Installing openal was failing spectacularly for me this morning. Rather than the openal-0.8.8.tar.gz source package, I was getting an HTML page (a wiki page of all things) named in its honor.
I put the bug here, noting that downloading the identical source package from the Ubuntu repositories let me install OpenAL, and Warzone 2100 by extension. My quest for world domination continues. …
K.Mandla: is there a x64 version of Crux available or being developed?
Last time I checked it looked like the 2.5 version would have x64 support. I suppose it might be possible to cross-compile the packages and drop them into the current installation procedure, but I don’t know if that’s a good idea or not.
P.S.: Take a look at http://crux.nu/Main/Links too.
I will wait then. Thank you for the information.
Whats the real difference between Crux and Arch? I read that you got less boot time with Crux, but what I really want to ask you is why would you prefer one over the other? Or is it just the wish to try something else?
Too many questions eh? Sorry for being so inquisitive.
I am a bit bored with Arch too, it just works now, and I like tweaking stuffs 🙂
Probably the biggest and most obvious difference is that you have to compile everything yourself. A lot of people believe that to be a waste of time, but I think it’s to my benefit, particularly on older machines.
You also have to do your own troubleshooting and setup with Crux — moreso than with Arch. A lot of times Arch will have configuration defaults or setup files in place so things work once they’re downloaded and unzipped. By contrast, and for example, Crux doesn’t even make an /etc/X11 directory — you have to manually make that folder before you can drop your xorg.conf in it. 😯
I like it. It keeps me busy and I am learning a lot about how these things work. And it does a much better job on Pentium 3 and earlier hardware. I think that’s the biggest draw.
aha, seems like something i could play with when i have time and then enjoy the end result. pretty nice actually 🙂