Yet another Arch Linux review

Eugenia · 2005-03-21 14:02:32

I published a review of Arch Linux:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10047
(reposted the link here as it seems more appropriate than in the current "off-topic" forum).

Suggestions welcome either here at the article's comment section. Slashdot also covers it, with a link from their Linux subsection.

arooaroo · 2005-03-21 14:22:24

I love how you can't post an OS review on OSNews anymore without the first comment being some useless whinge like:

$distro = "insert_favourite_distro";
I find $distro to be the best of all worlds, given you are a bit proficient with computers. Highly recommended for either a workstation or a server.
Name one fanboy of any distro where that wouldn't apply.

Mind you, at least that's not as stupid as the first comment I got where some punk inferred that I thought Arch == Windows!

nggalai · 2005-03-21 14:26:25

I already asked you on OSNews, so here's again:

Another weak point is the creation of home-made packages. Archers will advocate that makepkg is dead easy, but it's not as dead easy as Checkinstall (but still much easier than creating RPMs, of course). Makepkg still requires a bit of extra knowledge and some extra time. With Checkinstall you "./configure" and you "make" but at the end, instead of typing "make install", you type "checkinstall". Checkinstall will strip the binary, will create the package for you and will install it, all automatically. Makepkg is definetely not as convenient, at least for ex-Slackware users.

I don't know Slack, but do these packages also contain information about dependencies, file conflicts etc. as Arch packages do? If yes, I concede that the Slack way seems more straightforward. If no, you can't really compare the two, IMO.

93,
-Sascha.rb

arooaroo · 2005-03-21 14:32:19

nggalai wrote:

I don't know Slack, but do these packages also contain information about dependencies, file conflicts etc. as Arch packages do? If yes, I concede that the Slack way seems more straightforward. If no, you can't really compare the two, IMO.
93,
-Sascha.rb

This had occurred to me also. I can't imagine it does though. Maybe she was hinting that the checkinstall approach could be extended to cope with deps, and that would be better than the current ABS system. I don't know though, as I haven't tried either!

cmp · 2005-03-21 14:49:24

as far as I know slackware packages don't know dependecies. but a problem with the checkinstall aproach could be that you may have to be root (I never used it, but from what I've read, it could be this way.)

dp · 2005-03-21 14:52:05

nice text ... however i don't see what this numbers at the end mean:

Installation: 7.5/10
 Hardware Support: 9/10
 Ease of use: 6.5/10
 Features: 7.5/10
 Credibility: 9/10 (stability, bugs, security)
 Speed: 9/10 (UI responsiveness, latency, throughput)

what is 10? what is 0? what scalae are used? or is it subjective?
btw: in my eyes, hardware support is distro-independend (if you use up-to-date software)

cmp · 2005-03-21 14:55:58

I think the reference to arch's version being only 0.7 is disturbing, because with arch's roling release cycle this does not mean anything.

It's still in 0.7 version

arooaroo · 2005-03-21 14:56:31

cmp wrote:

as far as I know slackware packages don't know dependecies. but a problem with the checkinstall aproach could be that you may have to be root (I never used it, but from what I've read, it could be this way.)

Slack doesn't check deps (from what I've read). Also, as I understand, Checkinstall is an independent package, not a component of Slack per se. It can create slack, deb or rpm packages.

arooaroo · 2005-03-21 15:01:09

cmp wrote:

I think the reference to arch's version being only 0.7 is disturbing, because with arch's roling release cycle this does not mean anything.
It's still in 0.7 version

But in someways it does. Whilst I agree that the standard numbering of versioning in AL is not indicitive of its rolling release process, as 2005.1 and the like are. It does represent the status of the installation process at least.

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-03-21 15:46:55

dp wrote:

nice text ... however i don't see what this numbers at the end mean:
Installation: 7.5/10
 Hardware Support: 9/10
 Ease of use: 6.5/10
 Features: 7.5/10
 Credibility: 9/10 (stability, bugs, security)
 Speed: 9/10 (UI responsiveness, latency, throughput)
what is 10? what is 0? what scalae are used? or is it subjective?
btw: in my eyes, hardware support is distro-independend (if you use up-to-date software)

I most like "Features: 7.5/10". What are the 7.5 features, and how to get the other 2.5 features into arch? Is it a bug to have a half (0.5) feature beneath 7 ones?

Giggle. It's pure fun.

dp · 2005-03-21 16:00:53

Pink Chick wrote:

I most like "Features: 7.5/10". What are the 7.5 features, and how to get the other 2.5 features into arch? Is it a bug to have a half (0.5) feature beneath 7 ones?
Giggle. It's pure fun.

i got it:

[root@Asteraceae damir]# pacman -S figlet

Targets: figlet-2.2.1-2

Total Package Size:   0.1 MB

Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n]

:: Retrieving packages from extra...
 figlet-2.2.1-2           [----------------------------X                ] 75%     80K    39.6K/s  00:00:02

checking package integrity... done.
loading package data... done.
checking for file conflicts... done.

we are sorry, but we need another 0.5 features to continue installing figlet. try again later this year.

jerem · 2005-03-21 17:04:00

Dependencies in Slackware are not a pain as one might think.
As a recent Slackware user(I was using Arch but I wanted to give a try to Slack 10.1 and I really like it), I would say that I never had any problem to make a program work, and after 1 week of intensive usage, I manage myself the dependencies in a matter of seconds.

