Arch based distro for mame cabinet

hi all folk,
I'm a retro gaming aficionado!!
I made a cabinet on my own and installed mame and some other emulators on.
the system is a win xp "modded" to boot directly to the frontend instead of explorer.
but I would like to have an open source system.
I think that archlinux could be the right distro to build a mame machine.
anyone of you would to joinor help with this project?

I found this in arch wiki:
Arch Linux uses AIF aka 'Arch Linux Installation Framework' to perform installations.
This tool - written in bash - consists of some libraries to perform various functions (installing packages, setting up disks etc) and some so called procedures which use these libraries to provide an easy means to do an installation or to smaller related tasks ('partial procedures'). These procedures are shipped by default:
interactive: An interactive installation procedure, which asks you some questions, guides you through an installation and helps you configuring the target system by automatically changing some settings for you depending on what you did earlier (eg network settings)
The installed system will initially have only a customisable set of "base" packages installed with whatever utilities and drivers you need to get online.
Then once you've successfully booted the installed system, you'll run a full system upgrade and install any other packages you want. (aliased as /arch/setup)
automatic: An automated, deploy-tool-alike procedure designed for low-to zero interactivity.
uses profiles for configuration of the target system.
See /usr/share/aif/examples/ for example profile files. The examples implement quite generic scenarios but you're free to change them how you like to install extra packages, do configuration tweaks, etc.
base: basic, little-interactivity installation with some common defaults.
This procedure is used by the others to inherit from, it is NOT meant to be used directly by end users
partial-configure-network: exposes the network configuration step from the interactive procedure, to help you setup the network in the live environment
partial-disks: Process disk subsystem or do a rollback
partial-keymap: change your keymap/console font settings. (aliased as km)
The benefit of procedures such as partial-keymap and partial-configure-network over direct usage of tools such as loadkeys or ifconfig is that when running the interactive procedure, you will get asked if you want to apply your settings to the config files of the target system.
If you want to go further, you can also:
write your own procedures from scratch or by overriding certain parts of other procedures
write your own libraries, to provide new, reusable functionality
create your own configs for the procedures that support them (eg automatic)
For more information, consult the readme of AIF.
is there any how to for this?
anyone has experienced this kind of tool

Similar Messages

Making arch-based distro

Hello.
I started to make Arch-based distro. I have fully installed Arch + Openbox.
I have a couple of questions:
- How can I make an ISO from installed system I have?
- I haven't installed drivers for my graphics because if I respin it into a new system, users with nvidia graphics, for e.g. will involve with problems then. How can I avoid that, i mean, is there a script that will recognize graphics and download drivers for it?
That's all for now. Arch with Openbox and some setup rox.

Dobrosslove wrote:
Hello.
I started to make Arch-based distro. I have fully installed Arch + Openbox.
I have a couple of questions:
- How can I make an ISO from installed system I have?
- I haven't installed drivers for my graphics because if I respin it into a new system, users with nvidia graphics, for e.g. will involve with problems then. How can I avoid that, i mean, is there a script that will recognize graphics and download drivers for it?
That's all for now. Arch with Openbox and some setup rox.
You can check out Archbang GiT. Alternativly, you can even join ArchBang Dev-team. Choice is yours, would be happy to help.

List of arch based distros

Can someone give me a list of arch based distros? thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_Linux … vironments
Here's a list of Arch-related distros. There are probably more floating around somewhere.

Arch based distro - same repository?

hey,
i got a question.
let's say i'm making a new ,archlinux based distro. must i use own repositorys then or can i just use archs repositories? i won't really make a new distro (no time for that) but i always asked myself this question.
pure curiosity.

Ιf it's rolling, I guess there is no problem, but you need to make it clear (on the distro site for example) that the most of work done is thanks to the Archlinux devs, if you are gonna use the official repos.
Chakra-project for example is Arch+KDEmod, thus it currently* uses the official repos.
*they are gonna make their distro, afaik, non-rolling.

Is arch the distro for me?

