Arch Review

scarney · 2006-11-30 01:38:02

http://www.linuxtechdaily.com/2006/11/r … rocessors/

McQueen · 2006-11-30 13:52:19

This review was _really_ negative: Beranger Reviews Arch

kth5 · 2006-11-30 13:59:49

McQueen wrote:

This review was _really_ negative: Beranger Reviews Arch

It's funny how that guy walks into every single dump we took on the way, heh. I don't really blame him for being a little upset but he seems to be one of those guy who judge easily and very final. Good to not have somebody like that on the ranks of the Archer tribe.

scarney · 2006-11-30 14:40:47

McQueen wrote:

This review was _really_ negative: Beranger Reviews Arch

sounds like someone needs to get laid!..

PJ · 2006-11-30 14:45:07

McQueen wrote:

This review was _really_ negative: Beranger Reviews Arch

Sure, he was a bit unlucky when he was installing Arch, but I believe he was looking for something else when he did the review. Since most of his review seems to classify everything as rubbish if it isn't Slackware or helping Slackware in any way. Just my 2 cents.

Sigi · 2006-11-30 16:16:23

beranger on the Arch Forums? This could become interesting ;-)

phrakture · 2006-11-30 16:19:26

That review is negative, but hey, some people aren't suited to arch. /shrug

Blind · 2006-11-30 16:48:54

beranger wrote:

scarney wrote:
sounds like someone needs to get laid!..
Is some girl student in Luleå offering herself?

That was funny!
C'mon, take the review with humor, guys, and don't bash. Who cares anyways. If you take a look at the review, it is clear that the installer has problems and that will be fixed soon. Plus: he was so fair as to state he didn't read the wiki entry about installing.

If he misses out on pacman (or even says it is worse than yum -- poor him!), that is his tough luck.

Blind

slackhack · 2006-11-30 17:12:40

I opted for a FULL install, ignoring their recommendation to only install "base" first. Why would I do that when I have a full CD?! Let's get serious, a full install only weighs ~464 MB, so it should go just fine.

what an idiot.

PJ · 2006-11-30 17:20:01

Blind wrote:

beranger wrote:
scarney wrote:
sounds like someone needs to get laid!..
Is some girl student in Luleå offering herself?

That was funny!

Then I guess I could make it even more funnier for those who haven't search the Internet for my username in a combination with archlinux. This will end up sooner or later on a Swedish Linux forum where my profile states that I am from Luleå and that I am a student. Anyway, it is a bit hard to respond to something like that.
Or I could actually respond something like this: I have never found them, still searching...

Blind wrote:

C'mon, take the review with humor, guys, and don't bash. Who cares anyways. If you take a look at the review, it is clear that the installer has problems and that will be fixed soon. Plus: he was so fair as to state he didn't read the wiki entry about installing.
If he misses out on pacman (or even says it is worse than yum -- poor him!), that is his tough luck.
Blind

So true, I guess I was a bit hard on bashing the review.

chrismortimore · 2006-11-30 18:14:23

Wow, it's turned into handbags at 20 paces.

Anyway, all reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling you the reviewed products competition. In this case, the reviewer is selling Slackware.

I did like the conclusion at the end though, "Slackware is the best Slackware, Debian is the best Debian, Redhat is the best Redhat" etc. He tell no lie there.

Blind · 2006-11-30 18:16:35

Hey PJ,

I did not search the internet (obviously), and I meant no offense to you.

With this piece of information, it makes that guy look very pathetic and his "review" even less meaningful.
Obviously, some people don't have anything better to do.

My remark concerning bashing was not pointing towards you, but rather a general remark! I already feel he gets more attention now than he deserves.

So please accept my apologies. I guess now I know you are from Luleå, and a student there, but I have no clue whether you are a girl. And frankly, I don't even care (sorry).

Cheers,
Blind

sweiss · 2006-11-30 19:20:57

I think that this review has some valid points. The conflict checking can be done before the packages are downloaded, so that you can count on pacman to install them right away.

I think that was a valid review. We should conclude the right conclusion from such reviews.

Blind · 2006-11-30 19:46:13

Right, package conflicts should be checked before download, if possible.

On the other hand, file conflicts can't, and that is where he says pacman is dumb. I think that filelists are always within the packages (pacman tar.gz, rpm, deb, etc.) so this probably can't be done that easily - not even by yum etc., unless you have a separate filelist database.

Dunno.

With his action here in the forum/thread (if it was him), he kinda invalidated himself for being taken very serious.
I don't even know why he would answer to PJ when somebody else made that - also not very nice 'getting laid' - remark.

Cheers,
Blind

scarney · 2006-11-30 21:05:53

Blind wrote:

when somebody else made that - also not very nice 'getting laid' - remark.

actually, it was a joke, a friendly jab. meaning, he had something else on his mind, when he was reviewing arch. or, a lack of, train of thought. and that is all it was. (8

pelle.k · 2006-11-30 21:32:14

Let's all be nice to each other, shall we? For better or worse, I am the one who needs to get laid, so pick, joke and make remarks about me instead

PJ · 2006-11-30 21:41:22

Blind wrote:

My remark concerning bashing was not pointing towards you, but rather a general remark!

I didn't think it was towards me, my thoughts was more or less that you meant in general.

Blind wrote:

I already feel he gets more attention now than he deserves.

I totally agree.

Blind wrote:

So please accept my apologies. I guess now I know you are from Luleå, and a student there, but I have no clue whether you are a girl. And frankly, I don't even care (sorry).

No offense taken, I mean how could you or anyone else know that beranger did some research before posting something like that in this thread, which I assume he did. I really have a hard time seeing this as something randomly.

scarney wrote:

Blind wrote:
when somebody else made that - also not very nice 'getting laid' - remark.
actually, it was a joke, a friendly jab. meaning, he had something else on his mind, when he was reviewing arch. or, a lack of, train of thought. and that is all it was. (8

My guess actually was that this was some kind of friendly joke, I didn't think it was something else.

