User Friendly distro based on Arch?

punkrockguy318 · 2004-03-28 14:13:55

I've noticed three basic bad points in userfriendly desktop distros (mandrake, fedora, suse...).
1) Buggy and instability - I've had Suse and Mandrake crash on me many times, and I've found many bugs in general
2) Package Management - Death to RPM! They're always a pain in the butt
3) Speed - They're all pretty slow (585 optimized, too many unneeded daemons)

What if there was a distro based on arch, but added a graphical installer, some configuration tools, and hardware detection? Arch beats all 3 of those things I mentioned. Arch has never crashed for me (except for a kernel pacnic a couple times, i got that fixed), pacman is the best, and its 686 optimized (no one really uses much but 686 anyway)....

Do you think that would work?

colnago · 2004-03-28 17:23:09

585 optimized! No wonder they are slow.

0.6 is not user unfriendly. Maybe more work than mdk to get it going, but really not that bad. Maybe some of your points will be addressed in 0.7.

Xentac · 2004-03-28 17:26:33

I think he's saying that Arch should stay the way it is, but what's the chance of creating a distro based on Arch that does all the user friendly stuff.

I think that adding all that userfriendly stuff would make Arch less reliable so it's a lot harder than you'd think.

sarah31 · 2004-03-28 17:31:40

my stance is always been the easier you make a distro/*nix the more unsecure you will make it. there is only so much you can do until you have to start compromising the security of the system.

oh and i586 does not run that much slower than i686. it just runs more effeciently since the code is designed more the processor you are using. running services on the otherhand can cause some slow downs. the more crud you run the slower bootup can be and so forth.

alibaba · 2004-03-28 17:51:16

There was a distro based on arch, but added a graphical installer, some configuration tools, and hardware detection?

Which distro ?

punkrockguy318 · 2004-03-28 17:59:56

alibaba wrote:

There was a distro based on arch, but added a graphical installer, some configuration tools, and hardware detection?

Which distro ?

I meant What if there was. I made that a little unclear, I'll edit it

punkrockguy318 · 2004-03-28 18:02:10

Xentac wrote:

I think he's saying that Arch should stay the way it is, but what's the chance of creating a distro based on Arch that does all the user friendly stuff.
I think that adding all that userfriendly stuff would make Arch less reliable so it's a lot harder than you'd think.

Yeah, I'm definately saying Arch should stay as it is. Arch isn't targeted towards newbies: it's targeted towards experts, or noobs that are willing to learn a lot. But I think Arch would make a great base for a newbie-targeted distro

colnago · 2004-03-28 20:43:39

AL-AMLUG boot CD was based on Arch. It is a bit behind in Arch versions, but certianly not defunct. The latest release was only last month.

http://www.amlug.net/

Dusty · 2004-03-28 20:58:32

A user-friendly version of Arch would be great! It would get all the users who think Arch should be more user friendly out of everybody else's hair.

bah!

shadov · 2004-03-28 23:24:18

IMHO
"user friendly" (or should I say newbie friendly) == intelligent (needs to work on higher abstraction level that is easier for humans to understand) == complex == breaks easily and is hard to fix

I have used Linux less than two years, but I have learned this: If you try to hide the complexity of the system, you'll end up with more complex system. Instead try to make the system more simple and logical from the inside.

There are couple of organizations that have the resources to handle the complexity of "user friendly" OS (MS, Apple, maybe some biggest Linux distros). One of them has actually succeeded quite well.

As I said, this is totally imho. I'm not (yet) a professional software developer.

tehdely · 2004-03-29 03:06:28

Actually, I think it's a fantastic idea.

I find that Arch would be a great distro to build other Linux distributions on top of. Because of its non-invasive package management/init script system, it leaves a lot of decisions up to you (i. e. doesn't get in your way), but provides the necessary foundations to build just about anything.

A user-friendly distro would be one natural outgrowth of this. I even propose, as Arch continues to grow, that its basic structures be formed into some sort of standard (The Arch Standard ) which other distributions could adhere to, thus creating a little family of Arch Linuxes all with different specializations (I've myself considered the idea of creating a GNUstep-specialized distribution based on Arch) that could easily share a large common pool of packages.

rasat · 2004-03-29 04:54:34

shadov wrote:

....I have learned this: If you try to hide the complexity of the system, you'll end up with more complex system. Instead try to make the system more simple and logical from the inside.

