Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

JulesJacobs · 2008-04-13 10:11:02

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but couldn't we have a vanilla package and a separate configuration package with a minimal working configuration?

brebs · 2008-04-13 10:25:35

JulesJacobs wrote:

separate configuration package

Still involves user intervention/interaction. The key point is that the user has to use his/her/its brain

iphitus · 2008-04-13 10:32:25

JulesJacobs wrote:

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but couldn't we have a vanilla package and a separate configuration package with a minimal working configuration?

It's all nice saying "lets have minimal working configurations" but that doesn't correlate to anything in the real world. Broad sweeping statements like that do work for all packages.

Most packages _do_ work out of the box. Those that don't, do so for a reason, and typically include a sample configuration anyway.

For the very _few_ packages who do need some wiki/googling/man pages. Are you that lazy?

Last edited by iphitus (2008-04-13 10:33:11)

Husio · 2008-04-13 10:47:55

SpookyET wrote:

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

Hey, don't paste configs from wiki to you're /etc! Read the wiki, have a look at man pages, learn, write your own configs.
Nobody if perfect, you have to learn it somehow. But using everything with default settings is quite monkey like.

- How it's working?
- No idea, so better don't touch it, or I'll have to reinstall it.

iphitus · 2008-04-13 11:06:14

Husio wrote:

SpookyET wrote:
Arch Linux is 100,000 monkeys pasting the same Arch Wiki page into their /etc.
Hey, don't paste configs from wiki to you're /etc! Read the wiki, have a look at man pages, learn, write your own configs.
Nobody if perfect, you have to learn it somehow. But using everything with default settings is quite monkey like.
- How it's working?
- No idea, so better don't touch it, or I'll have to reinstall it.

Already been said repeatedly. This thread has run it's course, drop it.

Last edited by iphitus (2008-04-13 11:06:29)

violagirl23 · 2008-04-15 03:41:56

Mmmmmmmm....... so Arch doesn't update any new config files for new packages, eh? I hadn't noticed. I can see both sides of the spectrum. I personally liked the Gentoo method in that it would totally let you configure how new configuration files with a package were handled, where you could tell it to always overwrite if you just don't care, never overwrite, etc. Especially how it saved all new config files as ._cfg0000_NAME. This way, you wouldn't have your precious files overwritten but could still compare the newer version to yours to see if there's anything you want to update that's in the newer one, add it to yours, or adopt the newer one and move it to the actual name, etc. Like you could get config file updates without ever having to worry about having things overwritten.
*HOWEVER*
I have noticed these in themselves tend to build up after a while, creating perhaps unnecessary cruft lying around, a lot of ._cfg0000_'s you never bother to look at that just build up and build up, that emerge yells at you for when you don't update them (I've got 34 right now, and most of these are almost 100% the same as the old ones anyway, save for maybe a comment moved to somewhere else *sweatdrop*) It could quickly lead to things being overcomplicated and non-KISS if not managed well. So I can genuinely see why Arch would not want to adopt a system like this either, though I do see a certain merit in it, as it allows the user to do virtually whatever they want with their config files without having to hunt around at wiki's too much for updates in the config files and without fear of things getting overwritten. Sometimes changes are crucial, after all, and if a user doesn't know about it... I remember the pam config files getting updated, it was something very important to do, so I had to examine all mine closely and compare to the ._cfg0000_ files to make sure I had it all correct.

So I guess, it depends on how one views it. This could, if also adopted in Arch, either overcomplicate it (Gentoo is very good at overcomplicating things ) or give the user much more freedom in dealing with their config files. I could go either way on whether it'd be a good or bad thing.
But hey, that's just me, right?

Last edited by violagirl23 (2008-04-15 03:43:11)

SpookyET · 2008-04-15 03:56:07

violagirl23 wrote:

