Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

Dusty · 2005-12-02 01:21:30

For those that don't know the context, you might find this an entertaing or long boring read:

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/3553

I'm pretty much ready to leave Arch after this. I haven't decided where I'll go, but I'll know when I get there. I have a few comments though.

The recent changes seem to have bothered a lot of people. and I wondered why. I remembered similar complaints several times before, for example with the update from devfs to udev. I've seen this story many times and this is the first time I was on the 'negative' side of the fence. I wondered what was different this time.

For those who are a bit fed up with Arch, I'd like to suggest that Arch hasn't changed. You have. I realize this is true with me -- I'm a much much busier person than I was six months ago. I don't have time for little things like adding one line to lilo.conf and praying that nothing screws up. Its fine if it doesn't break, but if it does, where do I stand? I don't want to find out. The change requested is no worse than the huge flare-up over udev and devfs a while ago. At that time I thought "what's the big deal". Now I see what people were thinking then, and I'd like to proactively argue that arch hasn't changed, before somebody posts a whiney post saying how everything's gone downhill.

Thanks,
Dusty

cactus · 2005-12-02 01:38:51

so...your saying that I have gone downhill?
/me checks his self before he wrecks his self

why...I think your right Dusty.
/me nods solemnly

Very astute observation.

Dusty · 2005-12-02 01:43:38

cactus wrote:

so...your saying that I have gone downhill?.

No, uphill, you doofus!

Please tell me something about Ubuntu. I didn't like it when I tried it, but there must be *something* out there....

Dusty

mezoko · 2005-12-02 01:58:50

Dusty I know what your saying I hate updating my webserver oh and I hate ubuntu cause it breaks on me

kakabaratruskia · 2005-12-02 03:05:12

I like being forced to learn. I'm too lazy to do it by my own will. Anyway I always get mad when my computer gets screwed, but I feel like god when it comes back to life.

mezoko · 2005-12-02 03:26:34

^^
Lol, it worse when it a server that breaks and trying to figure out whats wrong. I did a samba update and it broke the way I had the printer working and then everyone in my house had to print!

judland · 2005-12-02 03:55:59

I may have mis-read the context of this post, but I'll comment anyway.

I've just come from the world of Debian - distros (Kanotix) and I have to say that, even though Arch is forcing me to take time and learn what I'm doing in order to set-up my system in the first place, I feel I'm going to come out ahead in the long run.

I've been using Kanotix now for well over a year. It's worked great for me and my limited skills up to this point, but I'm starting to get frustrated with it. Kanotix is cutting edge Debian SID. The problem with this is the SID maintainers are starting to cause problems with all of the changes they're going through. In the past six months, I've upgraded my system four times... three of those time resulted in a broken system, forcing me to Jerry-rig work-arounds as the community waits for the SID developers to catch up with on another.

I'm kind of tired of waiting, with a broken system for who-know-who to do who-knows-what so my system is workable AND up-to-date again. I've avoided updating my Kanotix system for almost two months now, cause I don't want to spend another weekend fixing a bunch of broken packages. Look at KDE 3.5 for example. How long would I have to wait for that to show up in SID? A month... maybe two?

Ubuntu is even more restrictive as it makes you sort of dependant on their own brand of Debian. Pure Debian packages don't always work under Ubuntu. So, unless you're happy with what the Ubuntu team are giving you, I'd expect to be a little frustrated some time down the road. Again, they may have KDE 3.5 available sooner... unfortunately, it would most likely be an Ubuntu'ed version of KDE 3.5 rather than the original.

Now, I'm not saying Ubuntu doesn't have its place and purpose. It does. And for those purposes, it does great. But it's not what I want in a system anymore.

Enter Arch. I'm sticking with Current and Extra repositories (along with AURs) and I've been enjoying it very much. I get a cutting edge system that works, and hassle free updating with Pacman. Best of all, I can build my own packages and not have to depend on a single source of packages to keep my system running if I don't want to.

To sum up, I've come from the world of RPMs and Apt-get. They, like Ubuntu and Kanotix, are great for certain purposes and people, but in no way offer the control and flexibility I've found in Arch.

A lot of the Testing that's currently going on may be an annoyance... but isn't that what Testing means? I personally feel that it's a small price to pay compared to the alternatives.

