Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

SpookyET · 2008-04-10 21:20:28

There is an old derogatory comment repeated on #ArchLinux quite often about Gentoo:

Gentoo is 100,000 monkeys compiling the same package over and over.

With a little change that comment can be applied to Arch Linux.

Arch Linux is 100,000 monkeys pasting the same Arch Wiki page into their /etc.

Pacman is fast, it's very fast, but all that speed is worthless if you have to spend half an hour, an hour, or more on the Arch Wiki, Gentoo, Wiki, Ubuntu Wiki, etc. to make the specific package work.

For example, if I install Pulse Audio, it should just work. I should not have to configure it. I am not saying that it is hard; I am saying that it is time consuming, and Arch users enjoy speed. People speak of distributions such as Arch Linux that they are rock solid once you have finished configuring them. The problem is that you never finish configuring them. House chores never go away.

The package configuration files can be patched with the wiki article by the package creator. Settings that cannot be patched at packaging time can be patched at installation. Judd Vinet was smart. Pacman has installation scripting support for exactly that reason. A simple example is the installation of a suspend/hibernate script, the foo.install should read /etc/fstab and patch the configuration file with the path to the swap device.

PKGBUILD:

install=('foo.install')

foo.install:

post_install() {
    /bin/true
}

post_upgrade() {
    /bin/true
}

pre_remove() {
   /bin/true
}

op=$1
shift

$op "$@"

Making Arch Linux, "just work" is not anti-UNIX. It's not anti-learning. You still have to learn how to use the operating system to operate it properly. You can still explore and learn with packages that "just work." I do not believe that it goes against the "Arch Way." 99% of us paste the wiki into /etc/ without modification.

finferflu · 2008-04-10 21:30:00

I'm not saying that your point is totally invalid, but how about people who actually need different configurations? How do you know that all the userbase will need the same configuration? You may know what the majority of users will need when you focus on a particolar userbase: Linux for beginners, Linux for musicians, Linux for gamers, and so on. As far as I understand Arch, it seems not to be oriented to any particular group, and that's what most of the people seem to like about it. *You* make it the way you need.
On the other hand, it would be useful to have tools (perhaps they already exist but I don't know) to customise one's own Arch install, to save system configurations for next installations. Perhaps the larch scripts do that, but I haven't looked into that project yet.

.:B:. · 2008-04-10 21:39:13

This ain't Debian. You want your SSH daemon started out of the box from the minute you installed it? Get your hands off my configs!

Jessehk · 2008-04-10 21:45:10

I agree with B and finferflu. I use Arch because it doesn't preconfigure packages.
Arch is intended to be simple: not for beginners, but technically simple, for people comfortable with Linux.
What that means (in my eyes, and AFAIK in the dev's eyes as well) is that nothing is preconfigured. Nothing is automatic. No single behavior is assumed.

If that doesn't fit into your ideal Linux experience, then my best advice (with no trace of rudeness indented) would be to seek out another distribution.

EDIT: to reiterate: I think most (if not all) Arch users recognizes the tedium involved in configuring their system. However, the knowledge of what's happening, why it's happening, and the knowledge that they are in control without any magic under the hood is a reasonable trade-off.

Last edited by Jessehk (2008-04-10 21:47:50)

brebs · 2008-04-10 21:49:18

First of all, who are you calling a monkey

This idea won't happen, just like it won't happen with Gentoo - because it's too time-consuming for the distro devs. Only the likes of Ubuntu have got the manpower needed to attempt to automatically set up 10,000 wailing, lazy newbs. Which is what we'd become, if we didn't have to think for ourselves.

Plus, the proper place to fix this problem anyway is upstream, to get sensible default configurations, so that all distros benefit.

Patching a configuration file sounds easy, but is prone to error. What if the configuration file has been slightly misconfigured by the user? Mixtures of tabs, spaces, comments (even comments on the same line as the config).