Mmmmmmmm....... so Arch doesn't update any new config files for new packages, eh? I hadn't noticed. I can see both sides of the spectrum. I personally liked the Gentoo method in that it would totally let you configure how new configuration files with a package were handled, where you could tell it to always overwrite if you just don't care, never overwrite, etc. Especially how it saved all new config files as ._cfg0000_NAME. This way, you wouldn't have your precious files overwritten but could still compare the newer version to yours to see if there's anything you want to update that's in the newer one, add it to yours, or adopt the newer one and move it to the actual name, etc. Like you could get config file updates without ever having to worry about having things overwritten.
*HOWEVER*
I have noticed these in themselves tend to build up after a while, creating perhaps unnecessary cruft lying around, a lot of ._cfg0000_'s you never bother to look at that just build up and build up, that emerge yells at you for when you don't update them (I've got 34 right now, and most of these are almost 100% the same as the old ones anyway, save for maybe a comment moved to somewhere else *sweatdrop*) It could quickly lead to things being overcomplicated and non-KISS if not managed well. So I can genuinely see why Arch would not want to adopt a system like this either, though I do see a certain merit in it, as it allows the user to do virtually whatever they want with their config files without having to hunt around at wiki's too much for updates in the config files and without fear of things getting overwritten. Sometimes changes are crucial, after all, and if a user doesn't know about it... I remember the pam config files getting updated, it was something very important to do, so I had to examine all mine closely and compare to the ._cfg0000_ files to make sure I had it all correct.
So I guess, it depends on how one views it. This could, if also adopted in Arch, either overcomplicate it (Gentoo is very good at overcomplicating things ) or give the user much more freedom in dealing with their config files. I could go either way on whether it'd be a good or bad thing.
But hey, that's just me, right?

This does not have anything to do with the topic of this thread. For your information, Arch already does this. The difference from gentoo is that it only generates one file foo.conf.pacnew.

violagirl23 · 2008-04-15 04:00:32

Oh! Well then I misunderstood. Well then, what is everyone arguing about so much? I thought that was the issue! If Arch has that, what else do people need?
*doesn't get it*
I haven't used Arch in a while, so I didn't know. I never could get my ISA sound card working and finally had to go back to Gentoo, even though I like Arch *much* more. So as soon as I get my laptop in June I'll be installing Arch on it immediately. Yay, no more Gentoo!
So seriously, if Arch does that for you, then what's the problem?!

F · 2008-04-16 06:13:52

iphitus wrote:

No.

Quoted just incase you missed it the first time.

Seriously, and excuse my language here, but what the fuck is happening to this community?

Ubuntu exists for a reason, people. Sheesh.

finferflu · 2008-04-16 09:32:08

@ violagirl23
It has been suggested that Arch came with basic pre-configured packages, since the OP argued that most of the people just copy-paste their configs from the wiki to get things working quickly. However it's been pointed out that most of the packages work out of the box with their vanilla configurations, and those which don't, require the user to RTFM and take care to configure the application properly (i.e. there is a reason why certain apps don't just work out of the box).

@ F
That's been said over and over. Let me quote Iphitus as well

Iphitus wrote:

Already been said repeatedly. This thread has run it's course, drop it.

Last edited by finferflu (2008-04-16 09:33:01)

tomk · 2008-04-16 10:34:04

F - your language is not excused. If you can't make your point without obscenities, don't make it.

While I'm not going to lock the thread or anything, I am also of the opinion that there is nothing further to say on this particular topic.

N1ckR · 2008-04-17 10:00:30

brebs wrote:

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.

Well said !

Isn't the whole point of Arch to build your own system from scratch ?

Cheers, Nick

TheBodziO · 2008-04-20 10:26:27

It seems that SpookyET's post have raised temperature a bit around here

Personally I can't agree with stating that "99% of us copy/paste wikis". I think that it's just an assumption that can not be verified as truth or false based on such a small statistic as this thread.

In my view Arch is a dristo that not only encourages you to tinker with your configs but more… it forces you to do so in most cases (*.example files anyone ). I must admit I like it. Sure—I forget many of the syntaxes and specific switches but even so I'm able to gain two things: first—I'm able to "relearn" syntax much quicker and second—I can copy self created configs to new systems knowing that some time ago I put some thinking in creating them properly so basically I can trust them. That is my praise of the status quo .

It doesn't mean that I discard Spook's complain completely. I can image situations when ready-to-run config is a must (e.g. a lack of time). In such cases I think that JulesJacobs had a nice idea. Arch is an open distro right? So why not create a repo with configs that work out of the box? Everybody can do that. Plus—we don't mess with Arch principles of simplicity by adding a facility that replaces copy/paste in an elegant way without forcing enyone to use it. Perhaps Spook could start such a thing?

Last edited by TheBodziO (2008-04-20 19:45:56)

Tido · 2008-04-20 13:54:49

I agree with what's been said by fellow Archers and don't need to repeat them. However I'd like to chime in one extra bit and hopefully not be seen as beating a dead horse.

This is open source. Why post when you can commit? If you feel this is an aspect of Arch you'd like and there are others that would agree with you, maybe you can create a "config repo" or something of the like. Giving users a choice is going to be easier than trying to convince the entire project to change their core philosophy.