Hiya all, just want to thank you in advance for your time and advice:D
anyway, my plans are to buy the linux version of the MSI Wind when it is released in a few months.
(http://www.msimobile.com/DetailPage.asp … d_NB_Linux)
I have used SUSE (the distro it ships with) and did not like it too much.
arch was recommended to me by a friend, so I started looking into the option.
basically I need an easy to install distro that will work well enough on the wind to browse the internet, chat on IRC, play quake3, and maybe play starcraft under wine?
does this sound like arch? I've used a little linux, sabayon, ubuntu, suse, but basically I can explain my skill level by saying I was never able to successfully install gentoo (for the life of me I cannot find my way around a text-based install)
also, another bump in the road is that the wind does not have an optical drive, so no cds or dvds for me.
I saw the usb .img install and grabbed it, but as I am in windows vista right now, none of the meathods for writing the .img file seem to work right.
the closes I have gotten was by following this: http://webconverger.org/usb/
but it doesn't seem to want to write to my usb stick for some reason.
I type in the commands but it dosen't seem to do anything.
screenshot here:http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a157/g35x/arch.jpg
I suppose it would be easier to buy a usb optical drive, as I'm sure I will get tired of having to copy everything to a usb stick to get it onto the wind.
basically I need to know if arch can do the things I've mentioned, will be easy to install, and most importantly will work on the MSI wind. I was unsure about being able to play quake3 and use wine for starcraft because of video drivers, will arch work with the intel onboard video well enough?
again, thank you for your time, I look forward to using arch come time to buy my laptop:D
Last edited by murderbymodem (2008-07-24 21:09:53)

ghostHack wrote:
Looking at the MSI website the Wind uses an Intel graphics chip so you will probably need the 'intel' X.org driver (package xf86-video-intel). For hardware/driver related things it might be a good idea to boot into the Suse distro when you get the computer and find out what drivers etc are being used, that way you will know exactly what you need to install when you put Arch on it.
Also, if you want to post the other areas of the Wiki guide that you have problems with we may be able to help (and improve the Wiki if needed)
sounds like a good idea :]
guess I'll be back here in a few months once the linux version is released (I'm tempted to buy the windows XP version right now, but $100 more for 512mb more ram and bluetooth isn't exactly worth it. looks like I'll be waiting:/)
thanks for all the help guys!
Last edited by murderbymodem (2008-07-24 22:33:29)

Semi-automatic update/upgrade; is Arch wrong distro for these boxen?

I wanted to post here a semi-automatic update/upgrade solution I--with a lot of help from someone more knowledgeable--came up with in case it might be of benefit to anyone else. It's been working pretty well for me over the course of the last couple of weeks and should aid me in becoming a better Archer. I also want to ask in this thread for confirmation on whether installing Arch on a couple of machines I have that see fairly intermittent use is inadvisable: if so, I'll look into installing some other distro. First the semi-automatic update solution.
To begin with, what do I mean by "semi-automatic?" Mainly I mean something that's only partially automatic. See, I've come to understand that automating updates/upgrades is a bad idea©™. And I think I understand why. Still, I apparently lack the discipline to be a good Archer, upgrading/updating frequently so as to conform with the philosophy. So I thought I should use my computer to help me be more disciplined: that's partly what they're for, after all, isn't it?
I decided I might make the computer help me be more disciplined, first of all, by making it issue reminders at frequent, regular intervals, that it is time to update/upgrade. Of course cron came immediatelty to mind as part of the solution, though I ended up using the remind program instead. In any case, it seemed like a solution that, not only would remind me at regular, frequent intervals would be desireable, but one that would at the same time initiate the process, would be even better. I thought it must be possible to, for example, cause a terminal to open with a message and corresponding menu that would say something like "System update/upgrade needed: proceed now? 1. Yes 2. No"
This latter would be one of the elements that makes the solution semi-automatic (as opposed to automatic). Answering 2. in that terminal would cause the terminal to simply exit. Answering 1., on the other hand, runs the command sudo pacman -Syu. There is a further level of semi-automation at this stage: you are then prompted to enter the root password before pacman -Syu will run. So, no updating/upgrading happens without input at these two stages.
I should mention as I wrap up this description of my solution that there is yet another important element to it that, while independent of it, is nonetheless related: I subscribed some weeks ago to the Arch news RSS feed. I check that daily, so an even further level of semi-automation is in play here.
This seems to me like it will be a very good solution to bringing my behavior into better conformity with the Arch philosophy. It's worked well so far. That said, I'm certainly open to criticisms. I'm also very open to any improvements that might be suggested. Without further ado, here is the script I run every other day from the remind daemon:
#!/bin/bash
PS3='Begin full system upgrade? '
options=("Yes" "No")
select opt in "${options[@]}"
do
case $opt in
"Yes")
echo "Beginning full system upgrade..."
sudo pacman -Syu
exit
"No")
exit
echo "Please choose the corresponding number"
esac
done
Now, to my question about my other machines as possible Arch install targets. The above applies to the desktop machine in my apt. which is almost always powered on and connected to the 'net: what follows applies to two different machines.
One is a laptop that I use primarily when I travel. It often sits powered off for 1-2 months between uses. The other is an alternate desktop machine in my apt. that is also infrequently used: essentially, when both the wife and I want to work on-line separately--which is not all that frequently (she prefers knitting to computing during her time at home)--it gets fired up. Again, it often sits for 1-2 months without being used.
Now, it seems to me these machines are poor targets for an Arch install because they are far more frequently off-line than on-line, powered down than powered up. Thus they are very unlikely to be updated/upgraded on any kind of regular basis, and certainly never regularly and frequently, as seems to be recommended for Arch machines.
Am I correct in assuming I should be looking for some other distro to install on these infrequently-used machines?
Thanks,
James
Last edited by jamtat (2013-02-11 22:50:09)