Can have more than one swap partition in /etc/fstab, I believe - which one to choose? The distro dev would have to confirm that the patching will still work correctly with *every* version bump, or face angry users who have had their /etc/fstab corrupted and have a non-bootable PC. Too risky.

Last edited by brebs (2008-04-10 21:51:20)

.:B:. · 2008-04-10 21:50:03

While my initial post may seem a bit ranty, I can add to jessehk's post that the fact you set up your system yourself means you know what's going on and why, but most importantly, if you know how to manage your box - read: have the skills - this is a one-time experience. You set it up, you run it. No reinstalls, unless it goes fubar. If it does, having those configs backed up is priceless. It's just a matter of efficiency and management.

SpookyET · 2008-04-10 21:51:10

finferflu wrote:

I'm not saying that your point is totally invalid, but how about people who actually need different configurations? How do you know that all the userbase will need the same configuration? You may know what the majority of users will need when you focus on a particolar userbase: Linux for beginners, Linux for musicians, Linux for gamers, and so on. As far as I understand Arch, it seems not to be oriented to any particular group, and that's what most of the people seem to like about it. *You* make it the way you need.
On the other hand, it would be useful to have tools (perhaps they already exist but I don't know) to customise one's own Arch install, to save system configurations for next installations. Perhaps the larch scripts do that, but I haven't looked into that project yet.

Like I have said, the majority of us just paste the wiki article into /etc. Those that need different configuration know that they need a different configuration because the package a) will not work properly, or b) will not work at all, which is the same as having no configuration at all and having to go to Gentoo Wiki, or another in-depth wiki. The wiki pages are not target at gamers, beginners, musicians, etc. There is no discrimination. They are targeted at making the packages work.

B wrote:

This ain't Debian. You want your SSH daemon started out of the box from the minute you installed it? Get your hands off my configs!

Shift Brain in Gear Before Lifting the Clutch. Please attempt to formulate an in depth thought before you speak.

SpookyET · 2008-04-10 21:59:10

brebs wrote:

First of all, who are you calling a monkey
This idea won't happen, just like it won't happen with Gentoo - because it's too time-consuming for the distro devs. Only the likes of Ubuntu have got the manpower needed to attempt to automatically set up 10,000 wailing, lazy newbs. Which is what we'd become, if we didn't have to think for ourselves.
Plus, the proper place to fix this problem anyway is upstream, to get sensible default configurations, so that all distros benefit.
Patching a configuration file sounds easy, but is prone to error. What if the configuration file has been slightly misconfigured by the user? Mixtures of tabs, spaces, comments (even comments on the same line as the config).
Can have more than one swap partition in /etc/fstab, I believe - which one to choose? The distro dev would have to confirm that the patching will still work correctly with *every* version bump, or face angry users who have had their /etc/fstab corrupted and have a non-bootable PC. Too risky.

I do not believe that it is time consuming for the developers. It's a one-time cost with maintenance. It's similar to the wiki page. It's a one time cost with maintenance. The person who has packaged has most likely written the wiki page.

You don't patch the configuration files on disk. You patch the configuration files installed by the package. If there is a conflict, they'll go into foo.conf.pacnew. There is no change from before. My example about suspend/hibernate would not modify /etc/fstab. It will modify suspend.conf. Which one would you choose? Simple, the swap partition that is equal or greater to the available RAM. Otherwise, it will not work. Choosing between two equal partitions is irrelevant because no two suspend packages will work at the same time.

finferflu · 2008-04-10 22:02:27

To be honest, I have never blindly copy-pasted stuff into my configuration files (apart from initial testing of apps I don't know), and I don't consider myself an advanced user. I usually use the wiki material selectively, and while at times the wiki can seem a repository of dull "copy-paste stuff", in many instances it presents different options among which the user has to choose the most fitting to his/her needs.

patroclo7 · 2008-04-10 22:02:40

I have never copied and pasted a wiki, and I do not trust wiki pages which do not provide explanations for their suggestions. A good wiki page actually explains the rationale behind a proposal, and provides different alternative configurations for different needs, with lots of references to external papers and documentation.