Of course, with Arch, it is lot faster and easier, but finally you do not know much more what libraries a program needs. And I feel that Slackware taught me that at least.

Slackware and Arch have their own feeling and it's not really a point of what distro is better than the other, it's rather a point of what distro feeling you like most.

Another thing I'd like to say is that Slackware too has an ABS-like system.
All the software provided in the CDs are also present in the source form, with a SlackBuild script than can be run along with Slacktrack to create a package.

And last thing, Checkinstall, Slacktrack, and Slackpkg ARE part of the Slackware CD set. They are in the /extra area.

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-03-21 17:17:12

dp wrote:

...
checking for file conflicts... done.
we are sorry, but we need another 0.5 features to continue installing figlet. try again later this year.

Really nice one! This is the direction, pacman should be enhanced ... to. Don't know if this makes sense in english grammar, but I don't care right now.

arooaroo · 2005-03-21 17:22:09

I know this 0.5 of a feature stuff is a joke. But it's not actually funny. Just makes you stoopid.

dp · 2005-03-21 17:25:17

arooaroo wrote:

I know this 0.5 of a feature stuff is a joke. But it's not actually funny. Just makes you stoopid.

sorry, i cannot find the pid of "stoo":

[damir@Asteraceae ~]$ pidof "stoo"

[damir@Asteraceae ~]$

Dusty · 2005-03-21 17:30:11

Hey look, the old dp is back!!! You must be having a slack week at school Damir, hijacking innocent threads and such... Why didn't you tell me, I hate to join these parties so late!

Dusty

arooaroo · 2005-03-21 17:30:14

dp wrote:

sorry, i cannot find the pid of "stoo":
[damir@Asteraceae ~]$ pidof "stoo"

[damir@Asteraceae ~]$

 pacman -S stoo
 stoo
 pidof stoo

Surely?

dp · 2005-03-21 17:38:52

arooaroo wrote:

 pacman -S stoo
 stoo
 pidof stoo

Surely?

[root@Asteraceae damir]# pacman -Ss stoo
current/dosfstools 2.10-1
    DOS filesystem utilities

dp · 2005-03-21 17:45:00

Dusty wrote:

Hey look, the old dp is back!!! You must be having a slack week at school Damir, hijacking innocent threads and such... Why didn't you tell me, I hate to join these parties so late!
Dusty

it's not hijacking - well, maybe a little bit - it's all in the spirit of the matter ... the only way to think about such serious matters like "life, love, death, equlibirum of things (aka peace (aka periods between wars)), culture, linux distro reviews, existence, evolution" is to take them funny - they do not expect that from you!

Dusty · 2005-03-21 17:49:45

dp wrote:

the only way to think about such serious matters like "life, love, death, equlibirum of things (aka peace (aka periods between wars)), culture, linux distro reviews, existence, evolution"

Not to mention text editors, free software vs open source, GNU/Linux vs Linux, and proprietary drivers.

Oh, and religion.

Dusty

dp · 2005-03-21 17:52:05

Dusty wrote:

Oh, and religion.

... nothing wrong with religion, if i'm not involved in. ;-)

/ / / /

phrakture · 2005-03-21 19:41:47

Dusty wrote:

Not to mention text editors, free software vs open source, GNU/Linux vs Linux, and proprietary drivers.

EMACs R TEH RULEX0r!

dp · 2005-03-21 20:04:26

phrakture wrote:

Dusty wrote:
Not to mention text editors, free software vs open source, GNU/Linux vs Linux, and proprietary drivers.
EMACs R TEH RULEX0r!

let me guess what this means:

eMac users drink tea and wear rulex watches as a rule!

Dusty · 2005-03-21 20:39:52

dp wrote:

phrakture wrote:
EMACs R TEH RULEX0r!
let me guess what this means:
eMac users drink tea and wear rulex watches as a rule!

Maybe:

Eighty Megabytes and counting some rotten Text Editor has really ugly lisp editing times zero readability.

I honestly can't believe I came up with that.

Dusty

cactus · 2005-03-21 20:43:47

Arch Linux

#1 2005-03-21 14:02:32

Yet another Arch Linux review

#2 2005-03-21 14:22:24

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#3 2005-03-21 14:26:25

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#4 2005-03-21 14:32:19

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#5 2005-03-21 14:49:24

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#6 2005-03-21 14:52:05

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#7 2005-03-21 14:55:58

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#8 2005-03-21 14:56:31

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#9 2005-03-21 15:01:09

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#10 2005-03-21 15:46:55

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#11 2005-03-21 16:00:53

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#12 2005-03-21 17:04:00

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#13 2005-03-21 17:17:12

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#14 2005-03-21 17:22:09

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#15 2005-03-21 17:25:17

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#16 2005-03-21 17:30:11

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#17 2005-03-21 17:30:14

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#18 2005-03-21 17:38:52

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#19 2005-03-21 17:45:00

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#20 2005-03-21 17:49:45

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#21 2005-03-21 17:52:05

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#22 2005-03-21 19:41:47

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#23 2005-03-21 20:04:26

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#24 2005-03-21 20:39:52

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

#25 2005-03-21 20:43:47

Re: Yet another Arch Linux review

Board footer