I like pacmatic (as suggested at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pa … _pacmatic). What is supposed to be wrong with it?
It doesn't ignore updates, by the way. It does two things. First, it checks the news and tells you about important news items as soon as you run e.g. pacmatic -Syu. Then it runs the upgrade in the normal way. For example, a news item today concerned lvm2, dev-mapper and linux being upgraded together. It gave me the news item. Then it did the usual paman upgrade routine and upgraded everything, including those packages. Second, every time you run it, it reminds you of any *.pacnew files you haven't dealt with and asks if you want to deal with them now. At least, it asks about most. It never mentions kdmrc.pacnew for some reason.
It's just a wrapper for pacman. From the script:
Pacmatic is a pacman wrapper that takes care of menial but critial tasks.
These include
Checking the archlinux.org news
Summarizing the arch-general mailing list
Reminding if it has been a while since the last sync
Reporting pacnew files
Editing pacnew files
Personally, I've installed an alternative distro on machines which I'm not sure I will be using very regularly. (Also, I like having distinct distros just in case something goes wrong in one case - even if it is a bit of a faff sometimes.)
Last edited by cfr (2013-02-13 01:49:24)

Lowarch 0.1.1 (Savitri) - i486 Arch based Distro - Released

I needed to make a new release now, since the current repo address has changed, so the old install cd and floppies don't work for ftp install anymore (without changing the url, of course).
But there are of course package upgrades and bug fixes as well. And now all the install floppies are finished. There's also the ongoing process of deleting unimportant packages and adding new useful ones.
Quite a few people have joined and done some very useful testing. I'm always happy to hear about problems and other experiences with different systems (old and new). So give it a try if you have some free disk space, time and think it's fun.

cr7 wrote:when I need to customize my rc.conf, I have to set the keymap as "i386/qwerty/it.map.gz", instead of "it_IT" as in Arch Linux.
Shouldn't it be just 'it', not it_IT? I thought it_IT is for locale. I use 'no' (Norwegian) without problems.
cr7 wrote:If I want to recompile the entire system for i586, with updated packages, how can I do? :?:
I'm running lowarch on a Pentium M, and I can't say I have noticed any difference in speed between Arch and Lowarch on it. I doubt you will see any difference at all with the system compiled for i586 instead of i486.
But if you think it's fun to try out things, here's how:
Download http://www.lowarch.org/abs.tar.bz2 which is the current abs tree. (I don't have access to cvs server or similar, so I can't set up normal abs access.
Change the /etc/makepkg.conf
Extract the abs.tar.gz (it'll be called abs-clean because my abs tree has all the source files, so I have a script copying all the files except source files to abs-clean)
in the abs-clean directory use makeworld to build all the packages.
(On the 166Mhz It will last, oh, about, let's see /me is calculating ....ahh about an eternity...) If you'll use a i686 machine for the compiling, you should install lowarch on it, and use the uname hack (search for it, I don't have the link in my head, if you don't find it, tell me).
Then use gensync to create a custom repo of the files.