I fully agree. This what Arch is ....simple and logical.

When more users realize this, the "user-friendly" distos will be oudated as tehdely said: "A user-friendly distro would be one natural outgrowth of this."

In Linux there is an evolutionary process going. It started from a "raw" unfriendly distro --> rpm --> user-friendly rpm --> src (from scratch ) distro , and now maybe moving to tar.gz unfriendly / simple distro.

sweiss · 2004-03-30 07:14:57

I don't think a user friendly Arch variant is of much need. I've been using Linux for only 6 months or so and I can already get along fine with Arch. I think that most newbies should learn the basics using Fedora/Mandrake etc. because those are more mainstream, and only then moving to the more advanced distributions such as Arch. It's the same as if someone knew to a computer will be presented with WNT4. He would feel quite lost.

However if we really are dealing with user-friendliness, perhaps making an Arch model for Webmin would serve its purpose.

Shemeta · 2004-03-30 09:00:53

i think Arch should stay the way it is. i think it could become user friendly through better docs. if newbies have problems they know where to read & get help to solve their problems. & Arch documentation is getting better & more & more problems are discussed in the forums. so all that is newbie friendly.
i am sure once they realize that , they won't need friendly distros like Mandy or Red Hat or blah blah.

just my opinion,

-- Shemeta

murkus · 2004-03-30 09:58:45

Shemeta wrote:

i think Arch should stay the way it is. i think it could become user friendly through better docs. if newbies have problems they know where to read & get help to solve their problems. & Arch documentation is getting better & more & more problems are discussed in the forums. so all that is newbie friendly.

I agree with this 100%

Shemeta wrote:

i am sure once they realize that , they won't need friendly distros like Mandy or Red Hat or blah blah.

There is, and propably ever will be, people who don't want to take time to learn, they just want to use it. Although I'm not one of them, I do understand their view. For these people simplicity through complexity á la Mandrake will propably be wisest choise.

Then again, when something just doesn't work they will be in deeper trouble than would be with bare-bones distro they know and understand. This leads to moaning and complaining, but I guess this is the way of things..

my 0.02€

.murkus

Mr Green · 2004-03-30 16:27:23

Arch is good enough without GUI install

You do need some knowledge of Linux but it is not beyond most people (if I can do it)

Why have a GUI install that you will only use once..It does not serve any other purpose...

No Keep Arch Clean & Simple...

If you want GUI & do not need to learn Linux then stick with Mandy Fedora...or Suse...

Or Windows :cry:

Mr Green

punkrockguy318 · 2004-03-30 20:26:08

I agree with you guys, Arch should stay the same. I was suggesting that Arch would make a nice base for a userfriendly distro.

TheRaginAsian · 2004-04-07 18:00:12

I don't really feel that its a question of "Why not make it user friendly" but more of "Who's willing to contribute time?". I've only used Arch for a short period of time but I feel that Pacman is a very special thing that we need to take good care of... overloading the system with a bunch of "user friendlies" and you'll wind up with complaints when a package they want isnt available. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN PACMAN REPOSITORIES DONT HAVE X PACKAGE??!!!! YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY EXPECT ME TO COMPILE AND MAKE A PACKAGE MYSELF!" <------ that right there is the mentality of the windows convert. and I'm not saying that based on what I have seen, im basing that on what I used to be like. I used to feel the same way, "Software packages should be made for me" but i've come to realize its just not that simple.

Basically, only give arch the user-friendly-ness if each and every new user agrees to a licence that they will contribute to pacman testing/package building... LOL, this obviously cant be done cause both ethically and leaglly this is wrong, but still, I feel thats the only way you can counteract the load that the arch community would recieve if it was easier to use.

yak8998 · 2004-04-08 01:53:55

newbies should cut there teeth on a distro like arch, or gentoo. something that makes you think. I think gentoo's install was a little more complex than arch, but easier since the documentation for it was so good (my viewpoint on teh install restated: if you try anything complicated the installer isn't too great).