Last edited by Tido (2008-04-20 13:55:24)

yesterday · 2008-04-23 17:07:42

There's nothing wrong with wanting the time-friendliness of ubuntu or suse or whatever, however Arch will never be like that. I started trying out ubuntu et al because I at some stage didn't have the time to really delve into man pages and documentation to get things up and running the way I wanted it. There is nothing wrong with wanting such a distro, but that will never be Arch. The Arch Way works, and so far the guidelines the devs have stuck to have made for a pretty resilient distibution over the years.

That being said, the Arch community is sometimes tinged with a bit of arrogance and self-importance. The idea that only "n00bs" use ubuntu or some such rubbish can be tiresome

fwojciec · 2008-04-23 17:34:55

yesterday wrote:

That being said, the Arch community is sometimes tinged with a bit of arrogance and self-importance. The idea that only "n00bs" use ubuntu or some such rubbish can be tiresome

Every community displays a kind of "we are better than them" tendency, such tendency is an integral part of a sense of community in principle, although it can be projected in various different ways (nationalism, racism, being proud of being "salt of the earth", being proud of being the elite, being proud of belonging to a particular religious community, being proud of not believing, etc). Complaining about "arrogance" and "elitism" of other distros among Ubuntu users, side by side with a sense of superiority displayed towards Windows users (and relentless, self-righteous bashing of their OS), claims about belonging to the "best community", using the "most popular" Linux distro (I recall the outrage and the accusations against PCLinuxOS when they became #1 on the distrowatch list) -- all these are symptoms of the same "social" tendency, if you will. It's just a fact of life.

shining · 2008-04-23 18:24:49

fwojciec wrote:

Every community displays a kind of "we are better than them" tendency, such tendency is an integral part of a sense of community in principle, although it can be projected in various different ways (nationalism, racism, being proud of being "salt of the earth", being proud of being the elite, being proud of belonging to a particular religious community, being proud of not believing, etc). Complaining about "arrogance" and "elitism" of other distros among Ubuntu users, side by side with a sense of superiority displayed towards Windows users (and relentless, self-righteous bashing of their OS), claims about belonging to the "best community", using the "most popular" Linux distro (I recall the outrage and the accusations against PCLinuxOS when they became #1 on the distrowatch list) -- all these are symptoms of the same "social" tendency, if you will. It's just a fact of life.

Why do you have to be proud?
I agree that this attitude can be boring

Last edited by shining (2008-04-23 18:25:05)

fwojciec · 2008-04-23 19:15:32

shining wrote:

Why do you have to be proud?
I agree that this attitude can be boring

You have to be proud of something, and you have to believe yourself better than others on that account -- this can be either conscious or unconscious, acknowledged or unacknowledged but it is always operative. If this dynamic breaks down on the level of individual psyche people commit suicides or go crazy -- this is speaking very generally, of course, not in relation to preferences with regard to linux distros. I personally find the "elitism," the expressions of which can be found on these forums, and "anti-elitism" that is popular on the Ubuntu forums to be, in fact, symptoms of the same psycho/social dynamic -- two sides of the same coin. I don't find it boring, I find it kind of interesting -- I am a social scientist by profession. I also wasn't suggesting that I support one position over the other -- though I likely regard the fact that I can raise myself above such a debate, and lay it out in front of me analytically, as the source of my own particular pride, a core element of my identity, and something that allows me to feel good about myself.

phrakture · 2008-04-23 19:29:55

The moderators have mentioned it a few times... this thread is dead, and has been answered. It's becoming potentially inflammatory now, so I'm going to proactively close it. Please read the previous two pages for answers to the original question.

Arch Linux

#51 2008-04-13 10:11:02

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#52 2008-04-13 10:25:35

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#53 2008-04-13 10:32:25

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#54 2008-04-13 10:47:55

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#55 2008-04-13 11:06:14

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#56 2008-04-15 03:41:56

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#57 2008-04-15 03:56:07

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#58 2008-04-15 04:00:32

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#59 2008-04-16 06:13:52

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#60 2008-04-16 09:32:08

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#61 2008-04-16 10:34:04

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#62 2008-04-17 10:00:30

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#63 2008-04-20 10:26:27

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#64 2008-04-20 13:54:49

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#65 2008-04-23 17:07:42

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#66 2008-04-23 17:34:55

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#67 2008-04-23 18:24:49

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#68 2008-04-23 19:15:32

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

#69 2008-04-23 19:29:55

Re: Arch Packages Should Come Preconfigured

Board footer