Arch-based distro

Ok, hopefully this is the right place to pose such a question but anyway...here we go...
I have a few months before I ship out to college (computer science major) and I am going to spend my last bit of free time creating a Linux distribution. I had thought about just doing a LFS project but, I really like how arch works and If some thing's not broke, why try and fix it? Can someone point me in the direction I need to go to build an arch-derivative? I am willing to take the time and make something for the community but I need to know where to start..if anyone can just give me somewhere to start and some info I'd greatly appreciate it.

tomk wrote:
pcninja wrote:I want to make it a bit more user friendly like having a simpler install method.
I'm curious here - apart from the installer, what else about Arch needs to be "simpler", in your opinion?
Arch is simple in one way but I mean like make something extremely customizable and something you can have control over without being as advanced as arch. For more intermediate users. It took me a lot of reading and learning before I could get through a full arch install and then how to use arch. By simple I mean easier to use.
And nice to see someone else in Ireland, I live in waterford

Arch-based medical distro

I started a simple project to build an arch-based distro for medical professionals
The base install is ready and my own-developed simple medical apps are in development to be included...
I was searching for more apps to include (medical image viewer, electronic medical records) and I found a lot of options, and have no idea what to include and where to start.. I never used any of them, (still a medical student), and I was wondering anyone could help in bringing birth to this distro?
Suggesting apps, or maybe helping in building and packaging apps not available in the official repo or the AUR? or even only testing?
Any interest?!

hadiyazdi wrote:I started this to learn more about archiso and then after having my custom arch image ready, I had this idea in mind... I guess I was a little over enthusiastic
No worries - far better to be occasionally over enthusiastic, then never enthusiastic enough. There simply may be more productive ways to channel that enthusiasm: more productive both for you, your would-be users, and the rest of the arch community.
First, let me highlight the real problem with spin-off distros. You certainly could put together an installation iso with all the right stuff for a medical professional to put an arch-based system on their computer and start using it. But are you going to commit to maintaining it and doing all the hard work that really comes with maintaining a distrobution? If not, the best case scenario is that your distro would be a passing fad, and you'd get (probably less than) your 15 minutes of micro-fame. The more realistic scenario is that your distro would be just a fart in the wind - and as a result, so too would be your enthusiasm for contributing in other ways.
In contrast to all this, there are very productive ways to channel any such enthusiasm. A majority (if not all) of the great things about archlinux have come from one person scratching their own personal itch, then sharing the products with the community. This way they are giving back to the community - but it is not purely selfless: they are appreciated by the community. How small would be your target audience for the new distro? You'd tell a few collegues, and maybe one or two of them would share it with a few of theirs ... pretty small. But if you see software that could be useful to medical professionals that is lacking in archlinux and instead you make/improve AUR packages, or even set up an unofficial repo with the precompiled binaries, then any medical professional who searches the AUR can find your products.
Further benefits of this approach are that now your contribution will likely last much longer. There will be more users to benefit from it, and more to appreciate your contribution. And when you inevitably get too busy to maintain a few of the AUR packages, or the repo, there will be a much larger pool of potential volunteers to take over - thus preserving the 'legacy' of your contribution.
I suppose this all lends itself well to a parable of sowing seeds on different types of ground. Suffice it to say that being a successful farmer may have more in common with being a successful archer than one would first suspect.
And in contrast to my initial answer of "No", I would be happy to help you get PKGBUILDs working for all the tools you would like to make available in the AUR or in a custom repo. I also suspect many others here would be much more welcoming to this as well.

Arch influenced distros?

What are the Arch influenced distros? Not distros necessarily based directly in some way upon Arch Linux, but influenced by Arch Linux?
For example, Alpine Linux uses the Arch build system. Does anybody know of other distros that are "inspired" by Arch in a similar fashion?
Frugalware comes to mind, because it uses pacman. But it seems that pacman-g2 is a fork of an early beta-release of what is now pacman 3.x. Is this enough to meet the standard of "Arch influenced" distro?
If folks can make a good case in this thread for a distro being influenced by Arch, I'll add it to the appropriate section on the Arch-based Distros wikipage.
Thanks everyone.
Last edited by lseubert (2009-06-23 11:08:37)

PJ wrote:
I was woundering if there should be a category for custom repositories? I mean that is IMHO somthing more in the spirit of Arch Linux since Arch is a meta-distribution. If that's the case I think ArchVDR might be a good candidate to be included in that kind of category.
ArchVDR
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/archvdr/
Actually, I think custom repositories deserve an entire wikipage of their own. (Guess I have another wikipage to work on now ;-)
That said, what is the difference between a custom repository and an Arch-based distro? For most Linux distros, this is pretty easy to figure out. But as you rightly point out, Arch is more of a meta-distribution. You install a very small core set of packages, and then build your own distro on top of them. Thus, 'extra' and 'community' are, technically, custom repositories and only 'core' is the "One, True Arch Linux" - to get pedantic about it.
But seriously, what distinguishes an Arch distro from a custom repository? Where do extra, testing, and community belong in the grand scheme of things? What about kde-mod and Chakra? What about something like 'http://repo.archlinux.fr/', which is the repository for yaourt, among other things?
Also, on the Arch-based Distros wikipage, I listed larch and archiso-live as meta-distros, because they are used to build a custom install .iso or .img file. But given your point that Arch itself is really a meta-distro, should I use some other word to describe larch and archiso-live?
PJ wrote:Not really sure about this but after reading a bit more it seems to be a more integrated qt desktop environment on top of arch linux:
eth-os
http://eth-os.org/
http://code.google.com/p/eth-os/
To me, this seems to be a custom repository, but it is somewhat hard to tell. They haven't actually released anything yet, so there isn't anything to evaluate right now. I'll keep an eye on it though, and write it up upon release of something official.