But as far as a user-friendly arch, I'm interested in making a _____ (fork maybe? except not. like a legit-version). Something with a excellent installer, and nice pacman front-end. Something more windows-ish. I'm in charge of all the computer stuff for my family's company, but im only 17 and still in HS, so i cant fly to the other cities with offices. I'm sick of wasting money on windows and upgrades, so I want to switch over to linux. Price being the main reason. I want something fast and clean like Arch, but it can't *appear* as complicated....

jak · 2004-04-08 13:17:07

Shemeta wrote:

i think Arch should stay the way it is

I was groping around in the dark until I got dhcp started, and midnight commander installed, but after that, I was off and running. I like arch just the way it is. No needless baggage. I just wonder why it took me so long to find arch.

mcubednyc · 2004-04-13 01:32:11

Shemeta wrote:

i think Arch should stay the way it is. i think it could become user friendly through better docs.

I also agree with this, if not 100%, then 99%. I would change "user friendly" to "newbie friendly." The people who make up this community have expressed time & again that Arch is already user friendly ... that, among other things, is what everyone likes about it. The only thing it lacks for the Linux newbie is more clearly presented and organized direction and advice. I understand the OP's thoughts on Arch's suitability for a more newbie-friendly distro fork, but what I personally would be more excited about is Arch, just exactly like it is, as the basis for a "Teach Yourself Linux" program. The install docs are good enough to get the newb through install (if I could do it, believe me...!), but then what?

What the so-called "newbie-friendly" distros do, not unlike Windows, is provide default set-ups to get you going. The problem is, what if you don't like those defaults? They can be hard to change, things break, you have to learn how things were set-up in the first place -- in a sense, they start you out at "C," and you have to backtrack to "B," then "A" in order to learn anything, and all before you can go on to D, E, F, etc.

The great thing about Arch is that it starts you at "A" -- it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. The only problem with Arch, for newbies, is that it doesn't really tell you how to get to B, C, and so on. It doesn't even suggest the possibilities for B, C, etc. You're kinda on your own, and that's great if you already know what you like, or how to do things like configure power management features, or what issues to consider if you want to use Arch to set up a gateway to your network. The Arch philosophy seems to be, you probably already know the basics, what the possiblities are, and a fair amount about the mechanics of executing them. That's the only thing that makes it not-so-newbie-friendly -- it's nothing about the qualities of the distro itself, just the lack of pointers in the supplementary material.

Basically, I'm just saying that what would interest me a lot more than a "newbie-friendly" Arch-based distro with GUI install/config/admin tools and the like is a beginners' guide to Linux based on using Arch.

aCoder · 2004-04-13 02:08:41

I hate GUI installers. They're slow and have plenty of issues, but the Arch installer could use a few improvements. My favorite installer is still the EvilE installer, followed closely by the Slack installer, which it's based on. Arch follows them, since every other distro's installers just suck. Really, I like the fact that Arch has a config stage, but it would be nice if you could take a little inspiration from Slack there, and have dialogs. Not because it's any simpler or less confusing for people who have no idea what they're doing, but because it's not that hard to do, except maybe for the grub config, but I like lilo anyway, and it's nice for lazy geeks like me who don't feel like wearing out thier arrow keys/ page up/down keys. Also, in my opinion, if Arch really wanted to be more 'newbie-friendly' (I definitely like that one better than user-friendly), then I would suggest a n00b-mode install that explained each step, what to do, and how it works in detail before letting the user have a chance at touching anything. The dialogs might help, especially for kernel module loading. It'd be nice to have a list of modules they might need and the supported hardware. Of course, running hwd wouldn't be a terrible idea, but it's com up with some wierd stuff for my system, so I wouldn't trust it enough to include it.

blitze · 2004-04-14 03:11:52

User friendlyness just gets in the way of understanding and learning. I have only dabbled in Linux up till this point but with the discovery of Arch Linux and especially with Gnome 2.6 I have decided to stay and ween myself from Microsoft and go solely with Arch Linux.

