You are not logged in.

#26 2007-01-08 21:31:41

Mikko777
Member
From: Suomi, Finland
Registered: 2006-10-30
Posts: 837

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

Well, I for one would like to see a simple guide of a complete laptop linux setup.

I don't necessarily need it to be "step by step" guide but more like: "what did you install on your computer" ... kind of a guide.

Reason I think this kind of guide would benefit ppl is that you could learn from more experienced linux users.

With other distros you get these pro developers configuring you stuff that you may or may not need, but incase you would need some more of the fancier under the hood features, you don't have any idea where to start looking.

Examples:

My laptop is working just fine but i don't think i have any kind of powersaving features atm...
In ubuntu there was this nice on screen display in gnome when you change volume levels etc...
that reminds me my laptop "shortcut" keys ain't working either...
what modules / daemons to have running and what they do etc...

Well i hope you get the point, small things but what to do after the installation kind of guide would be highly apreciated smile

Offline

#27 2007-01-08 22:29:52

stmok
Member
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: 2006-11-19
Posts: 72

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

The issue is the needs of the user. (Because that's really the final decider).

In this particular case, the person (original poster) wants the benefit of Arch, but doesn't want the learning requirements attached to it. (Which may be tedious for a considerable number of people out there). This leads me to believe that Arch isn't specifically for this person. (Or they need someone to guide them by holding their hand).

If you look at what they want, a guide equivalent to the "ubuntuguide", you'll see they don't want to learn. You can see this by looking at the tone of the original post. Notice the impatience and the fustration?

But if they don't want to learn, then that's OK. Distros like Arch isn't really for them.


Arch is well-suited for folks like Mikko777. They don't demand a "hand holding" guide, but a rough one to point them in the general direction.

While I agree the organisation of the wiki is a mess (the search is a bit odd), I was able to figure out how to set up all I need for my IBM ThinkPad. (CPU is on "Power on Demand" mode and will dynamically adjust the speed when needed. As well as "suspend to RAM" with "suspend to disk" backup hibernation. I even managed to get my trackpad and trackpointer working).


I don't mean to counter you Dusty, but the way I see it, distros are made in a certain way to address a certain audience. Yes, it would be nice if more people used Arch, but the way Arch is aimed (its goals), its not specifically targetting the same crowd as Ubuntu is.

I see it as aimed for the semi-techie crowd with enough patience and persistance to overcome that initial Linux learning curve hurdle, and get things working for themselves.


My only hints for the newbie are:

* Get a notepad to scribble your own notes down.

* You may need to experiment and search on other sources.

For Example: Arch's wiki didn't cover everything I needed for setting up my ThinkPad. I had to go to the well known "thinkwiki" (a wiki for ThinkPads running Linux).

* You're gonna end up finding more than one way to do something from multiple sources (say from Google). I usually try them all, and go with the one that works best for ME. (Meaning you may have different preferences to mine).

* You should write or plan your own guide...You eventually figure out that you need to install something before you install something else...Other times, say for KDE, you don't need to install the whole set. (I only need the base, libs and multimedia components)...Anyway, this may take a couple of repetitions.

* Don't be afraid to ask for help. But be specific about it. Provide the necessary details and the problem with error messages you're seeing. (Don't write a life story or be vague about it).

I also find its wiser to try something yourself and demonstrate this, mainly because experienced users will see you have given it a shot, but need a little help in resolving your issue.


Arch Linux took me about a week to learn, such that I was confident to build the desktop boxes to the way I want it. (I refined my own guide down such that it suited me). The notebook took another 3 days because I had to figure and try out the various power saving options, etc.

Those first 7 days involved trying out KDE, Gnome and XFce. I settled for KDE, as I wanted to develop Qt based apps in the future.

I'm currently building a MythTV box, but there is a few extra things one has to do. (In Australia, we don't have a service like Zap2it, to get our Electronic Programming Guide, so we have to use a custom script to gram XMLTV data).

The capture card and the remote seems to work, but I have yet to get my MCE USB remote working with MPlayer. (It works such that when running the test app, irw, indicates the PC does pick up all the commands from the remote)...But nothing happens with MPlayer.


The most important thing the hacker community does is write better code. Our deeds are the best propaganda we have. -Eric S. Raymond

Offline

#28 2007-01-08 22:35:45

rayjgu3
Member
From: Chicago IL usa
Registered: 2004-07-04
Posts: 692

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

heres my $.02 on this
if youd like an archlinux guide write it then post it in the wiki
the problem i have with writing a guide is once its done its outdated
heres kinda an install guide
base install
change repositories to closer to home
pacman -Syu
pacman -S xorg hwd de/wm (of your coice) other packages you want 
hwd -xa <creates /etc/X11/xorg.conf <check to make sure all is ok
hwd -s  = hardware detection Simple
hwd -e  = hardware detection Expert
hwd -h  = to better explain the use of the 2 previous commands
edit /etc/group  , to add user to appropriate groups
done

if your looking for a specific package but dont know the name
pacman -Ss video or
pacman -Ss office
the -Ss is for searching

there thats a pretty basic install guide you probably want more but others i think would agree that, that theres an install guide

if your gonna run archlinux be prepared to read & learn alot till you get the jist of what its all about. once you do i think youll agree lean & mean is what its all about, no need in having packages your not going to use, they just take up space .

