why Arch hides somethingg

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-19 07:39:00

i installed Gentoo where on needs to learn about Filesystem creation, partioning and mount/unmount things in advance. one does not need to know about these if installing Arch e.g. all mounting and filesystem creation is hidden behind the installer. Arch wiki says Arch is for learning GNU OS (a.k.a Linux):

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

but i don't see one is learning about *NIX much. Do you folks still say Arch makes one learn GNU OS. ? any views/ideas/critiques ?

shining · 2007-05-19 08:49:46

First nothing prevents you from setting your partitions before, before running the installer.
This is needed anyway if you want for example lvm or raid or both :
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ins … AID_or_LVM
or if you want to install from another distro :
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ins … her_distro
or more generally, for any exotic installation

While arch installer does help the filesystem setup for a common install, it still involves configuring by manually editing text files.
And I would guess that could be confusing in some cases for newcomers.
But anyway, that's only the partition part, after installation, you still do all configurations by hand.
Things are certainly not hidden behind an oversimplified gui, whether that's a good thing or not.

And by the way, Gentoo doesn't learn you much either, the most important part is hidden behind emerge. LFS would teach you more about what a linux system consists of, and how it's built.

iphitus · 2007-05-19 09:22:24

geek.arnuld wrote:

i installed Gentoo where on needs to learn about Filesystem creation, partioning and mount/unmount things in advance. one does not need to know about these if installing Arch e.g. all mounting and filesystem creation is hidden behind the installer. Arch wiki says Arch is for learning GNU OS (a.k.a Linux):
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
but i don't see one is learning about *NIX much. Do you folks still say Arch makes one learn GNU OS. ? any views/ideas/critiques ?

learning a GNU OS, isnt about learning how to make partitions. You can know everything about partitions, but know nothing about using a GNU unix system.

James

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-19 09:48:50

iphitus wrote:

learning a GNU OS, isnt about learning how to make partitions. You can know everything about partitions, but know nothing about using a GNU unix system.
James

so i ask: Is it really good idea to use Arch as basis for learning GNU OS (design, internal structure etc.) ?

anakin · 2007-05-19 10:02:38

Highlighting what iphitus said, it's not about learning how to create partitions or mounting them. Learning about dependencies, libraries, compilation or linking would be more valuable. Nevertheless have a look at /arch/setup and /arch/quickinstall on the install media, they obviously follow the KISS approach and avoid the unnecessary overwhelm of a tedious task like the installation can be in some cases.

klixon · 2007-05-19 11:14:45

I'd say arch is great for learning GNU/Linux, because it takes some manual labour to get things going once in a while...
The great thing is, you get a basic install and can build it up just to suit you and along the way you can learn about lots of things that you have to read about to know how to configure/use them etc.

Also, it's a bit less time consuming then gentoo... where you must compile almost everything. Here you have a choice what you want to compile yourself...

Linux isn't just about compiling (though it does help sometimes if you know something about it...)

Basicaly... Arch gives you a very good starting point that's very usable and from there you can choose what skills to improve.
Packages usually get installed where the author intended, so manuals usually have the same file-locations in them as where pacman puts them, which is also nice

Oh, and it's a great place to learn how to script in bash as i'm starting to find out

Last edited by klixon (2007-05-19 11:19:20)

anakin · 2007-05-19 12:45:26

klixon wrote:

Packages usually get installed where the author intended, so manuals usually have the same file-locations in them as where pacman puts them, which is also nice

That's one of the reasons why I love arch. When every distro out there tries to come up with their own standard concerning file locations there is no standard anymore whereas if they allow the author to choose chances are that the files end up in a well accepted place.

kth5 · 2007-05-19 14:14:54

geek.arnuld wrote:

i installed Gentoo where on needs to learn about Filesystem creation, partioning and mount/unmount things in advance. one does not need to know about these if installing Arch e.g. all mounting and filesystem creation is hidden behind the installer. Arch wiki says Arch is for learning GNU OS (a.k.a Linux):
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
but i don't see one is learning about *NIX much. Do you folks still say Arch makes one learn GNU OS. ? any views/ideas/critiques ?

I see you are mistaking the LFS way with learning about *NIX. Professionally working with an operating system should most of the time not mean to install it. There's much more to it than just that.

