Originally Posted by EntTheGod
nothing is stopping anyone from still manually setting up a gnome 2.32 system, it would be some work perhaps but if thats what you want it wouldnt be too bad
and as far as debian stuff goes... vanilla debian seems to just take more time to configure than necessary :/ i go with crunchbang because its still debian, but it comes with programs and a DE i like by default...
if you are having issues with a system upgrade in LMDE, STOP USING THE GUI >_> apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade DONE! takes me all of 2 minutes to update if i havent for awhile
i like the idea behind LMDE, but they are still trying to take a debian base and make it into their own project, this means it will be a little buggy and probably not worth it right now.... if you want an easy debian set up, just do the larger ISO instead of a net inst, and you can just upgrade taht set up
should give you gnome 2.32 and everything by default
apt isnt slow by any stretch of the word... i havent used pacman myself but im not exactly dying of old age every time i do a system upgrade so i dont see the need for anything faster because i never thought apt was slow in the first place... and then the debian repos are actually pretty awesome
stable is STABLE! rock solid like very few other distros can even consider providing, and then testing is still pretty solid and even more stable than most distros while providing a lot of really sweet packages
seriously, this thread just sounds like some one has an idealogical road block in their head where they want to use arch, but a debian system would be ideal :/
i will have to agree with you here, apt is by no means "slow", the gui's are, like synaptic, software center, update manager,kpackageget,etc...especially if you are doing a system update or a large amount of packages, its best to use "apt-get dist-upgrade" as i've had synaptic get totally screwy and "freeze" near the end of the dist-upgrade before.
but we all know this, that gui's aren't always the best or the fastest thing, we've had long and drawn out "battles" with windows fanboi's about the power of the command line, why is it a surprise when a gui program fails?
rolling release is a nice idea and all, i'd also imagine if it was all that great, more distro's would be "adopting" it instead of continue to come out with static releases...
so all i can say to the arch guys who want stability over cutting edge, you should consider another distro
there are a lot more "core" changes coming in the next year to a linux near you, and i'm not sure if arch can cope with them, if you guys are having this much problems with the new nvidia drivers for the new xorg...or the loss of dbus in favor of udev, or the transition from gnome 2 to gnome 3....
you can't like arch too much if you guys are wanting to change what fundamentally sets it apart from the other distro's
and if you guys are really missing pacman if you do change's distros, you can always invoke the holy grail and assign and alias in ~/.bashrc
alais pacman ='yum'
i'm sure you could be creative enough to come up with something better