization" to the CEOs.
The biggest difference I think is that Arch is a rolling release? But if you use the Testing or Unstable repos in Debian, then it kinda is too.
Offline
I would say the main difference is that Arch is focused on delivering the best x86 experience possible, and Debian aims to provide a solid experience on everything.
Offline
I would say the main difference is that Arch is focused on delivering the best x86 experience possible, and Debian aims to provide a solid experience on everything.
And somewhat as an extension of that, Debian will attempt to perform some configuration for the user, for instance setting up systemd services or defaulting to the newly installed file manager/browser/etc. for window managers. Not to mention the depth of dependency resolution (absolutely mandatory vs highly recommended packages). Therefore, in terms of general simplicity, Arch will always be a hair-width ahead of Debian. However, in regards to resource use and flexibility, Debian Unstable netinstall is as closest to Arch Linux as one can get and eventually the differences blur to make them indistinguishable .
In a GNU/Linux daze since forever. Hail to Debian and Arch!
Offline
.......Be aware though that Debian (and Debian-based) distributions have several layers of abstraction and complication in comparison to Arch and you may find Arch easier to manage.
Could you give an example of what you mean ?
"The long way out is the short way home"
Offline
Could you give an example of what you mean ?
If you want to disable bitmap fonts in Debian, you use:
# dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config fontconfig
then select the options desired which then causes symlinks and files to be created or deleted in /etc/fonts
In Arch, presets are used directly.
If the user is unaware of the `dpkg-reconfigure` option, the Debian method suddenly becomes very confusing indeed...
Offline
Rocky wrote:Could you give an example of what you mean ?
If you want to disable bitmap fonts in Debian, you use:
# dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig-config fontconfig
then select the options desired which then causes symlinks and files to be created or deleted in /etc/fonts
In Arch, presets are used directly.
If the user is unaware of the `dpkg-reconfigure` option, the Debian method suddenly becomes very confusing indeed...
Note that this could very well be considered an advantage depending on the use case. I consider it an advantage depending on the use case of the machine.
Offline
this could very well be considered an advantage depending on the use case
Oh yes, very much so
Debian is full of such helpful abstractions that ease system administration.
However, if the user is seeking to learn the system then a more bare-bones set up is appropriate, IMO.
Offline
.....Debian is full of such helpful abstractions that ease system administration.
However, if the user is seeking to learn the system then a more bare-bones set up is appropriate, IMO.
Thanks for your example . I have been messing around with computers since CP/M and DOS days. Reminds me of how every version of Windows (am I allowed to say that here ) obscured the underlying mechanisms and whilst perhaps making things more "user-friendly" also makes it harder to understand what is going on behind the scenes.
"The long way out is the short way home"
Offline
Of course you can say Windows
Like this: Linux is an alternative to Windows. ]:D
Debian 12 Beardog, SoxDog and still a Conky 1.9er
Offline