I can agree that there is no difference between using a preconfigured package and copying a wiki page without understanding and interpreting its contents, but the second thing should not happen in arch: if it happens, the guilty is either a bad wiki page or a lazy user.

Ashren · 2008-04-10 22:12:18

I have a rarely copied and pasted from the wiki (perhaps in the very beginning of my archlife) and never copied/pasted anything to /etc. Actually I remember doing a lot more copy/pasting when I used Xubuntu.

IMO one of Archlinux's strengths is that it "forces" the user to learn how to configure programs, so the user will learn and later on know how to fix/optimize the parameters for the program.

blu3ness · 2008-04-10 22:17:14

I don't think pre-configuring packages is a life-or-death situation for Arch, both sides have their valid points. If I'm not mistaken, Spooky has already switched to Ubuntu, correct?

Well... strictly speaking my personal opinion, distros are confined to their stereotypes due to the default configurations it often comes with. Think about Ubuntu, I always associate it with brown/yellow color theme and packages that work well with various hardwares. This might be a bonus for promoting Linux to a broader userbase; However, that doesn't mean that it should be universally accepted and revered across all distros. Arch's keeping it simple principle probably doesn't translate into keeping-it-easy, however, I do think it's a heck of a lot easier to know the underlying system for Arch than Ubuntu.

For example, the absence of default configuration does indeed takes a bit of time to get the packages to set up. I do not think this is a con at all. There is obviously the problems of time consumption and sometimes frustration involved, but if you went through the process, you will gain a lot of understanding into the system, which sets you up well for tweaking and optimizing later on. Personally, I would've never tried to compile my custom kernel if I didn't use ABS or makepkg to tweak around with some other packages first. I would also never learnt the OpenBSD'esque init process.

I also think that Spooky is exagerrating a bit on claiming that wiki has default configs for almost everything. Wiki has the instructions on how to get your system up and running. Comparatively, it is less than 0.002% of my total computer usage time. I wouldn't mind taking this time to read through the instructions and actually know precisely how everything will react. I am also well off when it comes to a kernel panic or a system failure, since I know where my backup configs are, and I'm familiar with my system thanks to all the custom scripts. HOWEVER, I do not deny that this process sucks if you have to repeat it on multiple occasions if you are installing arch on other computers, However that wouldn't be the norm for all Archers.

Thanks

Last edited by blu3ness (2008-04-10 23:26:03)

bender02 · 2008-04-10 22:54:41

I'm adding another one "against the majority" (according to SpookyET). I don't copy/paste from wiki. I *appreciate* having to configure manually, at least I learn *where*, *how* and *what* can be set, and what cannot be set/configured.

toofishes · 2008-04-11 01:26:25

/me lets out a chuckle from devland

One automated install script messing with my /etc and I would be pissed. I think that is a rather big draw of Arch- set it up once how *you* like it (not just by copy/pasting a wiki article, which I have maybe done once ever), and then rarely have to mess with configs again.

We package what upstream gives us. If it doesn't work out of the box and you truely believe it should, start complaining there.

jb · 2008-04-11 01:53:33

distrowatch description of Arch wrote:

Arch Linux is an independently developed, i686-optimised Linux distribution targeted at competent Linux users.

Competent users generally don't like scripts messing with their specific configurations. Adding auto-configuration would alienate the target audience.

Allan · 2008-04-11 02:09:31

toofishes wrote:

We package what upstream gives us. If it doesn't work out of the box and you truely believe it should, start complaining there.

+27 - minimal configuration should always come from upstream. It is not as if the devs deliberately remove any configuration provided.

Cerebral · 2008-04-11 02:36:53

Ticket closed
Reason for closing: WILL_NOT_IMPLEMENT

You can discuss this all you want, but that's not how we roll at Arch, so don't ever expect it to happen. Ever.

