New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

topito · 2004-04-16 10:48:17

http://discuss.extremetech.com/n/main.a … sg=53648.1

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6746

Not very good the second one...

lanrat · 2004-04-16 11:01:57

Just a bad time for a review :-)

topito · 2004-04-16 11:38:22

Sure! crappy gnome 2.6

wakeupbomb · 2004-04-16 12:14:57

well iv'e had problems with Gnome on most distro's I've used so I don't blame you guys

Evangel · 2004-04-16 12:23:01

s*** happens. Just forget it because now its time to see the future...

Mr Green · 2004-04-16 12:32:46

hmmm

So what exactly is Arch? Arch, in a nutshell, is a "geek" distribution of Linux

Never been called a Geek before I take it as a compliment

Arch is not exactly easy to set up

If I can do it then anyone can

Mr Green......

zeppelin · 2004-04-16 13:05:19

Evangel wrote:

s*** happens. Just forget it because now its time to see the future...

Eugenia is right btw. Those OSNews comments either need a response, or at least someone from the DevTeam should change the way that GNOME 2.6 travelled and got installed to everyone that did pacman -Syu.

I believe that both Reviews are not bad for ArchLinux.
Reviews that critisize things and point out problems, can only help ArchLinux become a better and better Distro.

a guy in OSNews says:

I like Arch but...
By grover (IP: ---.ihug.com.au) - Posted on 2004-04-16 11:22:28
I have been running Arch for over a month now and I really like it. Its clean and light. BUT I don't use Gnome so haven't been burnt with the recent problems.
I get the impression that there has been a relentless increase in popularity/users which has put alot of pressure on the developers and maintainers. New packages are coming in all the time but there doesn't seem to be a corresponding growth in maintainers
Just speculation. But looks like growing pains to me. It remains to be seen if they can adjust well to the change.

is this true..? and it is what are the plans of tomorrow.

btw, Eugenia says it eMailed Judd. I asked, and she says he didn't get a response. Of course that doesn't mean anything for Judd nor is Judd or others forced to reply.

Because most people in OsNews and all people here love ArchLinux we just like it to grow.. I hope Devs will make the correct choices.

I'm happy this week, because Judd did FreeDesktop's X11R6 that runs smoothly and reminds me back the good days of AL and the bad days of Debian [Debian will see a stable X11R6 in a year or so.. ]

kritoke · 2004-04-16 13:36:10

Because of some of the upgrade issues, maybe we should have some sort of testing branch. I think I remember hearing someone talk about it a while back, but not sure. It would at least save us from a lot of the issues discussed in that osnews article. Although it could really affect the whole philosophy behind arch, as when do we decide to move something from testing to current and the distro wouldn't be as bleeding edge then.

Kritoke

srey · 2004-04-16 15:42:44

kritoke wrote:

Why not have a "stable" branch instead? Packages that haven't had problems reported for 2-3 weeks get moved to the stable branch. Everyone would still default to current, but have a stable for those who don't love/like the bleeding edge, or who don't want to deal with initial problems.

Don't we already have the 'release' tree? Isn't that the same thing as you are suggesting? Or are you thinking of something more current than 'release' but not as current as 'current'?

srey · 2004-04-16 18:43:36

I was under the impression that security updates were applied to the packages in the 'release' tree but everything else was kept at the current version of the last release. However, this may not be the case, in which case your suggestion is valid.

Personally, I have not had many problems using anything in the 'current' tree, apart from the ugly GNOME 2.6 installation, which I got rid of anyway. Everything else has worked perfectly, and if it didn't, I fixed it on my own machine.

mr_ed · 2004-04-16 22:13:56

In any case, it's good to see people here taking criticism to heart, and not telling the reviewer where to shove it. 8)

Xentac · 2004-04-16 22:21:09

I take most criticism to heart. That's why it hurts so much.

zeppelin · 2004-04-16 22:33:39

don't worry Xentac. We all remember your April Fools joke. And we all wanted that to be an April Fools joke.

and besides, we also love your avatar and your new signature:
"Does this avatar make my butt look big?"

shadov · 2004-04-16 23:00:48

I like the idea of 'stable' tree that follows about 3 weeks behind 'current' (security updates straight from current). Could it be automated so that package would automatically enter 'stable' after 21 days unless a bug has been reported? I'm feeling bit uneasy at the bleeding edge, but beeing several months behind isn't nice either.

contrasutra · 2004-04-16 23:51:00

thetenken wrote:

kritoke wrote:
Because of some of the upgrade issues, maybe we should have some sort of testing branch. I think I remember hearing someone talk about it a while back, but not sure. It would at least save us from a lot of the issues discussed in that osnews article. Although it could really affect the whole philosophy behind arch, as when do we decide to move something from testing to current and the distro wouldn't be as bleeding edge then.
Kritoke
Why not have a "stable" branch instead? Packages that haven't had problems reported for 2-3 weeks get moved to the stable branch. Everyone would still default to current, but have a stable for those who don't love/like the bleeding edge, or who don't want to deal with initial problems.

I've been yammering for this for a while.

Another idea I thought might work would be that a package in the "stable" repo would have to have a required amount of tests from the "package testing network".

My proposal for that:
http://arch.gooeylinux.org

I think one of those is the best solution. Either "guaranteed testing" (e.g. 50 people said this package works perfect) or automatic moving ("no reported errors in 3 weeks (ex.)").

jlvsimoes · 2004-04-17 01:16:05

Come one does anyone realy uses this one

# If you use the RELEASE tree, you should disable the CURRENT
# tree to avoid conflicts
#
#[release]

i dont , and this is stable and here there are no problems this one is tested a perfect snapshot for a perfect distro
shure things brake so ... people do the best they can and if someone is not happy .. then can
pull up the sleeves and go to work

Arch Linux

#1 2004-04-16 10:48:17

New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#2 2004-04-16 11:01:57

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#3 2004-04-16 11:38:22

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#4 2004-04-16 12:14:57

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#5 2004-04-16 12:23:01

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#6 2004-04-16 12:32:46

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#7 2004-04-16 13:05:19

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#8 2004-04-16 13:36:10

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#9 2004-04-16 15:42:44

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#10 2004-04-16 18:43:36

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#11 2004-04-16 22:13:56

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#12 2004-04-16 22:21:09

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#13 2004-04-16 22:33:39

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#14 2004-04-16 23:00:48

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#15 2004-04-16 23:51:00

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

#16 2004-04-17 01:16:05

Re: New AL review on ExtremeTech and OS News

Board footer