The Arch installer helps you out a lot because it tries to get us around spending too much time installing the system. We want a running system and instead add our stuff to it, rather than just having to go through an hour long process of installing it. Yet again, you can still do that. Look at what quickinst does. It's also being used by the installer.

KerowynM · 2007-05-19 15:22:46

Installing an operating system != understanding it. I've installed windows over a thousand times, and didn't learn anything from the exchange, other then how to wait for hours on end.

Still, if you are looking for something with a little more meat to it:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ins … her_distro

Linux just isn't that hard to install anymore. What are you looking for?

Tedious != better

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-19 15:59:32

kth5 wrote:

I see you are mistaking the LFS way with learning about *NIX.

yes. i always thought that LFS is the true way of learning a UNIX or GNU system. Gentoo is just LFS + emerge :-)

kth5 wrote:

Professionally working with an operating system should most of the time not mean to install it. There's much more to it than just that.

so you want to prove that reality is not what i am thinking ... hmmm....

h....mmmmm.....

please, can you put a some, 2 or 4, sentences about some parts of *NIX which are connected to learning *NIX.

kth5 wrote:

The Arch installer helps you out a lot because it tries to get us around spending too much time installing the system. We want a running system and instead add our stuff to it, rather than just having to go through an hour long process of installing it. Yet again, you can still do that. Look at what quickinst does. It's also being used by the installer.

if i don't use USE flags and emerge BASH scripts i will not be missing learning *NIX ?

kth5 · 2007-05-19 17:39:00

geek.arnuld wrote:

kth5 wrote:
Professionally working with an operating system should most of the time not mean to install it. There's much more to it than just that.
so you want to prove that reality is not what i am thinking ... hmmm....
please, can you put a some, 2 or 4, sentences about some parts of *NIX which are connected to learning *NIX.

Well, usually when working with *NIX or any other operating system installing it should take time once and - even if though that is quite impossible - never again. My system at home has been set up back in 2005 and only updated ever since then. What I've done most is messing with my configurations, cleaning the system properly when changing my workflow over the years and such. Whenever you touch a configfile you necessarily get to know new parts of the system or become more profficient at configuring something.
*NIX itself can only be considered to be the underlying concept of your desktop which everything else depends on, in my opinion.

In essence, I think the true knowledge must come from using the system, rescueing it from hazardous breakage without reinstalling it and maybe adding software that is not available as a package by hand, in a organized manner. Reinstalling is seldomly a efficient choice when you really want to learn how to fix your system so that it does what you want.

geek.arnuld wrote:

kth5 wrote:
The Arch installer helps you out a lot because it tries to get us around spending too much time installing the system. We want a running system and instead add our stuff to it, rather than just having to go through an hour long process of installing it. Yet again, you can still do that. Look at what quickinst does. It's also being used by the installer.
if i don't use USE flags and emerge BASH scripts i will not be missing learning *NIX ?

I don't think so, see the above. Package management may be a critical element of dealing with your system but unless you update, are a package maintainer or some kind or want to install software that's unavailable on your distro's repositories, it is always not so important.

Even though Arch and most of the other distros out there don't come with USE-flags or similar things, that doesn't mean you can't accomplish the same tasks.

Last edited by kth5 (2007-05-19 17:39:37)

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-19 17:42:06

iphitus wrote:

learning a GNU OS, isnt about learning how to make partitions. You can know everything about partitions, but know nothing about using a GNU unix system.
James

i know and it is just one and very 1st example. 2nd is, Arch does not even let you know about compiling the kernel. on CRUX and Gentoo, you *have* to understand the kernel compilation and the ALSA modules and drivers differences and even the you get to know the words like journaled filesystems and that leads to understanding of GNU OS in general. but may be you ahve a diferent point of view of learning the *NIX. i am interested in knowing that. please put it here.

