Rate of change in Arch's structure.

progandy · 2012-08-15 16:43:23

AaronBP wrote:

Hopefully if someone does start to maintain AIF, the install scripts will still be maintained...
They are just so much better!

Maybe write an installer ontop of the installscripts? Then they will be maintained and there is no duplicate code.

ANOKNUSA · 2012-08-15 16:55:21

Near as I can tell, all AIF ever did was pass the commands every Archer should know through a menu to the back-end (pacman and ramfs). It seems to me that bootstrapping a new system using the same tools we all need to learn to use in our everyday lives is more sensible than sticking that ugly blue menu between the user and those tools. I personally also like the idea that, minutes after booting into the LiveCD, I'm effectively working with my own brand-new Arch system--chrooting into it and deploying the (base) and (base-devel) groups, then tweaking it to my liking--rather than having it magically appear on my disk after hitting the "OK" button. As someone who's done installs multiple times this seems much more straightforward, and I can imagine that while it might be daunting from a noob's perspective, the learning process is more in-depth and thus more beneficial in the long run.

lilsirecho · 2012-08-15 17:21:55

Really impressed with the discussion in this thread. Need more and more of it.

Standing by on systemd for a while to let it simmer. I suspect soon will come sooner and won't be able to stand-by.

Keep arch alive and well...communicate!

nixpunk · 2012-08-16 18:09:10

2ManyDogs wrote:

I see a lot of people posting in this thread without having actually tried systemd. It's like people complaining about the new install procedure without actually trying it. Try systemd for yourself. Try the new install procedure. Then you can tell us what you think -- in my opinion both are improvements and opportunities for people to learn more about how Arch really works.

If found the new install to be great. No room for lazyness, which I often fall victim to.

Further, I plan on reserving my judgment of systemd until I fully convert over. I plan on doing so this week.

Last edited by nixpunk (2012-08-16 18:12:40)

KimTjik · 2012-08-18 12:22:05

The move to systemd doesn't look as demanding as I thought. The Wiki entry is for good reasons quite complex, but in reality most won't have to deal with many changes or additional file configurations. I recently installed two systems, one just before the new install media. The former obviously included all those quirky steps to get up to date with current Arch system.

As a paradox it's the former system I've "migrated" to systemd. I saw how someone wrote about how it took him only 10 minutes to complete the transition, hence I gave it a shot and read up a bit, mainly the Wiki entry for systemd. To my surprise it was very simple, in many aspects thanks to how developers have chosen to remove many risks by having fall-back compatibility. I've still some things I need to understand better, like how daemons will be managed in a pure systemd environment (e g what's the future of rc.conf?). Another thing is to change mindset and use the quite powerful systemd commands to get info, instead of just reading simple text-files. Systemd is more complex, but I fully understand if it will become Arch default in the future.

If forgetting about everything else, boot speed with systemd is amazingly fast. Ok, I've use a SSD, but comparing speeds, it's still feels a bit odd to get SLiM up in 2-3 seconds.

Arch Linux

#76 2012-08-15 16:43:23

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

#77 2012-08-15 16:55:21

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

#78 2012-08-15 17:21:55

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

#79 2012-08-16 18:09:10

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

#80 2012-08-18 12:22:05

Re: Rate of change in Arch's structure.

Board footer