SpookyET wrote:

Like I have said, the majority of us just paste the wiki article into /etc.

Prove it. Collect me the majority of you that agree with this statement.

iphitus · 2008-04-11 03:08:22

No.

XChrisX · 2008-04-11 03:49:20

Cerebral wrote:

... but that's not how we roll at Arch, so don't ever expect it to happen. Ever.

*thug voice* Yah YEH! Represent! Dassow we doit on da Arch-side! *twisting my fingers into Arch logo*.........ouch!

SpookyET wrote:

Like I have said, the majority of us just paste the wiki article into /etc.

I guess i am in the minority.

Cerebral · 2008-04-11 03:54:20

XChrisX wrote:

*twisting my fingers into Arch logo*.........ouch!

I think an inverted "V": /\ with index/middle finger would suffice.

XChrisX · 2008-04-11 04:02:58

Cerebral wrote:

XChrisX wrote:
*twisting my fingers into Arch logo*.........ouch!
I think an inverted "V": /\ with index/middle finger would suffice.

I was trying to be old school and use the old logo

.:B:. · 2008-04-11 04:45:28

SpookyET wrote:

B wrote:
This ain't Debian. You want your SSH daemon started out of the box from the minute you installed it? Get your hands off my configs!
Shift Brain in Gear Before Lifting the Clutch. Please attempt to formulate an in depth thought before you speak.

Point still stands. The scope of Arch is very clear, you don't try to change the distribution. Just recognise it doesn't fit you, and solve that problem yourself. Don't make others solve your problems, that's not how it works.

patroclo7 · 2008-04-11 06:48:10

blu3ness wrote:

HOWEVER, I do not deny that this process sucks if you have to repeat it on multiple occasions if you are installing arch on other computers, However that wouldn't be the norm for all Archers.

Well, if you own several machines and you copy the hardware-independent configuration files from one machine to another, this seems to me a perfectly safe practice which saves time and simply reapplies your past, useful efforts. But this does not concern the development of the distribution in any way.

anykey · 2008-04-11 06:52:38

Back in 2004, when I was still new to Arch, I appreciated that it forced me to learn how to do it myself (this might sound strange to some of you). I am a very lazy man when it comes to such things.

If, everytime I installed a package, this package came preconfigured, I would never have built up the necessary knowledge as to how I could make things work.

I would figure that as a side effect, we would attract more people who started complaining about everything they could not do (for lack of knowledge), but they -- maybe -- would start blaming Arch for it.

Things are very beautiful as they are now.

clarence · 2008-04-11 08:15:14

I agree with whoever has said something along the lines of "the Arch devs of awesomeness have enough to do already" and "i am an experienced linux user who would rather decide for myself how my distro of choice is configured".

Arch Linux

#1 2008-04-10 21:20:28

Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#2 2008-04-10 21:30:00

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#3 2008-04-10 21:39:13

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#4 2008-04-10 21:45:10

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#5 2008-04-10 21:49:18

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#6 2008-04-10 21:50:03

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#7 2008-04-10 21:51:10

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#8 2008-04-10 21:59:10

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#9 2008-04-10 22:02:27

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#10 2008-04-10 22:02:40

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#11 2008-04-10 22:12:18

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#12 2008-04-10 22:17:14

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#13 2008-04-10 22:54:41

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#14 2008-04-11 01:26:25

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#15 2008-04-11 01:53:33

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#16 2008-04-11 02:09:31

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#17 2008-04-11 02:36:53

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#18 2008-04-11 03:08:22

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#19 2008-04-11 03:49:20

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#20 2008-04-11 03:54:20

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#21 2008-04-11 04:02:58

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#22 2008-04-11 04:45:28

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#23 2008-04-11 06:48:10

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#24 2008-04-11 06:52:38

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#25 2008-04-11 08:15:14

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

Board footer