Not that i am putting my hatred here, i only want to know the Why Arch keeps the user away from learning the very basics like creating and mounting filesystems and compiling Linux kernel. ? ( YES, one can do that on Arch but one does not because Arch does not enforce these basic things)

shining · 2007-05-19 17:53:27

geek.arnuld wrote:

[
Not that i am putting my hatred here, i only want to know the Why Arch keeps the user away from learning the very basics like creating and mounting filesystems and compiling Linux kernel. ? ( YES, one can do that on Arch but one does not because Arch does not enforce these basic things)

So that you can spend more time on more important things ?
Note that it doesn't force you to do so, but arch allows you to get a system quickly up and running, and most of the times, that's the only thing that matters.
Why would you spend ages every single times installing linux just for learning about the installation, if you already know how this stuff works ? And anyway, not knowing how to make a filesystem or how to compile a linux kernel doesn't prevent you from using linux.
It can be handy to know how to do these in some situation, but it isn't a fundamental requirement. So why not learning it after you've a running system, instead of during every installation? It doesn't make any sense..

neotuli · 2007-05-19 18:02:18

I think you're misunderstanding Arch a bit. Arch gives you more power to do these things yourself. For instance the installer gives you the option to make your own partitions and edit your fstab, and it used to even give you the option of compiling your own kernel (which may or may not still be possible, I haven't installed Arch in years, but nonetheless it's possible to compile your own and do whatever you want after the system is up).

Giving you the power to explore and learn is different from forcing you to do these things for yourself. The difference between Arch and a lot of other distros is that it picks a good median between not being able to configure anything, and being forced to configure everything... in this case meaning that Arch will always pick sane defaults, but you have total power to change them.

To make the crappy analogy of the day (tm), it's like some distros put the gun in a safe and won't give you the combo, and other distros hand you a loaded AK-47 already pointed at your foot. Arch gives you an unloaded pistol and a magazine full of ammo on the table next to you.

shining · 2007-05-19 18:08:26

neotuli wrote:

To make the crappy analogy of the day (tm), it's like some distros put the gun in a safe and won't give you the combo, and other distros hand you a loaded AK-47 already pointed at your foot. Arch gives you an unloaded pistol and a magazine full of ammo on the table next to you.

Ok now you scared me out of Arch. I'm going back on Ubuntu (guns belong in a safe)

billy · 2007-05-19 18:27:52

Bang Bang Bang Bang ... Segmentation fault

Last edited by billy (2007-05-19 18:33:44)

Mikko777 · 2007-05-19 19:04:05

This deserves the most pointless thread award for sure!

Previous title holder: Is ethanol hallucinogenic, moves to 2nd place.

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-19 19:32:33

Mikko777 wrote:

This deserves the most pointless thread award for sure!
Previous title holder: Is ethanol hallucinogenic, moves to 2nd place.

may be, for you it is pointless but for me it is an "eye-opening" experience. BSDs have the same installation and minimal system ideas like Arch, seems like conceptually, Arch is closer to original UNIX, (the BSDs) rather than closer to other distros.

this thread changed my way of looking at and understanding UNIX way .. thanks to all those who put their time and effort

but NO thanks to Mikko777 ;-)

Mikko777 · 2007-05-19 19:52:45

geek.arnuld wrote:

may be, for you it is pointless but for me it is an "eye-opening" experience. BSDs have the same installation and minimal system ideas like Arch, seems like conceptually, Arch is closer to original UNIX, (the BSDs) rather than closer to other distros.
this thread changed my way of looking at and understanding UNIX way .. thanks to all those who put their time and effort
but NO thanks to Mikko777 ;-)

Well yeah i'm not a huge fan of pointless filosophical discussions about simple things... unless ofcourse you pass a joint along ^^

kth5 · 2007-05-19 20:26:36

Mikko777 wrote:

This deserves the most pointless thread award for sure!
Previous title holder: Is ethanol hallucinogenic, moves to 2nd place.

Not really, it could evolve into pamphlet explaining ways of how to get used to *NIX with different approaches.
Just my 23 cents.. hehe

Acid7711 · 2007-05-19 20:39:29

shining wrote:

nothing prevents you from setting your partitions before, before running the installer.

Exactly. Heck, nothing forces you to make your partitions the way Gentoo's documentation suggests either. There's hundreds of other ways you could go about creating them, or even having them created for you.

