Is Arch really becoming unstable?

bangkok_manouel · 2008-03-31 18:34:49

just use http://www.archlinux.org/packages/

.:B:. · 2008-03-31 18:52:28

miggols99 wrote:

When I said choose which applications to install, I would want something like this
http://xs225.xs.to/xs225/08141/mockup549.png.xs.jpg
Unfortunately, I haven't the slightest idea about programming...

Arch -1

Ubuntu +1

This is not what Arch is about. Why do we have to keep repeating that?

miggols99 · 2008-03-31 19:50:29

Well....it seems that Arch is definitely not for me then. I guess I'll go on my distro hop. Again And I thought that Arch was my perfect distro...

Last edited by miggols99 (2008-03-31 19:50:48)

phrakture · 2008-03-31 19:52:56

dolby wrote:

that poor guy seems lost

I agree. I would recommend trying out other distros. If you really like pacman, then maybe frugalware is for you?

Ashren · 2008-03-31 19:57:29

You'll be back.

It is possible, but not very optimal, to reside in the linux quadrant without the CLI.

Remember ...

I AM THE CLI - RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Mikko777 · 2008-03-31 20:14:42

miggols99 wrote:

* Rolling release
* Uses KDE4 (or lets you choose)
* Lets me choose what programs to install
* No extra apps I don't need/want
* Uses the pacman package manager
* A good frontend to pacman - otherwise known as Shaman
* Works well out of the box
* No need to use the CLI

Heh I kinda agree with you. Sounds like my dream distro too
Theres these two tho that need more detail:

-Works well out of the box:
ie sane defaults. I dont mind settings things up at all, its just that theres the uncertainity of if some other distro tweaks and optimizes and integrates the packages more than i know how to do. (things like preload, prelink, weird patches that make x start faster and remove that ugly x background at startup, kde4 integration and so on, basicly all the lowlevel stuff that the devs prolly know better than users.)

-No need to use CLI:
I dont have anything against cli, i just agree that some things are easier with gui, only thing that comes to mind atm is that its so easy to list installed packages with shaman and click all the unused ones for removal.

ekerazha · 2008-03-31 20:25:19

miggols99 wrote:

* A good frontend to pacman - otherwise known as Shaman

Completing the PackageKit ( http://www.packagekit.org ) support for pacman/libalpm would be a good start.

From: http://www.packagekit.org/pk-intro.html

PackageKit is a system designed to make installing and updating software on your computer easier. The primary design goal is to unify all the software graphical tools used in different distributions, and use some of the latest technology like PolicyKit to make the process suck less.
The actual nuts-and-bolts distro tool (yum, apt, conary, etc) is used by PackageKit using compiled and scripted helpers. PackageKit isn't meant to replace these tools, instead providing a common set of abstractions that can be used by standard GUI and text mode package managers.

Last edited by ekerazha (2008-03-31 20:29:57)

raymano · 2008-03-31 20:45:09

Or come to FaunOS

miggols99 · 2008-03-31 21:10:58

raymano wrote:

Or come to FaunOS

In fact, I have been thinking of coming to FaunOS...except it isn't 64bit. Will there ever be 64bit or am I stuck. Although it isn't that big a problem...

bender02 · 2008-03-31 21:31:07

(a bit tangetial, but;) "The Command Line - The Best Newbie Interface?" http://www.osnews.com/story/6282

zodmaner · 2008-03-31 21:53:58

Also, don't forget that more than half of the problems/bugs in Arch is an upstream one. Thus there's little Arch developers can do to fix them (you could call this a cost of living on the bleeding edge).

One of the best course of action an Arch user can do, aside from open a bug report on Arch bug tracker, is to report bug directly to the software developer. This is the surest way to get bug fix and is how bug is commonly fixed in Arch.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-03-31 23:05:16)

chilebiker · 2008-03-31 23:00:07

Arch is definitely not for everybody. It's perfect for me, even though I do have stability issues every once in a while after an upgrade. But that's a "risk" I'm willing to take, as there's an easy solution around usually. With Arch you have to get your hands dirty and use the CLI. And soon you learn what a powerful tool this is!

sevenfourk · 2008-04-01 06:11:24

Oops! I've deleted my resent post :-D. I'm just week with german, wanted to edit ok, i 'm using pacman for rolling my package installing! No need with GUI. MY ARCH IS STABLE, AND NOT SEEMS TO BE UNSTABLE indeed.

gradgrind · 2008-04-01 08:25:55

There are some points here that come up again and again - essentially: 'why can't Arch stay like it is but be more like ubuntu/suse/...?'. I'm not sure whether some of miggols99's points are really contradictory, as someone suggested, or whether they are just hard to combine, but I guess it won't be that helpful suggesting he go off and look for his perfect system elsewhere, simply because it probably doesn't exist, or if it does he will find - after a while - that it also has shortcomings that its developers can't or won't fix. That's life, it's not (only) the stubbornness of a linux distribution or a set of developers.