Sorry for not responding to this thread earlier, was out for a walk with a friend.

PJ · 2006-11-30 22:26:53

I was thinking a bit and I guess it's better if I actually mention that I am a man, male, boy or whatever you like to call it. Sure it would be possible to guess that by looking at my name in screenshots that I have posted in this forum and of course in other forums, but I guess that's a bit harder and takes a bit more effort. If you have no clue of what I am talking about then look at the prompt in terminals in various screenshots.

Besides that, I am really thankful that I am a member of this friendly community. So a big thanks to the arch community!

<edit>
Sure, I know other places too but that's not the point.
Why did a use the screenshot as example? Simply because it is less chance that your a faking it. Enough about that, lets focusing on something positive now!
</edit>

sweiss · 2006-12-01 09:22:13

Blind wrote:

Right, package conflicts should be checked before download, if possible.
On the other hand, file conflicts can't, and that is where he says pacman is dumb. I think that filelists are always within the packages (pacman tar.gz, rpm, deb, etc.) so this probably can't be done that easily - not even by yum etc., unless you have a separate filelist database.
Dunno.
With his action here in the forum/thread (if it was him), he kinda invalidated himself for being taken very serious.
I don't even know why he would answer to PJ when somebody else made that - also not very nice 'getting laid' - remark.
Cheers,
Blind

There's a great potential in having a filelist database, especially when using more obscure apps. You usually get an error regarding a missing .so file. If you could use pacman to search for a package which contains a specific file, that would be nice I think.
Also it allows you to have conflict checks before hand.
Package management can still improve.
Even though pacman is already pretty good, I do not think it is complete.

pmv · 2006-12-01 12:16:48

slackhack wrote:

I opted for a FULL install, ignoring their recommendation to only install "base" first. Why would I do that when I have a full CD?! Let's get serious, a full install only weighs ~464 MB, so it should go just fine.
what an idiot.

I actually agree with the review in this spot.
Why does Arch even have a full cd if you can't use it? Normally people choose when downloadin image the way they want to install system - if you download base-image. yo'll be installing only base-system but if you download fullcd you most likely want to install whole system from cd and update packages later.

Another thing I agree with is some oddities in pacman. Like those switches.
pacman -S ,maybe -I would make more sense for installing?
pacman -Ss well if -I would be used for install -S would be enough for search.

Blind · 2006-12-01 12:27:37

I don't know.

Of course, there are certain advantages to a filelist database. I think though, that there are too many problems to overcome.

For one, the package information files would increase in size by at least a factor of three, problematic for the limited bandwidth users.
I think that it doesn't matter, that pacman looks after file conflicts _after_ downloading, cause you can always look at what is causing the conflict with pacman. Usually, file conflicts like those mentioned in the review are harmless, and then you can just force installation of the package without redownloading.

Well, I think though, that when an install CD is created, problems like this should definitely be avoided if possible (at least the first upgrade should work nicely) - it sure would have driven me away, no good PR. The "hands on" arch way should not start right within the installation, because this makes an "installation CD" obsolete (might as use the wiki article "install arch from within another distro").

But that is just my 2c.

Cheers.

tpowa · 2006-12-01 13:50:13

0.7.2 is that outdated you should defintly use the newisos to install:
http://www.archlinux.org/~tpowa/newisos/

there are so many quirks already fixed

Mr Green · 2006-12-01 15:07:59

If thats the case why still have old version on download page ...?

Snarkout · 2006-12-01 19:55:09

I'm guessing those aren't "official isos" - they do kick ass though!

pelle.k · 2006-12-01 20:18:28

This might be somewhat OT, but while we are off topic anyway, does the full install cd:s contain ndiswrapper? I have wlan access only, and i have to compile ndiswrapper every time i make a fresh install, and delete it when i get the official packages downloaded. Not the end of the world for me, but some new users might find it somewhat difficult.
Wouldn't ndiswrapper be one of those things you really should include on an installation CD?

Arch Linux

#1 2006-11-30 01:38:02

Arch Review

#2 2006-11-30 13:52:19

Re: Arch Review

#3 2006-11-30 13:59:49

Re: Arch Review

#4 2006-11-30 14:40:47

Re: Arch Review

#5 2006-11-30 14:45:07

Re: Arch Review

#6 2006-11-30 16:16:23

Re: Arch Review

#7 2006-11-30 16:19:26

Re: Arch Review

#8 2006-11-30 16:48:54

Re: Arch Review

#9 2006-11-30 17:12:40

Re: Arch Review

#10 2006-11-30 17:20:01

Re: Arch Review

#11 2006-11-30 18:14:23

Re: Arch Review

#12 2006-11-30 18:16:35

Re: Arch Review

#13 2006-11-30 19:20:57

Re: Arch Review

#14 2006-11-30 19:46:13

Re: Arch Review

#15 2006-11-30 21:05:53

Re: Arch Review

#16 2006-11-30 21:32:14

Re: Arch Review

#17 2006-11-30 21:41:22

Re: Arch Review

#18 2006-11-30 22:26:53

Re: Arch Review

#19 2006-12-01 09:22:13

Re: Arch Review

#20 2006-12-01 12:16:48

Re: Arch Review

#21 2006-12-01 12:27:37

Re: Arch Review

#22 2006-12-01 13:50:13

Re: Arch Review

#23 2006-12-01 15:07:59

Re: Arch Review

#24 2006-12-01 19:55:09

Re: Arch Review

#25 2006-12-01 20:18:28

Re: Arch Review

Board footer