Offline

#29 2007-01-09 05:13:58

neighborlee
Member
Registered: 2004-04-07
Posts: 5
Website

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

rayjgu3 wrote:

heres my $.02 on this
if youd like an archlinux guide write it then post it in the wiki
the problem i have with writing a guide is once its done its outdated
heres kinda an install guide
base install
change repositories to closer to home
pacman -Syu
pacman -S xorg hwd de/wm (of your coice) other packages you want 
hwd -xa <creates /etc/X11/xorg.conf <check to make sure all is ok
hwd -s  = hardware detection Simple
hwd -e  = hardware detection Expert
hwd -h  = to better explain the use of the 2 previous commands
edit /etc/group  , to add user to appropriate groups
done

if your looking for a specific package but dont know the name
pacman -Ss video or
pacman -Ss office
the -Ss is for searching

there thats a pretty basic install guide you probably want more but others i think would agree that, that theres an install guide

if your gonna run archlinux be prepared to read & learn alot till you get the jist of what its all about. once you do i think youll agree lean & mean is what its all about, no need in having packages your not going to use, they just take up space .

There is nothing wrong with learning, to suggest otherwise would be ignorant of the important value behind this philosophy wink..however having said that...IF arch really is as good as Im hearing in some reviews ( gives emerge a run for its money and a nice simple rc.conf and fast system/bootup), then I think you are all missing the point ( possibly due to arrogance blinding you ) entirely which is a fast, stable efficient system deserves to be used by everyone not just those, that out of the box can handle the linux CLI.. wink

Is it fair to keep  newbies  (  especially those coming from windows or say mandriva? which have ease of use as FOCal point!) away from arch because the focus all this time prevents a userbase from signing on that just might PEEK interest in a system that clearly  many think is superior ?

Is it not possible to make it easier (at least for those choosing that route)  to install arch and then gently suggest what to do to learn about it afterwards ?..whats wrong with that logic  ? wink

It reminds me of a saying..you catch more flys with honey than flyswatters ....;000

let the rants begin ( because frankly im used to it in the linux community,- but if im prove wrong Id love it ).

cheers
nl


-One Heart at a time.
http://www.heartseed.org

Offline

#30 2007-01-09 07:30:18

stmok
Member
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: 2006-11-19
Posts: 72

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

neighborlee wrote:

IF arch really is as good as Im hearing in some reviews ( gives emerge a run for its money and a nice simple rc.conf and fast system/bootup), then I think you are all missing the point ( possibly due to arrogance blinding you ) entirely which is a fast, stable efficient system deserves to be used by everyone not just those, that out of the box can handle the linux CLI.. wink

Is it fair to keep  newbies  (  especially those coming from windows or say mandriva? which have ease of use as FOCal point!) away from arch because the focus all this time prevents a userbase from signing on that just might PEEK interest in a system that clearly  many think is superior ?

Is it not possible to make it easier (at least for those choosing that route)  to install arch and then gently suggest what to do to learn about it afterwards ?..whats wrong with that logic  ? wink

It reminds me of a saying..you catch more flys with honey than flyswatters ....;000

let the rants begin ( because frankly im used to it in the linux community,- but if im prove wrong Id love it ).

cheers
nl

roll

The problem with that logic, is that once people have a distro handed to them on a silver platter, they will NOT bother learning or take things any further. That's a FACT.

Think about it: Ubuntu vs Debian...Ubuntu is really nothing more than Debian "Etch" (v4.0) with a few changes to make life easier for the clueless. (I know this because I've tried both).

How many Ubuntu users do you think will transitioned to Debian? None. They won't. Why? Because Ubuntu takes less effort to set up. They will not bother with a base install, and build their desktop to the ground up. As a result, they won't learn...Simply because they don't want to.

Once something is pre-made, people don't care anymore, it works...No need to learn anything major, just enough to get you by. Everything is done for you. Its a blackbox.

This goes entirely against the nature of Arch Linux itself!
=> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

The basic nature of Arch.

    * Lightweight and simple.
    * Not designed to be a newbie distro it is intended for a more experienced user.

Arch was NEVER intended for the beginner with little or no Linux experience. (It was never made to draw in the "Windows crowd" like Ubuntu or OpenSUSE is). 

Its made for the experienced Linux user OR a user with good technical background about PCs, but haven't tried a distro like Arch before. A distro that is logically and cleanly laid out, with a good package manager.