The oft heard cries of 'we don't want gui/hand-holding/whatever - keep Arch pure!' are also not very helpful, simply because they are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing to stop anyone who wants to from building his own hand-holding tools and putting them up for general consumption, it won't have any adverse effects on the hard-core - except of course that more newbies/incompetents/other-hated-people might pollute our blessed forums . The problem here is just that that involves quite a lot of work, not only in the original development but also in the maintanance, and you can't expect the (current) Arch developers to take that on. If you want more than a small distribution has to offer, you have to use a bigger distribution and live with its disadvantages, or you have to be patient and actively help to make the small distribution better (in harmony with its aims). If that means writing documentation or artwork, great, if that means programming or learning programming (or persuading your friends to program), also great.

As an example I would take the frequent wish for a nice, simple gui for pacman with easy to navigate package lists and descriptions (etc.). Fine, go for it, maybe shaman (or another) will be that one day, it can even bring advantages for the development of the underlying software (pacman/libalpm), but it's a lot of work. synaptic (for example) didn't happen overnight, and I guess it constantly needs work. Debian/ubuntu/redhat/suse/mandriva have a lot more developers than a small distribution like Arch, their stuff will inevitably be more polished (or at least have more features!); but probably also more complicated, bloated. That's the advantage of Arch (so far).

I see Arch (and Linux stuff in general) a bit like a little boat on the river of computer technology. You have to go with the flow, you can't stay still. You can jump to a bigger or smaller boat, paint yours a different colour, or fit a new galley or a bigger motor, but it is inevitably a dynamic situation in a changing landscape, and you need flexibility, openness, vision, and many other qualities, but also a firm hand on the steering wheel to avoid crashing into the bank.

Errm, I'll stop now before I go too far off topic ...

... oder hätte ich heute auf deutsch schreiben sollen?
Der Frühling ist endlich hier, sonnige Grüße an alle!

ph0tios · 2008-04-01 13:27:41

I find just using the CLI to be more proficient than a GUI. Even in ubuntu I didn't use synaptic to do updates. But if that is what you really want, you could design, or convince some else too. Maybe a fork of Arch will come into existence. But I would think it would directly contradict Arch's philosophy to add those things to it as a regular part of the distro. Gradgrind has a point that we need to be open to ideas, but Arch does have a definition of how and what it is suppose to be, and that shouldn't be changed. So, on the other hand, I agree with the people who say try something else...maybe it will suit you better. It's not mean or close-minded.

Last edited by ph0tios (2008-04-01 13:28:18)

thecdn · 2008-04-02 11:45:20

raymano wrote:

Or come to FaunOS

I see there is a new version out since the last time I tried faunos and couldn't get it to boot after install. Will give it a try again soon.

And btw, I love arch but I've found several times that hal will stop working for no reason after having worked fine since the install. With my limited linux skills I've tried to follow various threads in the forum to get hal working again but it hasn't worked yet. Guess that's why I'm so good at installing arch now

ST.x · 2008-04-02 13:26:54

I actually care about my system after changing to Arch from Ubuntu and I know exactly whats going on pretty much, I can't believe you came to arch and dont want to use the CLI? Im using it because I want to learn and expand my knowledge and experiment and arch encourages this and facilitates it much more than ubuntu or any other OS i've tried.

madmantm · 2008-04-02 15:23:08

distrowatch says this about archlinux "Arch Linux is an independently developed, i686-optimised Linux distribution targeted at competent Linux users"

this means i believe and correct me if i am wrong, but competent linux users are not the kind of users that would switch when things fail directly to ubuntu.

madmantm · 2008-04-02 15:23:52

ST.x wrote:

I actually care about my system after changing to Arch from Ubuntu and I know exactly whats going on pretty much, I can't believe you came to arch and dont want to use the CLI? Im using it because I want to learn and expand my knowledge and experiment and arch encourages this and facilitates it much more than ubuntu or any other OS i've tried.

samething, i am playing with arch and it's pretty fun actually, coming from debian.

and for the OP and also, you need to go more with the CLI, even the new server 2008 are going core with powershell.