[arch-based] TP-Link TL-WN822N losses

Hi. I need your help adjusting something wrong with my Arch-based distro and USB WiFi adapter: the last one is a TP-Link TL-WN822N.
The issue is this one: it often happens that automatically network disconnects from the home's WiFi network, not only when the computer is locked, but even if I'm surfing the internet or just using it.
Maybe this will help someone understanding something more specifically:
$ lsusb | grep TL-WN822N
Bus 001 Device 005: ID 0cf3:7015 Atheros Communications, Inc. TP-Link TL-WN821N v3 / TL-WN822N v2 802.11n [Atheros AR7010+AR9287]
If you need some other tests, I obviously will do it.
Last edited by streambinder (2014-10-29 14:12:18)

Sorry, we can't help with "arch-based" distros as we have no idea what changes they have made.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Fo … pport_ONLY

Is Arch the best distro for a friend with a "computer curse?"

Hey, guys! I need some advise. I have a friend who has a "computer curse." It runs in his family as well. Computers break down FAST in his house. He was running Windows initially, but he switched to Linux because he kept getting NASTY viruses. Viruses so nasty, I would often have to use Windows Repair Install. Linux, obviously, eliminated that problem. It created a new problem, though. Linux constantly BREAKS on him! To be more specific, he's been using Debian-based distros. Ubuntu, Linux Mint, etc. All of them have been breaking on him. It's incredibly frustrating.
I've used Arch many times before. I absolutely love it, and I'm beginning to wonder if it would work for him (after I set it up for him, of course). I'm worried, though, about two things directly related - package management, and the system breaking. He ALWAYS finds a way to break the system. ALWAYS. I can lock down package management, but if I do that, he will go months and months without an update; increasing his chances of a breakage if a major security update is needed. Is there a way to balance this out?

I agree, debian stable is the winner choice for him. That's unbreakable without root perms. And I think anyone who uses linux for more then a year, finishes at arch, debian or gentoo (and some insists on slackware). Reason is: full customizability, no company background (mp3 in fedora/suse add repos issue) basic configs didn't variated, gentoo+arch:stable rolling release (innovations 5 years later even with this install, imagine you installed an xp in 2001 and now that install is a win7), debian: stable till die (but out of date)
I killed my first 2 ubuntus one and a half a year ago, and I made panicing kernel half a year ago in gentoo, which even paniced other linux installers if that hard drive was plugged in
If the guy loves innovations, you can set him up arch (or maybe the chakra project) but I basically say, the perfect solution is debian lenny with stable kde3. Old but more stable then anything I've ever seen, and fast (even on an 800Mhz 128 mb ram laptop)
And another advise: don't install him sudo. He may know google too well to use it
Last edited by Vegita (2010-01-02 19:47:03)

Differences between Arch linux and RHEL-based Distros?

Hi there!
So, I am officially trying to make the permanent switch from Windows to Linux. I've used Linux in the past, from Ubuntu, to Fedora, to Mint, and I've always liked Arch the most. Nothing beats the feeling of an OS you had a hand in setting up.
I'm wondering though, what are the differences in Arch vs distros like Red Hat, Fedora, and CentOS? I recently picked up a book called, "The Linux Bible" which provides a course-like approach to learning the intricacies of Linux. I'm wondering if it would be easily possible to adapt the lessons from that to Arch, or to use Fedora or another RHEL-based distro like it suggests.
Thanks