As for hwdetect... can one not just opt-out of having it installed /run on their system if they so wanted to?

paranoos · 2005-12-02 04:27:25

don't go anywhere, dusty!

no distro will fix the issue of having to deal with changes... except Debian Stable. and that's because it doesn't change.

really, the whole initrd thing was blown out of proportion. if you're the type of user who needs their computer working without a hassle, then simply don't upgrade until you have time to deal with things. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. besides, the initrd kernel is only in testing.

and i'm going to be harsh here, but don't pipe up about not having time to do something you aren't required to do.

i'm simply going to slap my forehead and ignore this, like the few other spats i've witnessed here. i don't know how arch found so many doomsday-criers for users.

Dusty · 2005-12-02 08:37:55

I'm not crying doomsday, I'm trying to prevent it. I'm moving on because I've changed, not because Arch has. Arch is still the perfect distro for the kind of user I was six months ago. I was mostly trying to proactively avoid one of the famous "I'm so special, I quit, arch won't survive without me" posts that we get around here, because I know it isn't true.

Dusty

arooaroo · 2005-12-02 08:38:15

I vote for DustyLinux!

Go on boy, you know you want to B)

AndyRTR · 2005-12-02 09:46:27

If you want full flexibility in Linux world you will only find one alternative: LFS. Maybe you should have a look at plan9 ;-)

Dr.U · 2005-12-02 12:21:02

I can appreciate Dusty's position. Although I consider myself still a Noobie, I feel compelled to make a post here. I didn't get involved in the initrd problems because I stick to 'current' and 'extra', avoiding testing like the plague.

But now when updating the initscripts from 'current' I think that there should be a depency or whatever that lets you know about which kernel version is required for the scripts to work. I still run the kernel that came with my 0.7 Arch install done back in Feb. 2005 and if I use the current initscripts 'as is' (or is that 'as are'?), my box won't boot. I have to be sure to deactivate the use of hdwdetect -- and that took me a while to discover (using another distro that I have installed!). Such stuff belongs in 'testing', and if it gets into 'current' then either with the necessary dependencies or in a form that doesn't lock up your machine

OK, that's my load. All the arrogant gurus with loads of time on their hands can go ahead and flame me because I really don't give a shit about what they think

Stick around Dusty. I don't think that anyplace else is any better -- and I think that you could help to improve Arch by your contributions, even if they become less frequent because you have less time. Some people, it seems, actually do have a life :shock:

Regards,
-- Dr.U
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really do not know that anything has ever been more
exciting than diagramming sentences. -- Gertrude Stein

T-Dawg · 2005-12-02 12:23:18

paranoos wrote:

i don't know how arch found so many doomsday-criers for users.

+1

You'll be back, Dusty. They always come back :twisted:

s0lar · 2005-12-02 14:13:37

I still use the current kernel without initrd image. I don't wanna upgrade, things work fine as it is, so why would I. I also use hwd, it is fast enough and I don't wanna try hwdetect. Make it built in and automatically configured, make sure I don't get into problems when I upgrade and then I wouldn't care. The only problem I get is I can't start k3b and I can't use kde, also if I compile my own kernel, ndiswrapper fails to load, nor pacman -S ndiswrapper nor compile it myself work. But I will stay using Arch, it is the best distro I have used so far.

Dusty · 2005-12-02 15:14:42

AndyRTR wrote:

If you want full flexibility in Linux world you will only find one alternative: LFS.

Been there, done that. ;-)

Penguin wrote:

You'll be back, Dusty. They always come back

That's what I said when farphel left... :-D

I think that you could help to improve Arch by your contributions

How much do you want from me!? I've contributed a lot already!

Now that I've got initrd kernel enabled and hwdetect disabled, everything's ok here again. I'm still looking for something 64 bit and I don't have the time I would like to contribute to our port. I'm also tired of the "You just have to change one line in...." philosophy of Arch. This isn't necessarily a problem for me, but I have Arch running on both my parents' and my sister's machines, which are two and four provinces away, and I can't easily test these one line edits. I want something that is a bit more robust all round.

Again, this isn't a problem with Arch, I'm not asking for anything to be changed, I just don't have the time for tinkering that I used to have. I used to enjoy it, now its an annoyance. For the time being, I need something else. It could be a few days before I can even get to running the installer for Kubuntu!