All I think Arch could do with is more thorough documentation and maybe some good examples in the configuration files as to lead the user through the configuration processes. That said, there is more than enough information on the forums and a very good community behind Arch so it isn't that daunting to learn.

I love the only have a base installation and then build what you want on top of it. Keeps everything clean and simple. Now when I get time I will learn to use package build and comtribute some audio apps to the mix. You know Rosegarden and a means for running VST instruments. One day soon (-:

tehdely · 2004-04-14 03:37:56

mcubednyc wrote:

What the so-called "newbie-friendly" distros do, not unlike Windows, is provide default set-ups to get you going. The problem is, what if you don't like those defaults? They can be hard to change, things break, you have to learn how things were set-up in the first place -- in a sense, they start you out at "C," and you have to backtrack to "B," then "A" in order to learn anything, and all before you can go on to D, E, F, etc.
The great thing about Arch is that it starts you at "A" -- it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. The only problem with Arch, for newbies, is that it doesn't really tell you how to get to B, C, and so on. It doesn't even suggest the possibilities for B, C, etc. You're kinda on your own, and that's great if you already know what you like, or how to do things like configure power management features, or what issues to consider if you want to use Arch to set up a gateway to your network. The Arch philosophy seems to be, you probably already know the basics, what the possiblities are, and a fair amount about the mechanics of executing them. That's the only thing that makes it not-so-newbie-friendly -- it's nothing about the qualities of the distro itself, just the lack of pointers in the supplementary material.

That's an excellent point and I wish I had said so myself.

Thank you for pointing out one of the reasons I love Arch.

Leigh · 2006-01-22 11:09:41

punkrockguy318 wrote:

Xentac wrote:
Yeah, I'm definately saying Arch should stay as it is. Arch isn't targeted towards newbies: it's targeted towards experts, or noobs that are willing to learn a lot. But I think Arch would make a great base for a newbie-targeted distro

Whats the definition of "newbie" ?
For many people a operating system is a tool for doing many things
outside the realm of memorizing conf files and code that makes the actual
system tic in general. Even after a year of using Arch I consider myself
still a newb and I can ask some pretty dumb questions somtimes. I learn
what I need to in order to keep my arch install healthy. My reason for
choosing Arch is because I needed a home system that would be
compatible with custom unix software which is what I use at work. I
didn't neccessarily want to learn all the command line jargin to get a linux
system installed and running but at the same time I wanted a lot of
control over my system and what is installed on it.
Is newbie defined by not knowing the correct format of a fstab or
what belongs in a conf file or how to create a script to automate tedious
command line tasks? Why is user freindly gui always refered to as taking
control away from the user?
I find it ironic and rather humerous at times
when i notice that many people would like rather break thier backs carring
a huge stone up a steep hill despite the fact the wheel was invented ages
ago. Those overbloated distros that can load linux with a click of a button
have the right idea. I'm waiting for a distro like ark to take that a step
further by keeping the control in the users hands with the click of many
buttons while still automating the tedius jargin.
The less time I spend making my system work, the more time I can spend
,and save, using the system.

-- archlinux 是一个极好的 linux。

Arch Linux

#1 2004-03-28 14:13:55

User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#2 2004-03-28 17:23:09

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#3 2004-03-28 17:26:33

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#4 2004-03-28 17:31:40

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#5 2004-03-28 17:51:16

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#6 2004-03-28 17:59:56

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#7 2004-03-28 18:02:10

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#8 2004-03-28 20:43:39

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#9 2004-03-28 20:58:32

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#10 2004-03-28 23:24:18

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#11 2004-03-29 03:06:28

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#12 2004-03-29 04:54:34

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#13 2004-03-30 07:14:57

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#14 2004-03-30 09:00:53

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#15 2004-03-30 09:58:45

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#16 2004-03-30 16:27:23

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#17 2004-03-30 20:26:08

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#18 2004-04-07 18:00:12

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#19 2004-04-08 01:53:55

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#20 2004-04-08 13:17:07

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#21 2004-04-13 01:32:11

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#22 2004-04-13 02:08:41

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#23 2004-04-14 03:11:52

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#24 2004-04-14 03:37:56

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#25 2006-01-22 11:09:41

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

Board footer