The biggest issue I find is with SE Linux. I don't know if this is default in RHEL itself but Fedora uses it. If I understood it properly, though, I doubt it would be such an issue!
EDIT: I think it would be best to learn one distro first, using documentation for that distro. So if you want to use the book, install something that matches the book as closely as possible. If you want to use Arch, use the wiki as your primary documentation. I say this because there is a big difference between figuring out the ways in which two distros differ when you understand the GNU/Linux basics and (I imagine) trying to do so when you are still learning those basics. I don't just mean ls, grep etc. - other systems use those - but the stuff which is common to any GNU/Linux distro. Obviously this applies even more if you also are learning stuff like ls, grep, cd etc. (which might be true if you're moving from Windows rather than, say, OS X or one of the BSDs).
Last edited by cfr (2013-10-31 23:30:15)

Partioning question for dual booting arch+ another distro

I have a 320 partition w/ 100gigs win7 and 20 for /root arch, and rest for /home arch and a 500gig hd with data,media, pictures etc on it..
I was thinking of dual booting Mint + arch.. mint for compatability, ubuntu base and stability and arch for bleeding edge+ speed
I was thinking about 20 /root arch, 140 /home arch, 20 /root mint, 140(rest of hd) /home mint.. and using gparted to grab a 5 gig piece of the 500gig hd for /swap for both distros ( i have 6 gigs ram, i usually set swappiness to zero anyway, but i'm sure a swap is just a formality anyway)... and making the rest of the 500 accessable to both distros for my media and other stuff i have.
is the above a good scheme ^^, does the size/order matter for what I want above? or should it be /root mint /root arch /home mint, /home arch.. 20/20/140/140 (sizes are approx of course)
or would there be a "real advantage for making the 320 mint, 500 for arch.. and make 250 gigs of the 500 shared for media etc.. (20 arch / and 230 for /arch home)..
I posted this in the newbie section, because of so many possibilities and I've read alot about partitioning, I just wonder whats the best, effecient way to do this, i'm sure some of you here dual boot 2 distros (hopefully on the same hd so my question is at least relevant)
Thanks in advance for any help
Last edited by binskipy2u (2013-01-02 10:32:43)

It's your machine, so do whatever you want, because it's a very subjective matter. I have a 10 GB root ext4 without a separate /boot or /home (meaning that these folders are part of the root fs). But man, sometimes, a separate partition for /home can be a god-send. I experienced space issues countless times. Of course, it also depends on how much crap you install. If you install full-blown KDE and a bunch of games instead of something minimal like Openbox or a tiling WM, 10 GB are not enough. Wine also uses ~/.wine for games and such.
See: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Partitioning
I would probably share the home partition between the distributions (except with different user names, so that the settings don't overlap between bleeding-edge versions of the same packages).
Have fun.
You may also wanna look into LVM, which will allow on-the-fly resizing of the partitions.
Last edited by DSpider (2013-01-02 11:59:34)

Arch ended search for distro, what ends the WM search?

Dusty wrote:I'm getting tired of WMI and am renewing my search for the perfect window manager once again. Every day I pray I will discover a window manager that will end this search in the same way that Arch ended my seach for the perfect Linux distribution.
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?p=95872
The quote of Dusty is not something new but quite many users, I believe, do same shifting/searching for the perfect WM. This thread is NOT about comparing WMs and DEs but what do we want a WM to do? Can we use the same things what made Arch perfect also for a WM? Does it have to be a WM or can it instead be a PM (program manager)? What's an ideal whatever it would be?
EDIT
Let's try not to mention any WM/DE names. Here we want to discuss ideas not what a particular WM does.

rasat wrote:
iphitus wrote:
rasat: I think a search for a 'perfect' wm is futile.
Everyone has their own perception of what a 'perfect'
wm is. If we were to include everyone's idea of a perfect wm into one, it would be huge, which would conflict with some people's liking of lighter WMs.
Why do we think a perfect WM includes everyone's liking and preferences? That's not the Arch Way!
A perfect WM is a base what doesn't include everyone's liking but allows everyone to setup and configure how they want. That's why Arch Linux is perfect for many users.
no, but to have one that will setup and configure how everyone wants, it's going to need to include all of the capabilities of doing what everyone wants. pixmaps, and that'll add size, which the minimalists dont like. Sure we could modularise it, but once you start doing things like that, it makes the situation much more complex, how you would distribute the addons, and avoiding conflicts between those addons.
newbies will want a wm that will just work right off, which means that the wm would need to come with GUI confs etc, others would want one that doesnt have those, which means we'd have to distrobute them seperately, which means that the newbies wouldnt have them if they just installed it.
otherwise, you're just asking for fvwm, from what i've heard and seen, it can do practically anything, and can be configured to do nearly anything. and if it doesnt do it, you can make a plugin for it.
iphitus

Arch based distro for mame cabinet

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for