> I've always thought Arch was interesting, and a bit ago decided to give it >.a try. So I set up a VM, pointed it at the Arch installaiton medium and > watched it not even be able to get past it's own setup. Arch is great. I did an install of it yesterday and after 3 hours was relieved to have it working. I know 3 hours is a lot, but I'd had problems with Debian, Slackware and also Fedora so it was kind of my next choice. Debian seemed to mess up my root password during the install. I don't remember what the problem was with Slackware. Fedora installed fine, but I ran into a problem building clang 3.4 on it and it seemed like a difficult problem. So I went with Arch. It was a little bit of a pain, but I did get it working and it has clang 3.4 as it's default version. Anyway, I also agree with David Wagle's point about Arch being efficient. It doesn't start junk that other distros do. I don't want to have to stop a bunch of stuff whenever I reinstall. I'm still a little fearful of Arch installs. I also tried Archbang. Don't remember what the problem with that was either. Arch is a little bit tough, but also pays you back if you hang in there. That sounds like C++. Maybe it's no coincidence Arch is one of the few distros that understands the need for clang 3.4. I was installing from a thumb drive. My guess from what you wrote is you were doing a different kind of install. -- Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.. http://webEbenezer.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20140222/b46a7510/attachment.html>