It is NOT for one that just came from Windows, with no Linux experience, little patience, no persistance when they run into trouble, and just want everything to work out of the box, etc. If they want that, they should consider other distros.


The point I'm trying to make is, distros are made by developers for a specific audience and purpose. If the user agrees and likes the intended goal of the distro, they will have little problem jumping in.

Trying to "shoe horn" new users into distros not intended for them OR not pointing them to the right distro for THEIR requirements is a serious dis-service to them.

One shouldn't over-encourage people to adopt a specific distro because they, themselves use it. (Just because its easy for you, doesn't mean its easy for them).

One should encourage the thinking to approach Linux by looking at the NEEDS OF THE USER first, even before selecting the distro.

Now if Arch Linux fits their requirements, then that's great. If not, I rather point them to another distro that's better suited for what THEY need.


OT: One very important issue with encouraging new users, is that if you over do it, you will do more harm than good. If they face something that's too hard or takes too much of their time, they will go running back to their previous platform or go looking for another one. They will assume ALL Linux distros are like that.

Remember, the majority are coming from Windows. Using Windows for too long creates some VERY BAD habits and affects the user in a very adverse way. The most obvious one is the complete lack of patience and is easily fustrated. They don't ask questions when they run into trouble, they whinge and complain. Giving them the wrong distro will have adverse consequences on Linux adoption as a whole.


The overall message I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't encourage someone to adopt something when its clearly not for them to begin with. Help them list their needs and requirements, and from that, suggest possible solutions for THEM.

No one would suggest a PC gamer to use Linux, because the infrastructure to get Windows games working seamlessly is NOT there. Wine and Cedega are "roll of the dice" solutions...Meaning, you won't know what problems and issues you run into, until you try it for yourself.

One should understand the intent of the developer of the distro AND the requirements of the user, before suggesting anything.

The original post is asking for a guide because they aren't able to to piece together a general installation procedure for themselves.

Now, do you want the Devs to drop the ideals behind this distro, because of a user demanding convenience? Do you expect the same from Debian or Slackware?

No. They stuck to their guns, and that's what makes those distros so great. That's also why they have lasted this long! (Both Slackware and Debian are the oldest surviving distros of Linux).

That's why you see the existance of Ubuntu/Mepis/etc and Vector Linux...Easy to install distros based on "harder" ones.


One idea is that you have two groups within the Arch Linux project.

One is the traditional Arch Linux team, that only provides the "base install" CD. (About 200MB-ish)...This is for the experienced folks, or those who just need a base to build on. (Its better than downloading a 700MB CD.

The other team creates a distro that is easy to install. I assume that is the point of the Arch Linux Office Install CD
=> http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=23815


The most important thing the hacker community does is write better code. Our deeds are the best propaganda we have. -Eric S. Raymond

Offline

#31 2007-01-09 12:38:05

sokuban
Member
Registered: 2006-11-11
Posts: 404

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

The only distro for experianced Linux users is not a distro. That means building Linux from scratch (possibly using the book.)

The sole point of Arch (or any distro) is to make things easy for people who use them. Basically for people who are too stupid/lazy/not have enough free time to set up linux by themselves or want a good package manager. These things are all convenience, some distros offer more than others and some people don't like too much.

All linux is the exact same, theoretically I could start with LFS and set it up exactly like an installed ubuntu. Of course doing so would be the most hellish and impossible thing to do, but I am just saying. I can do the same with arch so the whole point of using a distro is to get things done easier.

Just for the record, I went from ubuntu to debian, though I didn't stay with debian for long so I just tell everyone I come from ubuntu. (I come from a lifetime of windows.)

But here is the thing, newbies aren't being kept away from arch. Why just a few months ago I made a thread talking about how I was an idiot and I was coming to arch and everyone came to me with open hands, told me of updated tpowa isos and life was well. I would say that newbies are welcomed to arch.

Disclaimer, this post is sponsored by melon pan don't ever take anything I say seriously. My whole post is full of lies.

Offline

#32 2007-01-09 14:55:30

timm
Member
From: Wisconsin
Registered: 2004-02-25
Posts: 417

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

One problem I've had with the wiki is that sometimes the search function doesn't seem to work so well.  I've gone looking for something I know should be there, but without searching for the right "magic word" I'd come up with no results, even though the word I had searched for ultimately is in the document when I track it down. 

Don't know if this is a setting, a function of the wiki software that's being used, or something else.

Offline

#33 2007-01-09 15:02:59

Sigi
Member
From: Thurgau, Switzerland
Registered: 2005-09-22
Posts: 1,121

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

timm: may it be the case that you've searched for terms with 3 or less letters?


