Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

dtw · 2005-11-29 10:18:24

Our distrowatch blurb is so boring and outdated it's almost soporific. I think we need to spice it up and really hit home with the important selling points. Here is the old one:

Arch Linux is an i686-optimized linux distribution. It is lightweight and contains the latest stable versions of software. Packages are in .tar.gz format and are tracked by a package manager that is designed to allow easy package upgrades. Arch is quite streamlined compared to some other distributions. Things that are relatively unused are not kept (info-pages, for example). A default Arch install leaves you with a solid base; from there, you can add packages to create the custom installation you're looking for. Arch has a package build system that allows you to easily create your own packages, which makes it very easy to rebuild a package with your own custom configuration. Arch also aims to use the newer features available to linux users, such as ReiserFS/ext3 and udev.

Based on what I said about Zenwalk I think it is important to focus on the main aspects of Arch:
· base or ftp install as simple starting block
· pacman, what is in the repos and makepkg
· mention some newer "newer features"!
I propose we use the wiki to bash out a new one - I'll have a go then others can have a crack. Once we get something sorted I'll contact Judd and see what he thinks and hopefully it will be updated

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/New … atch_blurb

murkus · 2005-12-17 11:06:15

Thumbs up for dibble!

I think you nailed it on a first try.

.murkus

dtw · 2005-12-17 15:29:19

Ahhh - thanks

arooaroo · 2005-12-17 15:44:14

I agree, you're first stab is rather good.

I don't know whether they ought to be mentioned, but perhaps some of the other "homegrown" projects, like lshwd/hwd, hwdetect, ArchWM, AUR, could get a look in?

Snowman · 2005-12-17 19:34:05

I would remove the "i686-optimized".

IMHO, it is no longer relevant. Most distros are now compiled for i586 and up. That is the case for Mandriva. Maybe when Arch started many distros were still compiled for i386 and the performance increase was important but the difference between i586 and i686 is much less pronunced. BTW, the users who are worried about that small performance gain are more likely to use a source based distro which is compiled for their specific CPU.

Also, there are several ports in various developpement stage for other processors (i586, ppc, amd64). Removing the "i686-optimized" label will acknowledge the existence of these ports and will help bring in users with other platforms. If they like the i686 Arch, they might contribute to the ports.

Finally, the "i686-optimized" goes against the bleeding-edge aspect of Arch. The i686 CPUs are not bleeding edge, the 64 bits dual-core CPUs are.

To conclude, I would also mention the AUR, Archie and hwdetect as they are the most widespread/ better known Arch project.

arooaroo · 2005-12-17 19:40:55

The problem is that the ports projects are in flux. They are large projects that are not officially supported. It's perhaps best mentioned as a postscript, but I think could blow up in Arch's face if people say "hey, they blurb says that Arch has an i586 port, but it doesn't work and it's out of date".)

I think the i686-optimised is worth keeping, personally.

Snowman · 2005-12-17 20:09:06

I agree that the ports shouldn't be mentioned because they are too much alpha. I just think there's no need to mention the i686-optimised. Most people (like myself) don't use Arch because it's i686-optimized. They use it because of pacman, the rolling release system, customizability, etc. If Arch would have been compiled for i586, I would still have installed it and be using it.

It's a question of changing the focus. By changing the first line to:

Arch Linux is a fast, lightweight and flexible Linux distribution targeted at competant linux users.

We put the focus on the true qualities of Arch (fast, lightweight and flexible). If the i686-optimised is to be kept in the blurb, at least, it shouldn't be mentionned in the first line.

Another thing is that the blurb must be relatively short. I would prefer removing the i686-optimised and mention the AUR, instaed.

arooaroo · 2005-12-17 20:15:30

I reckon it's useful for simply letting people know to only continue reading if they have i686+.

Lone_Wolf · 2005-12-17 20:31:20

586 is Pentium 1 / AMD K6
686 is PII , slot A athlon, and higher

If that is correct, than how many people are still using 586 or lower ?

Both in my job and private life i deal with pc's.
I know of aprrox 2k pc's , and less than 50 (5%) are 586 types.
Maybe 5 of those 2k are 486 types.

(and my employer doesn't exactly buy the latest hardware and has a lot of systems that are over 4 years old.)

On e-bay i can find a P3 / AMD Slot A for less than 40 euro.

How big is the chance that possible arch-users have systems below 686 ?

kth5 · 2005-12-17 20:57:50

pholie wrote:

Lone_Wolf wrote:
How big is the chance that possible arch-users have systems below 686 ?
Dunno, but i would definitely install arch on my old amd k6-2 (586) too if it was possible. But that doesn't mean i would die if there wasn't 586 port of arch

it is possible, i run it on my k6-2+ which is still i586 with a couple of i686ish extensions. only thing missing is a proper install iso but the i586 people dun really care about publicity, right? no idea where they keep their isos but my package repo is located right here:

ftp://ftp.archlinuxppc.org/current/os/i586

it's still outdated more or less but it should be working fine with quickinst from a gentoo minimal iso.

