- The approach is simply unprofessional
... I could probably go on...
Not here, thanks.
Closing.
]]>infidel: Despite what you seem to think about message boards, open source communities work differently. This is not a social board, it's almost exclusively to find help for existing technical problems. All development relevant topics should go through the mailing list. You can, of course, discuss such things here, but you won't change anything this way. And yes, complaints about the board software have nothing to do in an OLD thread about an OBSOLETE installer version. This has nothing to do with constructive critizism, it's offtopic, increasing the SnR and as worthless as a rant on a blog.
Why is that? So in open source communities you can not by definition talk about the impact of change and of issues with change management resulting in stability problems? I'm sorry but this is wrong, obviously this is needed in any developer community regardless of any type. Avoiding talking about structural problems makes a developer community dysfunctional.
The description to this thread says this: "Discussions specifically regarding the Arch Linux distribution and community. NOT generally a place for technical issues unless systemic in nature.". How can this thread then be almost exclusively for existing technical problems. That is a contradiction.
]]>infidel wrote:Regarding comment on the sign-up, it followed the quality of the argument that it works as anti-spam which is kind of obvious if it even stops normal users from signing up.
I ask again: how exactly does it stop normal users (i.e. non-bots)?
It is broken in part or completely due to the following
- Somebody not currently on a Unix platform might now be able to run the commands at all
- Somebody new to Unix might not be happy about cut-and-pasting commands he doesn't understand into a shell
- Somebody on a different platform is likely to have to call shasum differently
- Somebody on a different platform will evaluate uname to something different
- Somebody running the commands in a different timezone might be unable to succeed
- The approach is simply unprofessional
... I could probably go on...
So you might say "Find me an Arch developer that cares" and get a slap on the shoulder from a teenager who thinks that he is in the know and has leet skillz, but in my view Arch is one of the absolute best distributions around and if the level of ambition is not higher that this then that opinion needs revising.
]]>Regarding comment on the sign-up, it followed the quality of the argument that it works as anti-spam which is kind of obvious if it even stops normal users from signing up.
I ask again: how exactly does it stop normal users (i.e. non-bots)?
]]>infidel wrote:Sorry but I will just be honest with my opinions even though it is criticism . I've used Arch for around 6-7 years, and before that OpenBSD for longer than that.
Honesty is useless if the content is worthless. Rants are blog material, get one. And criticizing without knowing the background is the worst type of ranting, since your complaints are:-
a) not new
b) not exceptionally valid
c) because of a and b - not of concern to devs and moderators respectively (on the installer and forum sign-up process)Concerning the sign-up process, suggesting that we just prevent sign-ups is an indication of the quality of conversation which is likely to follow on from that statement....
If you think feedback from users are worthless even thought it is not praise then you should probably find better a task suited for you to get involved in.
So you consider my comment worthless. I consider your reply worthless. This quickly becomes an even more non-constructive discussion. And thanks, if I want to start a blog I will, but I don't care much about the subject.
a) Criticism about the lack of AIF is probably quite new. Comments about stability probably isn't since this is a constant challenge but the point was that it in my view has become a problem, where as before it was not. Which background do you claim I am not familiar with by the way?
b) "not exceptionally valid" - I find it hard to decipher this comment.
c) And the conclusion is that criticism is of no concern. This is the kind of attitude that surprises and disappoints me.
Regarding comment on the sign-up, it followed the quality of the argument that it works as anti-spam which is kind of obvious if it even stops normal users from signing up.
]]>Sorry but I will just be honest with my opinions even though it is criticism . I've used Arch for around 6-7 years, and before that OpenBSD for longer than that.
Honesty is useless if the content is worthless. Rants are blog material, get one. And criticizing without knowing the background is the worst type of ranting, since your complaints are:-
a) not new
b) not exceptionally valid
c) because of a and b - not of concern to devs and moderators respectively (on the installer and forum sign-up process)
Concerning the sign-up process, suggesting that we just prevent sign-ups is an indication of the quality of conversation which is likely to follow on from that statement....
]]>And of course the anti-spam works, thought slightly less that just stopping people to register all together. The problem is that it also prevents people from joining the forum.
How? If they want to join, they're welcome. If there's a problem, please elaborate in another thread, but search the forums for similar 'why it's so hard to register on Arch Forum' threads first.
]]>infidel, many rants like this have already been posted. You registered today and have made three posts, two of them complaints. Have you been using Arch for very long? Many people "survived" the "broken" upgrades with no problems by reading the news or posts before or during the upgrade. Many people like the new install scripts better than the AIF. As was pointed out to you on your other thread, the "test" is an anti-spam device that seems to work very well, no matter what you may think of it.
Please read the Forum Etiquette before you alienate any more people; or are you sure you will never need to ask for help here?
Sorry but I will just be honest with my opinions even though it is criticism . I've used Arch for around 6-7 years, and before that OpenBSD for longer than that.
Regarding the updates I was previously voicing the opinion that Arch was mature and stable enough to be a production system server os even for the very demanding environments for which I was responsible. Recently with the upgrade problems I would be more careful with that opinion. I managed to break systems upgrading just by reading the posts before being creative. I can't even remember the last time I broke a system to the point of having to reinstall it, I don't think I ever have previously. Of course many "survived" but the point is the impact of those who didn't.
And of course the anti-spam works, thought slightly less that just stopping people to register all together. The problem is that it also prevents people from joining the forum.
]]>Please read the Forum Etiquette before you alienate any more people; or are you sure you will never need to ask for help here?
]]>zebulon wrote:Can you confirm this was indeed your issue? That the error happens because of this missing command?
I'm sure of it. It's reproducible every time.
zebulon wrote:Shouldn't the "ip link" be issued for any kind of connection, wired dynamic, static and wireless anyway? (in the template, it only appears for a static connection). Although I never had to use it prior to using DHCP.
The "ip link" command appears for ethX and wlanX interfaces in both the Configure Network and Configure Wireless pages.dhcpcd seems to bring up the link on its own and so does dhclient, so there's no need to issue ip link up beforehand. I only tested with a single wired interface though.
Thanks.
]]>Can you confirm this was indeed your issue? That the error happens because of this missing command?
I'm sure of it. It's reproducible every time.
Shouldn't the "ip link" be issued for any kind of connection, wired dynamic, static and wireless anyway? (in the template, it only appears for a static connection). Although I never had to use it prior to using DHCP.
The "ip link" command appears for ethX and wlanX interfaces in both the Configure Network and Configure Wireless pages.
dhcpcd seems to bring up the link on its own and so does dhclient, so there's no need to issue ip link up beforehand. I only tested with a single wired interface though.
]]>I think so.
Take a look at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … n_Template
Shouldn't the "ip link" be issued for any kind of connection, wired dynamic, static and wireless anyway? (in the template, it only appears for a static connection). Although I never had to use it prior to using DHCP.
The "ip link" command appears for ethX and wlanX interfaces in both the Configure Network and Configure Wireless pages.
MajorTom wrote:I think so.
Take a look at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … n_TemplateGood catch, it isn't in the beginner's guide: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Be … #Static_IP
Ah that's excellent, I'll update the guide. Can you confirm this was indeed your issue? That the error happens because of this missing command?
You may do the same thing for the problem you had with X.
Thanks.
]]>