Dammit, haven't been here in a while. Still rocking Arch. smile

Offline

#34 2007-01-09 15:54:18

arooaroo
Member
From: London, UK
Registered: 2005-01-13
Posts: 1,268
Website

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

Sigi wrote:

timm: may it be the case that you've searched for terms with 3 or less letters?

Which isn't handy. Searching for 'ATI', 'KDE', 'E16', 'DPI', 'DVD', USB', 'AUR' are some plausible searches, and there are many more given that IT is the spiritual home of the TLA.

I understand why that default exists, but it's less relevant to keep that restriction in place in a technology wiki.

Offline

#35 2007-01-09 19:00:20

Misfit138
Misfit Emeritus
From: USA
Registered: 2006-11-27
Posts: 4,170

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

A huge contributing factor to a Linux newb 's frustration is the establishment of the Windows OS. To begin with, it is the benchmark desktop OS which has a 90% market share. Everyone has had exposure to it, and most people have started with it. That means that when people try Linux, they are expecting it to behave like Windows. In my few years of Linux experience, one thing I have learned is how different the two operating systems are. Linux distros are totally counterintuitive to a Windows user. Package management, idiosyncratic installation processes, source compiling and command line are just day-to-day processes for the Linux user, whereas a Linux newb will immediately be, not only intimidated, but disgusted by the seemingly overcomplicated series of cryptic maneuvers needed to get simple tasks done.
This brings to light strengths and weaknesses of Linux and Windows. Windows shines as a platform, but is weak as an operating system. Windows is ridiculously simple. It is so simple, you barely notice it's even there. The strength is in the availability of games and software, including audio and video editing, Adobe CS, CAD, and the rest of the great wide softare industry.
Linux shines in its strength as an operating system, it is powerful as such. The power of the command line gives the user (or, more accurately, the su) complete control of his machine. Everything in the entire OS is transparent, from the bootup and shutdown output to the very source code of the daemons which take control therein. Errors and breakage can be tracked down and fixed through logs and terminal output.
The trouble is, coming from Windows, no one cares. Linux newbies want to point and click to install drivers and software. They don't want to type into a command line to edit conf files, because it is work that in their view (justifiably so, perhaps), they shouldn't have to do. In their view, the GUI is the usable tool of the modern OS which should allow the user an intuitive method of fumbling through menus which are laid out logically until they find the checkbox which yields the desired result.
The Linux user has adapted to a legacy inherited from Unix, and simply doesn't care about user-friendly GUI's or intuitive "control panel" type configuration tools, because it is second nature to them to configure and fix everything from the command line; the GUI is merely an adjunct, an afterthought, a tool to get a different kind of work done.
These, in my view, are a few reasons for the phenomenon which I have observed and experienced during my exposure to Linux.
I read once that Linux is like a Heathkit, or a 1969 Harley Davidson panhead, or a recording studio mixing board, all of which require patience and tweaking to get and keep running, and these are good analogies.
Windows is like a Revell Model of a 1969 HD, which is snap-together and molded in color, or even more like mass transportation, like a bus, with someone else driving. Windows is no-nonsense, and as I stated, is weak as an OS but strong as a platform.
I love Linux because it stimulates me and intrigues me. It is a hobby which costs nothing but my annual donations and some time invested in learning the OS. Time spent learning is worth it.
The 2 systems couldn't be more different, and yet the end result is the same: we use our machines to get a little bit of work done and a whole lot of playing done.  tongue

Offline

#36 2007-01-09 20:17:21

ibrahim
Member
Registered: 2006-02-18
Posts: 53

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

stmok wrote:

Think about it: Ubuntu vs Debian...Ubuntu is really nothing more than Debian "Etch" (v4.0) with a few changes to make life easier for the clueless. (I know this because I've tried both).

How many Ubuntu users do you think will transitioned to Debian? None. They won't. Why? Because Ubuntu takes less effort to set up. They will not bother with a base install, and build their desktop to the ground up. As a result, they won't learn...Simply because they don't want to.

Once something is pre-made, people don't care anymore, it works...No need to learn anything major, just enough to get you by. Everything is done for you. Its a blackbox.

Why would someone with a working ubuntu box switch to Debian? Linux is an operating system, nothing more. It certainly isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a consistently shifting platform where people continually "upgrade" in some vain effort to display how supposedly intelligent they are. I'm suer that you must be aware that some people who know far more about Linux, computers, programming and life than you use ubuntu right?