Romashka · 2006-03-11 15:20:29

Why Is this thread dead?

Description of Arch Linux on DistroWatch is still the same. Maybe it's time to change it?
New blurb on Wiki is better, IMHO.
Any ideas how to improve it?

hotsauce · 2006-03-11 17:45:37

I also think Arch would benefit quite a bit from a "funkyfied" distro-watch description

+ Twisted the first sentence around to emphasize Arch's strong points
+ Fixed typo
+ Removed redundancy
+ Added references to AUR, clean & simple philosophy, Arch's "great community" while keeping it relatively short

See wiki for full text:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/New … atch_blurb

Cotton · 2006-03-11 18:19:27

ref: hotsauce's contribution in the wiki:

"very latest" means the same as "bleeding edge"

take out the second use of the word "community" in the last line

also, in the first line, is it worth mentioning that arch is a predominantly binary distro?

otherwise excellent.

hotsauce · 2006-03-11 18:31:32

very latest" means the same as "bleeding edge

Fixed

take out the second use of the word "community" in the last lin

ArchLinux User-community Repository seems to be the actual name of AUR. We can say ArchLinux User Repository if the people in charge don't mind.

is it worth mentioning that arch is a predominantly binary distro?

i686-optimized. IMO pretty obvious this refers to pre-compiled binary packages...

Romashka · 2006-08-22 09:21:27

Errr... Any progress here?

arooaroo · 2006-08-22 12:18:43

Let's not forget that x86-64 is now officially supported.

Sigi · 2006-08-29 07:18:46

Is there any progress regarding our DW-Blurb?

Romashka · 2006-08-29 07:21:19

It seems not much.

Sigi · 2006-08-29 07:34:33

Romashka wrote:

It seems not much.

I saw your comment in the "Arch popularity"-thread and totally agree with you.
I would post a nice DW-Blurb here, but IMO it would make much more sense if a native english speaker could do this instead..

Romashka · 2006-08-29 07:48:50

Sigi wrote:

I would post a nice DW-Blurb here, but IMO it would make much more sense if a native english speaker could do this instead..

Agree. Unfortunately my English is not so good as I would like. As you can see from info below my nickname - my native language is Ukrainian.

Anyway, only Judd Vinet (apeiro) can change Arch's DistroWatch blurb.

archuser · 2006-09-15 19:11:36

Well I've just added my own entry into the blurb wiki. I think it sounds OK.

Romashka · 2006-09-15 19:16:39

archuser wrote:

Well I've just added my own entry into the blurb wiki. I think it sounds OK.

Nice said! I liked it!

Romashka · 2006-10-19 11:10:17

It seems that Judd has silently updated Arch Distrowatch blurb finally!
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=arch
Though there is no mention about x86_64 and text can be read as "we have base install and ABS+AUR" (no mentions about repositories at all).

Comments?

dolby · 2006-10-19 15:14:43

much better than the previous discription imo mostly cause its more detailed & doesnt stay to the "a lightweight i686-optimised Linux distribution", making ppl to suggest it on their sites as a distro for older machines.

Romashka · 2006-10-19 18:36:41

Of course, escpecially when previous description said something about reiserfs/udev as "newest features".

Arch Linux

#1 2005-11-29 10:18:24

Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#2 2005-12-17 11:06:15

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#3 2005-12-17 15:29:19

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#4 2005-12-17 15:44:14

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#5 2005-12-17 19:34:05

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#6 2005-12-17 19:40:55

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#7 2005-12-17 20:09:06

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#8 2005-12-17 20:15:30

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#9 2005-12-17 20:31:20

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#10 2005-12-17 20:57:50

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#11 2006-03-11 15:20:29

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#12 2006-03-11 17:45:37

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#13 2006-03-11 18:19:27

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#14 2006-03-11 18:31:32

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#15 2006-08-22 09:21:27

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#16 2006-08-22 12:18:43

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#17 2006-08-29 07:18:46

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#18 2006-08-29 07:21:19

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#19 2006-08-29 07:34:33

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#20 2006-08-29 07:48:50

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#21 2006-09-15 19:11:36

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#22 2006-09-15 19:16:39

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#23 2006-10-19 11:10:17

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#24 2006-10-19 15:14:43

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

#25 2006-10-19 18:36:41

Re: Refreshing our distrowatch blurb!

Board footer