Personally, I don't really see reading through Gentoo's and other's documentation and coping every command they have is really learning anyways... But that's just me.

geek.arnuld wrote:

i know and it is just one and very 1st example. 2nd is, Arch does not even let you know about compiling the kernel. on CRUX and Gentoo, you *have* to understand the kernel compilation and the ALSA modules and drivers differences and even the you get to know the words like journaled filesystems and that leads to understanding of GNU OS in general. but may be you ahve a diferent point of view of learning the *NIX. i am interested in knowing that. please put it here.

I beg to differ. There are people on there that don't know diddly squat and try to make up for it by selecting EVERYTHING when they compile the kernel. That isn't knowing anything, even though they can now go around and go "I compiled my own kernel, I understand a whole lot more now!!!" When in reality, they don't and haven't learned a thing.

Last edited by Acid7711 (2007-05-19 20:50:01)

ataraxia · 2007-05-19 21:30:32

To me, "learning *NIX" means "acquiring the skills that would qualify you to hold a job as a System Administrator". This includes doing the installation *under whatever terms the distro sets*, installing and configuring software, fixing problems *without reinstalling*, and avoiding data loss / data corruption (generally, with good backups). All those fancy details are valuable only if they contribute to these goals.

On the same wavelength, I like Arch in the first place because it's easy and pleasant to accomplish these goals with it. LFS teaches you plenty, but it's too annoying to do actual work with it. Source-based distros in general also give me that problem - it takes too long to install large packages, and users want it *now*.

(Yes, I'm a professional SysAdmin, though not with Arch. Can ya tell? )

iphitus · 2007-05-19 22:30:51

geek.arnuld wrote:

iphitus wrote:
learning a GNU OS, isnt about learning how to make partitions. You can know everything about partitions, but know nothing about using a GNU unix system.
James
i know and it is just one and very 1st example. 2nd is, Arch does not even let you know about compiling the kernel. on CRUX and Gentoo, you *have* to understand the kernel compilation and the ALSA modules and drivers differences and even the you get to know the words like journaled filesystems and that leads to understanding of GNU OS in general. but may be you ahve a diferent point of view of learning the *NIX. i am interested in knowing that. please put it here.
Not that i am putting my hatred here, i only want to know the Why Arch keeps the user away from learning the very basics like creating and mounting filesystems and compiling Linux kernel. ? ( YES, one can do that on Arch but one does not because Arch does not enforce these basic things)

well, if gentoo had really taught you how to compile a kernel, you could compile a kernel on any linux system. Otherwise, you've just learnt how to use emerge.

detto · 2007-05-19 22:47:23

I would point you to Slackware in all honest to Arch, but Slack (as it claims itself) is mos UNIX like. Learned things myself there, then afterwars searched for distribution for desktop usage (which Slack can do too, but too much work imo).

mangus · 2007-05-20 00:48:50

iphitus wrote:

well, if gentoo had really taught you how to compile a kernel, you could compile a kernel on any linux system. Otherwise, you've just learnt how to use emerge.

really...first thing I've done on my first installation of arch was compiling my good old kernel with my usual method...
by hand...all done in a blink of an eye. Slackware was my training, though....:D

Last edited by mangus (2007-05-20 00:51:26)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-05-19 07:39:00

why Arch hides somethingg

#2 2007-05-19 08:49:46

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#3 2007-05-19 09:22:24

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#4 2007-05-19 09:48:50

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#5 2007-05-19 10:02:38

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#6 2007-05-19 11:14:45

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#7 2007-05-19 12:45:26

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#8 2007-05-19 14:14:54

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#9 2007-05-19 15:22:46

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#10 2007-05-19 15:59:32

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#11 2007-05-19 17:39:00

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#12 2007-05-19 17:42:06

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#13 2007-05-19 17:53:27

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#14 2007-05-19 18:02:18

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#15 2007-05-19 18:08:26

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#16 2007-05-19 18:27:52

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#17 2007-05-19 19:04:05

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#18 2007-05-19 19:32:33

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#19 2007-05-19 19:52:45

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#20 2007-05-19 20:26:36

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#21 2007-05-19 20:39:29

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#22 2007-05-19 21:30:32

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#23 2007-05-19 22:30:51

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#24 2007-05-19 22:47:23

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#25 2007-05-20 00:48:50

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

Board footer