And coming from someone with such a condescending attitude towards any pleb with the gall to use something prebuilt I can only assume that you're typing all of your posts on a pc with custom components that you fashioned yourself with your bare hands. I'm sure that you wrote your keyboards drivers yourself and of course you wouldn't stoop so low as to use arch linux yourself. Arch is just for those disgusting people who are too lazy and stupid to actually learn about the computer architechture and write an OS for themselves

Offline

#37 2007-01-10 02:01:21

rayjgu3
Member
From: Chicago IL usa
Registered: 2004-07-04
Posts: 692

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

wow this thread is getting wordy
i dont know about all of you but yes i had a huge learning curve coming into linux i used windows for about 2.5 years ( i didnt play with pc's in my earlier years) then i tried redhat , i got a copy from the local library i got it installed but after that i was lost i messed with it till it wouldnt boot without errors i couldnt figure out on my own. then about a year later a friend gave me mandrake 9.2 i used mandrake up till 10.1 i thought i knew alot about linux so i saw archlinux on linuxiso.org<which is not up now< it was i686 optimized & in english . it took me like 2 weeks to get arch installed & into kde checkout my 1st  post, now im able to get a clean install & gui up in about an 45 min to an hour. so my point is this unless you come from gentoo, lfs  or some other distro that requires you to pretty much configure things on your own your gonna have to read/learn alot & I MEAN ALOT & sometimes you HAVE to figure it out on your own with some pointers example  here sometimes its hard to get the stuff you want done but as in life the things worth having require long hard work & for me the work is worth it , i have learned alot & will continue to learn & gladly help any one who wishes to learn if i can
if you dont want to learn/read your not going to do well with linux in any flavor
again just my $.02

Offline

#38 2007-01-10 02:03:50

skale
Member
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: 2006-08-04
Posts: 146

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

About the "under the hood" thing, I had the same experience.  Even if you try to understand everything you are doing, there are many important aspects of linux you never see or even think about.  ACPI is one.  Xorg is another.  And it goes on. 

One of the features of arch is that most every guide or howto on the net can be used here with few distro hassles, which I think is an extention of the simpleness.  Why not just link to the (much better written) original howto?  keep only the arch-specific stuff, like package names, in the wiki.  Alternatively, just rewrite the wikis.  Often, the wiki misses some crucial step somewhere, which makes everything more frustrating, since the whatever does not work after following the wiki exactly.  i try to correct what I see, but there are many more "slips" out there.

To be honest, I never used ubuntuguide.  I could never access the site.

Why is distro-hopping so bad, anyway?  I did it all the time through periods when all my friends were out for the summer and I had nothing to do.  Also, hey, there is nothing wrong with prebuilt and easy-to-use.  How many of you built your car by yourself out of spare parts? How many of you built your own homes?  What about something seemingly innocuous, like a toaster?  Probably not.  A computer is no different.

Offline

#39 2007-01-10 11:01:54

sokuban
Member
Registered: 2006-11-11
Posts: 404

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

skale wrote:

Why is distro-hopping so bad, anyway?  I did it all the time through periods when all my friends were out for the summer and I had nothing to do.  Also, hey, there is nothing wrong with prebuilt and easy-to-use.  How many of you built your car by yourself out of spare parts? How many of you built your own homes?  What about something seemingly innocuous, like a toaster?  Probably not.  A computer is no different.

Yea, I distro hopped a lot too. Mostly just for fun. I've stopped pretty much now though. It is bad because you keep changing your distro and then liking things of each distro but being unable to get everything, also because you are unable to find a home.

And there is much to be wrong with something being prebuild and easy to use. Why the people who build cars by themselves can choose better materials, they make the car for themself. They are god. If you buy a car then you will probbably end up with materials that will rust in a couple of years becuase  the car companies want them to buy a new car. Of course these people ussually buy the materials, very few people make their own materials.

If you use Linux you won't have the Microsoft problems of Microsoft trying to make sure you aren't pirating HD-DVD movies. Of course, very few people make their own OS from scratch (whole OS, as in kernel and everything.) So Linux is like the car parts used that make a better car.

The same for people who build houses and toasters, you could have the ultimate long garage that can fit your old 1927 Nash that you like to play with as well as your new cars you drive with. You could make all the rooms really cool and do everything the way you want. You can choose the materials and the building process.

With toasters you could make a toaster that can fit those thick sliced breads you want, of make it to fit your needs in some other way

When you make something by yourself, you can make it much better than prebuilt stuff. (Though also much worse.)

ibrahim wrote:

Why would someone with a working ubuntu box switch to Debian? Linux is an operating system, nothing more. It certainly isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a consistently shifting platform where people continually "upgrade" in some vain effort to display how supposedly intelligent they are. I'm suer that you must be aware that some people who know far more about Linux, computers, programming and life than you use ubuntu right?

Many reasons, for one debian has more packages, maybe people like the slower release cycle. (or they get Sid rather than the stable ubuntu that kills you every six months.) Perhaps they could be free software pushers who feel more comfortable with a distro that has IceWeasel over Firefox, or maybe they don't want all the default applications installed becuase they hardly use any of them and would prefer a base install sort of thing.

(Just stating reasons, not all apply to me.)

Ubuntu is not better than debian, it is based on debian but it is different.