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-12-02 15:55:30

Dr.U wrote:

But now when updating the initscripts from 'current' I think that there should be a depency or whatever that lets you know about which kernel version is required for the scripts to work. I still run the kernel that came with my 0.7 Arch install done back in Feb. 2005 and if I use the current initscripts 'as is' (or is that 'as are'?), my box won't boot. I have to be sure to deactivate the use of hdwdetect -- and that took me a while to discover (using another distro that I have installed!). Such stuff belongs in 'testing', and if it gets into 'current' then either with the necessary dependencies or in a form that doesn't lock up your machine

Just a note - no packages are made to depend on the kernel - this allows users to build custom kernels with no issues as far as packaging goes. However, part of running Arch means staying up to date - this does include the kernel. If you're using the kernel off the 0.7 install, that's, what, 2.6.8 ?

dtw · 2005-12-02 17:53:35

Well, phrak, ati in [community] depends on archck - someone was bound to say it!

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-12-02 18:48:00

Dusty, you read my mind. I had five machines running arch once, but had different problems to fight on each one. Plus edit everything on each machine for five times, with specials for each machine. Now, I have arch on my laptop - and four times ubuntu. Yes, ubuntu is limited, you depend on the progress the ubuntu team gives you. But I have earned time. Now, even my kids can update their machines, the apps do fine, everything fits. Therefore, I have more time for other things, like learning saxophone, doing the family, use the computers - instead of configurating them again and again and again, 'cause one decides KISS would be simple. No, it is not simple. It is simple to maintain, but a lot of work for the user.

judland · 2005-12-02 18:56:33

Well, if that's the way you're looking at going, I'd recommend Kanotix over Ubuntu/Kubuntu any day.

Gullible Jones · 2005-12-02 20:19:48

If you want Arch to be easy to use, don't use the Testing repo.

mmccaskill · 2005-12-02 20:27:41

While I agree that changes can be frustrating I think it is important to keep in mind that Judd and others have fulltime jobs, bills to pay and mouths to feed. Things may be bumpy for a short time but not long enough to discourage many users to disband.

Keep up the great work Judd and others. Things will work out just fine.

Snarkout · 2005-12-02 20:32:56

judland wrote:

Well, if that's the way you're looking at going, I'd recommend Kanotix over Ubuntu/Kubuntu any day.

Or even plain old debian sid. I've had a bellyfull of Kubuntu at this point, and am trying to figure out WTF to move to at this point.

judland · 2005-12-02 21:02:05

Yup, if it weren't for the fact that I found Arch, I'd most likely be sticking with Debian SID.

sudman1 · 2005-12-02 21:03:19

Paraphrase:

Dusty wrote:

I'm sorry Arch, it's not you, it's me. I just need some time to find myself.

j/k I feel your pain and also wish I had time to contribute to Arch64, but alas it isn't so. I hope you find what you're looking for. However, I know I haven't found anything better than Arch - and don't know that I really would want to any time soon.

judland · 2005-12-02 21:59:06

Hey, Dusty, what about something like Underground Desktop?

I haven't tried it myself, but it boasts an easy installer and such, and based on Arch! Could we be seeing the best of both worlds here?

Arch Linux

#1 2005-12-02 01:21:30

Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#2 2005-12-02 01:38:51

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#3 2005-12-02 01:43:38

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#4 2005-12-02 01:58:50

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#5 2005-12-02 03:05:12

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#6 2005-12-02 03:26:34

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#7 2005-12-02 03:55:59

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#8 2005-12-02 04:27:25

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#9 2005-12-02 08:37:55

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#10 2005-12-02 08:38:15

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#11 2005-12-02 09:46:27

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#12 2005-12-02 12:21:02

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#13 2005-12-02 12:23:18

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#14 2005-12-02 14:13:37

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#15 2005-12-02 15:14:42

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#16 2005-12-02 15:55:30

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#17 2005-12-02 17:53:35

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#18 2005-12-02 18:48:00

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#19 2005-12-02 18:56:33

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#20 2005-12-02 20:19:48

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#21 2005-12-02 20:27:41

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#22 2005-12-02 20:32:56

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#23 2005-12-02 21:02:05

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#24 2005-12-02 21:03:19

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

#25 2005-12-02 21:59:06

Re: Has the arch philosophy changed? No.

Board footer