Last edited by madmantm (2008-04-02 15:26:43)

daf666 · 2008-04-02 18:01:25

I guess this is the right place for this rant then...
After my saga last week with Arch failing to boot on my fit-pc router, I decided to put something else on it..
I spent 3 full days trying out Debian, Fedora and finally Gentoo, all with disastrous results (I will not detail the horrors of coping with some of these) and plenty of annoyances.
I would just add that because some distro IRC channel has a gazilion users inside, it doesnt mean that they can answer to problems that really seem trivial.
Trying Arch on the router again.. where its safe and cuddly

clarence · 2008-04-03 06:20:01

unstable? what the hell, thats funny!

erm67 · 2008-04-03 07:10:33

Ubuntu is great, the first week you install it, then you start finding bugs or little annoyances, nobody will fix them in the name of stability and you will have to wait for the next release in 6 months to see them hopefully fixed.

Last edited by erm67 (2008-04-03 07:10:55)

kumico · 2008-04-03 08:12:50

i think the best thing for you is to stick with arch
you appear frustrated at the idea of having to go on the distro hop again.
imho, i think what you need to do is assess your needs. not your desires.
i.e, what is your need of x86_64?
the only reason you don't like the cli, is because you haven't gotten to know the cli. i'm sure you can type faster than you can click.
it doesn't take too much effort to resort the output of pacman or fetch more information; a little helper script would do just fine
maybe you might consider asking someone to write such scripts for you, just ask in the forums.
i'm sure soemwould would be willing to help in whatever way they can.

miggols99 · 2008-04-03 11:49:32

If you think I've run away, I haven't....yet. You're right. I don't want to distro hop. Everyone is saying "Stay with Arch!" and someone commented on my website saying "Don't give up! I know you like Arch. I like this cute website ". It's made me want to stay with Arch...

I've recently thought of making my own Arch Linux based distro that has

* Shaman (Pacman frontend)
* Arxin (frontend to configuring /etc/rc.conf)
* Patched kernel (Ubuntu patches maybe? Also include fbcondecor patch. I like splashes )
* Good GUI installer (uses Arxin?)
* KDE 4 (or KDE 3 until KDE 4.1)

Of course I don't know how to do programming. drf? Help? and I've never compiled a kernel before. Wish me luck

EDIT: I don't know why, but I despise using 32bit programs. I cannot use flash on my laptop, but instead use swfdec, which works with most websites, but is woefully out of date...0.5 is in the repos, but 0.6.2 has been released! When I installed flash on Kubuntu, Call me weird, but I shuddered when I saw it install lib32 packages.

Last edited by miggols99 (2008-04-03 11:57:32)

kensai · 2008-04-03 12:05:41

miggols99 wrote:

* Patched kernel (Ubuntu patches maybe? Also include fbcondecor patch. I like splashes )

Yeah, those are needed for other distributions, that sit on the splash screen for almost a minute, but on Arch I don't need to see a splash for less than 15 seconds and then not seeing it again for hours or days when I decide to turn off and on the computer again.

Seriously, people ask for things, that in fact help nobody, doesn't make work better or more enjoyable and does not contribute to any good cause. It has been stated before, but we should make it a Forum rule: "Do not post about why Arch can't be like this or that distribution?". PERIOD.

I'm sorry, but threads with this kind of nonsense talking and asking for nonsense really gets to my nerves.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-03-31 18:34:49

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#27 2008-03-31 18:52:28

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#28 2008-03-31 19:50:29

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#29 2008-03-31 19:52:56

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#30 2008-03-31 19:57:29

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#31 2008-03-31 20:14:42

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#32 2008-03-31 20:25:19

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#33 2008-03-31 20:45:09

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#34 2008-03-31 21:10:58

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#35 2008-03-31 21:31:07

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#36 2008-03-31 21:53:58

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#37 2008-03-31 23:00:07

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#38 2008-04-01 06:11:24

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#39 2008-04-01 08:25:55

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#40 2008-04-01 13:27:41

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#41 2008-04-02 11:45:20

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#42 2008-04-02 13:26:54

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#43 2008-04-02 15:23:08

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#44 2008-04-02 15:23:52

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#45 2008-04-02 18:01:25

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#46 2008-04-03 06:20:01

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#47 2008-04-03 07:10:33

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#48 2008-04-03 08:12:50

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#49 2008-04-03 11:49:32

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

#50 2008-04-03 12:05:41

Re: Is Arch really becoming unstable?

Board footer