And of course people who know much more than you in life use ubuntu, why they might be debian users who left because of the debian politics.

(Again, just stating things.)

You seem to think that ubuntu and debian are the exact same thing and using ubuntu means you are an idiot because it is easier to use and sets up more things for you. They are similar but different.

Disclaimer: (I should really put this in my sig) Don't ever take anything I say seriously, my whole post is full of lies. Today I wan't feasting on sweet things though. (temaki-zushi)

Offline

#40 2007-01-10 12:50:42

Mikko777
Member
From: Suomi, Finland
Registered: 2006-10-30
Posts: 837

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

Well lots of interesting discussion in here smile

Although it seems this discussion is more philosophical than anything else, although its nice to see ppl generally agree with eachanother smile

I think the main issue in here was the level of documentation:

1:What should the scope or depth of it be?
2:How simply written it should be, ie step by step or general?
3:Who should write it? smile

Imho:

1:The wiki should cover: installation to a fully working system similar in function as windowsxp, ubuntu, suse and such, from base install ofcourse.
Couple of different setups like Gnome, Kde, *box, mythTV, CLI server.

2:Arch doesn't need to be newbie friendly so only the base install should be
documented in detail (its good as it is now). Gnome setups etc could be linked to external howtos (gentoo, original howtos etc) with someone proofreading them and adding arch spesific detail and suggestions in the wiki. Also since ppl seem to take notes on what they do when installing arch, those would also make great wiki learning material.

3:I'd really do this myself if I'd considered myself pro enough smile
I think the wiki already covers alot of the basics, it just needs to look more like this: http://gentoo-wiki.com/  instead of the confusing abandoned look that it has now.

In general Arch wiki should should look like it cares about its users and wants to guide ppl in right direction. And not like Arch is for teh leet ppl and 
wants to prevent ppl from learning smile

Edit: What im probably asking is a more Booklike wiki instead of seemingly
independent articles, a simple "what next" linking to the next wiki page would do resulting in the aforementioned "complete" setups .

Tell me what you think smile

Offline

#41 2007-01-10 13:34:11

Fatsobob
Member
From: Colorado
Registered: 2006-06-27
Posts: 126

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

The forums and the wiki are all I needed to get my install up and running. I personally don't believe that ubuntu style documentation is needed. It just takes dedication.
Its still easier than gentoo.

Offline

#42 2007-01-12 20:46:58

ibrahim
Member
Registered: 2006-02-18
Posts: 53

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

sokuban wrote:

You seem to think that ubuntu and debian are the exact same thing and using ubuntu means you are an idiot because it is easier to use and sets up more things for you. They are similar but different.

You seem to have massively failed to understand my point. My argument was the exact opposite of using ubuntu makes you an idiot . There are others in this thread who seemingly measure a person's worth/intellect against their OS but personally I think it's utterly irrelevant. My point was why would a person with a fully working ubuntu that gives them no problems feel they must "graduate" to Debian?

If your computer works and does all you need there is no need to switch to a "harder" distro and prove how smart you ( supposedly) are. For example I'm quite happy with Arch and don't feel I should switch to Gentoo or LFS in order to prove something to some anonymous name on a forum.

Same applies to ubuntu, if it works to a person's requirements why on earth should there be a need for them to switch to some other distro?

And as far as ubuntu users not needing to edit their xorg.conf somehow being evidence of ubuntu lacking I don't follow the logic. Besides the point that it isn't true (just seach xorg.conf on their forums) is not needing to edit your xorg really that terrible? I wonder how many Arch users (who by deduction are supposedly smarter) just used 'hwd -x' or the nvidia tool to set up their xorg.

I really can't see how making things easier for those so inclined is wrong. Pacman makes installation and management easier is that wrong too? What about the AUR system? Unless you can create an entire Os yourself from scratch then there are undoubtedly areas where you just rely on OS magic, it's convenient though that the line of "oh that's just for idiots" always gets conveniently drawn within the person complaining's area of expertise

Offline

#43 2007-01-12 21:14:13

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

side note: xorg starts fine without an xorg.conf nowadays.

guys, you can keep discussing in this thread till the cows come home. Every time this comes up, nobody steps forward to actually start working on it, nobody actually wants to do the work, or at least nobody does the work.

James

Offline

#44 2007-01-12 21:16:00

Misfit138
Misfit Emeritus
From: USA
Registered: 2006-11-27
Posts: 4,170

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

Most distros that are consider "harder" are also easier to customize from a more basic and fundmental level. It seems that the two are mutually exclusive, at least at this point.  One can either start with a distro like Arch, from base packages, and build it  into exactly what they want, or one can start with an "easier" distro like Ubuntu and have a much harder time customizing it. (The Ubuntu user who decides to stick with it will most likely not have the need or desire to customize very much to begin with.) Neither is right, wrong or more or less admirable, at least to me.
There are a lot of distros (too many IMO) and we all have our favorites. For me, source based distros are just simply ridiculous and require too much time to configure and maintain. (Having said that, Gentoo continues to be one of the most popular distros available.)
For me, Ubuntu was actually very difficult to get what I wanted. There are advantages to Ubuntu, though, like the expedience of setup. Many things should theoretically work out of the box, which is important to a lot of people. I guess we all use what works for us. wink

Offline

#45 2007-01-21 14:11:59

freigeist
Member
From: Cologne, Germany
Registered: 2006-07-14
Posts: 191

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

iphitus wrote:

guys, you can keep discussing in this thread till the cows come home. Every time this comes up, nobody steps forward to actually start working on it, nobody actually wants to do the work, or at least nobody does the work.

James

I started a beginners guide in the wiki. I don't know if this is really useful (at least it would have helped me months ago) nor do I know if this is what the poster had in mind when he was talking about an ArchGuide. Any suggestions and additions are highly appreciated. If you think that it is not useful at all please let me know too, cause there is a lot work to do which should be worth the time I (we?) spent on it. The guide is far away from being complete and does not link on other wiki pages which may contain extended information. Beware that I am no native speaker, therefore a lot of mistakes in spelling and grammar may be contained. If anyone of you is a native speaker it would be nice if you could take a look smile


Elfenbeinturm.cc
a metaphysical space of solitude and sanctity: http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc

Offline

#46 2007-01-21 15:39:23

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

freigeist wrote:

I don't know if this is really useful (at least it would have helped me months ago)

Its definately useful, keep it up. I'm glad somebody has actually started doing instead of saying. You might want to start a new thread in the 'Forum, Wiki and AUR' discussion forum to draw attention to it.

Don't worry too much about English and spelling, those things have a habit of getting fixed up by the nature of wikis. It looks nice and comprehensive!  One thing you/somebody should do is link to existing wiki articles that have additional information on the topics you are covering. This way, if users want information that is a bit more involved than that supplied in a "beginner's" guide, they'll be able to easily find it. For example, you could link to articles on ABS when discussing pacman configuration, kernel compilation when discussing installing the kernel, and the various xorg pages when discussing xorg installation.

Its an EXCELLENT start. Once this is a bit more complete, remind me to put a link to it on the main wiki page so that new users can find it and new editors can improve it.

Thanks very much!

Dusty

Offline

#47 2007-01-21 18:04:11

Snarkout
Member
Registered: 2005-11-13
Posts: 542

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

Agreed - that's a great start.  Hopefully it'll pickup steam since I really do think it's valuable to have that sort of documentation.

The problem I have with adding to the wiki is that a) I have no idea how to add wiki entries (this is surmountable, I'm sure), and b) I often figure out how to "fix" things on my own, but learn weeks or months later I've done something very stupid in the process.  Case in point - ages ago when I was first working to get my ipod working with linux, after getting all the udev rule stuff squared away, I discovered I still couldn't access the ipod w/o being root.  My fix?  Add my user to the "disk" group.  A few weeks later it was pointed out to me that this is a huge security risk.  The correct fix?  Add a GROUP= statement in my udev rule and then add my user to that group if it isn't already.

Another problem is that many times, things change rapidly enough in Arch that documentation becomes outdated quickly.  I tend to use the upstream documentation a lot because of this.  Udev is a perfect example of this - just as soon as I felt comfortable with udev rules, they changed how they expected rules to be written.  Their documentation provided a thorough explanation of all the recent changes.  By reading those docs and asking a few questions, I was able to muddle through "the new way."  Another example: It seems like we've settled on initcpio at this point, but there were a few months where there was a lot of confusion about initrd versus initramfs, etc.  I imagine keeping the wiki up to date during that time wasn't much fun.

I believe that it would be very difficult to run arch w/o being active in the community, even if this only means reading the boards and/or mailing list, and assuming you were actually keeping an up to date system.  This is no different than the -current branch of any other distro, of course, but in Arch -current is the standard.  I think this is, at least in part, the reason why the documentation seems lacking sometimes - it's a hell of a lot easier to document a static system than an ever-changing one.

On the other hand, even though there is a lot of documentation on ABS and makepkg, I really feel like there could be a better A to Z how-to.  The makepkg man page is where I get most of my info, but I'd really like to feel like I understood more and better.


Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
-Albert Einstein

Offline

#48 2007-01-21 18:17:45

freigeist
Member
From: Cologne, Germany
Registered: 2006-07-14
Posts: 191

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

Added some more sections and filled them...more to come this evening smile


Elfenbeinturm.cc
a metaphysical space of solitude and sanctity: http://www.elfenbeinturm.cc

Offline

#49 2007-06-25 16:59:58

finferflu
Forum Fellow
From: Manchester, UK
Registered: 2007-06-21
Posts: 1,899
Website

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

freigeist wrote:

I started a beginners guide in the wiki. I don't know if this is really useful (at least it would have helped me months ago) nor do I know if this is what the poster had in mind when he was talking about an ArchGuide. Any suggestions and additions are highly appreciated. If you think that it is not useful at all please let me know too, cause there is a lot work to do which should be worth the time I (we?) spent on it. The guide is far away from being complete and does not link on other wiki pages which may contain extended information. Beware that I am no native speaker, therefore a lot of mistakes in spelling and grammar may be contained. If anyone of you is a native speaker it would be nice if you could take a look smile

Ah! Finally I have found the person to thank big_smile
I have used your guide to install Arch, I don't know if at this point it's all your work, but the idea it's brilliant. I was able to set everything up very flawlessly. I'm not a total Linux newbie, as I am coming from Ubuntu (mostly), but I had no clue about Arch. The guide is very well articulated, I see it more as a showcase to the Arch Way than as an ultimate step-by-step guide. It tells you how you are supposed to configure everything without going in excessive details: for example it tells you about all the settings stored in rc.conf and then it tells you to fill in the necessary bits for the installation, and that gives you the feel that you'll have to come back to rc.conf in the future. I'm not sure if what I'm trying to say is clear enough. I think it's very well done. I will join the effort when I will feel confident enough to do so, since I'm using Arch for less than a week.


Have you Syued today?
Free music for free people! | Earthlings

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- A. de Saint-Exupery

Offline

#50 2007-06-25 21:57:14

calvinthomas
Member
Registered: 2007-06-24
Posts: 15

Re: ubuntuguide for arch

freigeist wrote:
iphitus wrote:

guys, you can keep discussing in this thread till the cows come home. Every time this comes up, nobody steps forward to actually start working on it, nobody actually wants to do the work, or at least nobody does the work.

James

I started a beginners guide in the wiki. I don't know if this is really useful (at least it would have helped me months ago) nor do I know if this is what the poster had in mind when he was talking about an ArchGuide. Any suggestions and additions are highly appreciated. If you think that it is not useful at all please let me know too, cause there is a lot work to do which should be worth the time I (we?) spent on it. The guide is far away from being complete and does not link on other wiki pages which may contain extended information. Beware that I am no native speaker, therefore a lot of mistakes in spelling and grammar may be contained. If anyone of you is a native speaker it would be nice if you could take a look smile

I just want to say thanks aswell, I used the beginners guide to setup arch, using just that and an odd google search for something like "archlinux beryl" which always got me to the wiki, I think uncommenting 3 lines (in etc/X11/xorg.conf), commenting 1 (in beryl/xgl startup script) and from a google search coming up with the idea that maybe I needed to add a user to the network group for internet to work for that user: I managed to have Arch set-up from a base install with:

1) X working.
2) KDEmod working.
3) fglrx driver working correctly - This is the point where I had to uncomment a few lines.
4) XGL Session with Beryl - The point where one redundant line needed commenting on my machine relating to nvidia users.
5) All my packages I want installed.
6) Sound working.
7) Internet working via ndiswrapper wirelessly and flawlessly.
8) Since then I have beautified KDEmod to my liking, compiled kooldock and set that up to how I want it.

I did get confused by the installer on installing packages, thinking when it had finished because it popped a box up that it had caused an error, but that was my stupidity! I also installed with extra packages before deciding to do it from a base install.

Along the way I have learnt about the different configuration files, the basics of pacman, more about how the system actually works and many other things.

From the time of restarting with a base install (I didn't do anything much more than the install the other times) it has taken me a couple of days to get the system running as I want it. I've got much more to learn but its now fully functional for my needs so I can take it slower now. The benefit of the rolling release system (and the constantly up-to-date packages) I believe outweigh the fact that it takes longer to install than the other distros. I for one like packages to be up-to-date, I get annoyed otherwise and keep switching distros. Now, I have arch as my main work system, windows for my gaming/dvd needs (I hate doing illegal things and I'm from the UK and can't work out whether libdvdcss is actual legal here) and I just have an untweaked (except for package installations, getting wireless working and clicking enable desktop effects) default ubuntu just incase there is a problem with an update to arch or something at a time where I need my computer for work.

I think I maybe found arch easier than some others might with that I started linux with Ubuntu Dapper on a laptop where graphics gave black screen from boot (so needed to edit graphics sort of manually), wireless was a dreaded bcm4318 card so required quite a lot of terminal work and beryl/compiz were new and there were no easy configs so I was forced to work through some of the things via config files myself. It took me a couple of months to be truely competent with Ubuntu Dapper, which shows I wasn't the quickest learner but I was a tweaker and that learning process has eased me to having the knowledge and ability with the help of the brilliant beginners guide to being able to install Arch successfully and to my needs!

Thanks again!

Calv

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB