Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

Redroar · 2008-05-01 15:16:47

Well, I will admit that having a GUI that has all the options of the conf files would be awful. It really would, it's just way too much to put in there. So to do more intricate things you have to edit them directly. A power user will care and want to make these things fit him/her, while a regular user generally won't worry about it unless they have to. Usually a GUI has enough to satisfy the typical user.

But while you can indeed edit /etc and ~/. in Ubuntu, I find that there is far less commenting, the structure is far more complicated, and sometimes there are some ridiculous defaults. It makes things feel very unfriendly when trying to edit them directly.

Maki · 2008-05-01 15:24:22

The kdemod distro matches to my vision of a KISS newbie friendly distro.
I'll join the team as soon they need translations, documentation & bug hunting.

ProzacR · 2008-05-01 15:41:11

KISS newbie friendly distro?
It is the most popular one: Microsoft Windows XP Professional.

daf666 · 2008-05-01 18:48:27

ProzacR wrote:

KISS newbie friendly distro?
It is the most popular one: Microsoft Windows XP Professional.

pro is too much power.. noobs should stick to home edition..
no but seriously, there are a gazilion distro's out there, find the one best for u and let Arch remain what it is..
I am totaly against "friendly stuff", the bare bones nature of Arch is its most friendly feature.

Sigi · 2008-05-01 18:56:41

ProzacR wrote:

KISS newbie friendly distro?
It is the most popular one: Microsoft Windows XP Professional.

WinXP isn't KISS at all

jpt · 2008-05-01 20:24:17

daf666 wrote:

the bare bones nature of Arch is its most friendly feature.

Redroar · 2008-05-02 04:14:56

No one here seeks to change Arch, as far as I can tell. Arch will remain as it always has: a fantastic bare bones binary distribution, with a setup that is very friendly to those who use the CLI.

What is being spoken of here is Arch + extras. A repackaged version of Arch with some GUI administration and a bit of default set up. If it is done properly then the user should be able to uninstall all the 'extras' and just be left with regular Arch.

_Marco_ · 2008-05-02 07:53:02

Redroar wrote:

No one here seeks to change Arch, as far as I can tell. Arch will remain as it always has: a fantastic bare bones binary distribution, with a setup that is very friendly to those who use the CLI.
What is being spoken of here is Arch + extras. A repackaged version of Arch with some GUI administration and a bit of default set up. If it is done properly then the user should be able to uninstall all the 'extras' and just be left with regular Arch.

I'd prefer that the user could ADD additional guy, not that we have to REMOVE it (and some optional GUI is already here), I like arch for is lightness and I would NOT like to see the born of a new *everything-is-preinstalled* ubuntu...
anyway this is only my personal opinion.

b9anders · 2008-05-02 13:50:01

I don't think the Ubuntu comparisons are accurate tbh (not to mention that the likes of mandriva, suse, etc. have been making distros like this long before ubuntu came around).
A debian-esque (sid flavour) distro would probably be more accurate. Ubuntu has a very fixed way of doing things and will change things for you when you dist-upgrade you might not like. It does not encourage tinkering as it assumes it will know what to change better than you. Debian on the other hand, is very tinker-friendly and encourages personalised set-ups, whilst nonetheless coming with a basic set-up and way of doing things.

I would imagine that a more newbie friendly version of arch would be along the same lines. You get a basic setup where certain choices have been made for you to get you started. But you keep the underlying modular structure of arch as a rolling release distro.

A kdemod mod livecd with some tools like shaman, arxin, aldm, arch, archassistant and you could have that. Works out of the box and comes with some gui tools to explore how arch works under the hood (like it or not, gui works incredibly well for exploring).

It would be a fork, but not as distinct as say ubuntu and debian. An apt comparison might be sidux, which uses the debian sid repositories and is essentially debian, except for some added scripts to balance life on the bleeding and some differences in initial setup to make it more accesible for the desktop user.

Redroar · 2008-05-02 14:51:24

Yes, we all would prefer to add the extras, but someone who is unfamiliar with what they may want to add can get lost and frustrated pretty quickly. If this Arch + KDEmod thing is basically Arch, KDEmod, Shaman, and a handful of other GUI config tools, then it's still relatively light in the distro world. And if you want regular Arch then by all means install regular Arch!

Personally, I will probably not use an Arch + extras thing for myself (besides testing, perhaps). But it would be excellent for my friends and family. Newbie-friendly enough where they can work around in it, but if the s*** hits the fan then I'll have an intimate knowledge of the underpinnings of it all.

tim · 2008-05-02 15:29:11

funkyou wrote:

Yes, we are working on "something", but we would like to have it in a presentable state and write more code and stuff before talking
And no, it will _not_ be a "new" distro or something... We dont want to leave Arch and we dont want to fork it or something, because its already perfect as it is... What Redroar wrote about DesktopBSD comes near to what we want to do, and now i stop talking
If you want to know whats going on, take a look into our svn or forums, or just join #shaman-arch @ freenode and ask us directly

Personally I think what you are planning is perfect. You're not changing Arch in any way just adding to it in a way that leaves everything exactly as it would be without the gui tools. Everything you said above makes absolute sense and I for one would be happy to help if I can.

It's actually kind of spooky that people are comparing what you're planning to DesktopBSD. I used FreeBSD for years (before I found arch) because for me it was superior to all the linux distros I'd used, but eventually I got bored of tweaking my system. Manually administering my system was just not that interesting anymore and in fact it was becoming a bit of a pain that I had no choice to click a few buttons and have whatever I needed to do done. Then I found DesktopBSD and it was perfect. Gave me FreeBSD without the need to do day to day things manually with the CLI but I was confident with the knowledge that if I needed to do things manually with the CLI then anything that applied to FreeBSD applied to my DesktopBSD system because it WAS FreeBSD, it just had a gui installer and some gui tools for common tasks that were just front ends to a plan old FreeBSD.

Eventually I got bored with BSD compatibility issues with apps like matlab and Mathematica and VPN clients to access uni WIFI etc so I played with gentoo and SUE for a while but I hated them both. Then the heavens opened up and I found my saviour. Arch!!! It's like FreeBSD but it's linux.

So if what you're planning is anything like DesktopBSD then I think it will be a huge success and wont detract in any way from Arch. It will only add to the number of people using the best distro on the planet.

Good luck.

(Sorry for the boring life story)

cardinals_fan · 2008-05-02 23:44:57

Redroar wrote:

If someone were to make a DesktopBSD equivalent, only built on Arch....that'd be great.
Fact is, there's no reason it can't be done. DesktopBSD is FreeBSD, but with administration tools, a graphical installer, etc. You can uninstall all that stuff and be left with FreeBSD (or so it's website says), and I imagine the same could be done with Arch. But it takes someone to sit down and do it. Personally, I have neither the time nor the desire to do it. Arch fits the bill perfectly for me, and while I know quite a few people that would prefer something that is graphical...they usually don't care that Ubuntu is 10% slower, and since they won't mess around with the wonderful contents of /etc anyway.

I can't believe someone beat me to this! DesktopBSD is the perfect compromise.

ProzacR · 2008-05-03 07:31:01

Sigi wrote:

ProzacR wrote:
KISS newbie friendly distro?
It is the most popular one: Microsoft Windows XP Professional.
WinXP isn't KISS at all

Why? Can you exlplain?

Sigi · 2008-05-03 08:38:03

ProzacR wrote:

Sigi wrote:
ProzacR wrote:
KISS newbie friendly distro?
It is the most popular one: Microsoft Windows XP Professional.
WinXP isn't KISS at all
Why? Can you exlplain?

It depends on what you understand under KISS. For me, KISS means that an OS has a logical structure and all the configuration files human readable and not hidden behind a GUI. It means that you have total control over your system. If you remove a program for example, you want every part of the program to be removed and you don't want to fill your registry with crap. A KISS system should also provide an easy way to update every installed part of the system, feature some kind of package management. Do I have to continue?

ProzacR · 2008-05-03 08:51:17

don't want to fill your registry with crap <- this is rare problem of bad third party uninstallers.
And it is not problem at all mainly. Because then you remove program you still want to keep settings right?

Sigi · 2008-05-03 09:10:34

Ok, then could you please explain to me why WinXP should be KISS?

ProzacR · 2008-05-03 09:57:39

DOS is superKISS and Windows is almost like DOS.

peets · 2008-05-03 15:07:43

wtf? DOS is complicated: wildcards are not expanded by the shell, but by each individual program. Well, I think: I haven't been able to read the source, but this is what happens when I try perl -e'...' *.

ProzacR · 2008-05-03 17:39:38

There are a lot of different shells for DOS about which one you talk?
MSDOS command.com has wildcads.

Last edited by ProzacR (2008-05-03 17:44:12)

b9anders · 2008-05-04 10:19:35

tim wrote:

It's actually kind of spooky that people are comparing what you're planning to DesktopBSD. I used FreeBSD for years (before I found arch) because for me it was superior to all the linux distros I'd used, but eventually I got bored of tweaking my system.

I've been thinking of a trying a BSD one of these things. What made it superior for you at the time?

tim · 2008-05-04 13:04:00

b9anders wrote:

tim wrote:
It's actually kind of spooky that people are comparing what you're planning to DesktopBSD. I used FreeBSD for years (before I found arch) because for me it was superior to all the linux distros I'd used, but eventually I got bored of tweaking my system.
I've been thinking of a trying a BSD one of these things. What made it superior for you at the time?

For me FreeBSD and Arch are very similar. they are similarly robust, reliable and speedy, but mainly because of the way they are configured. There are a small collection of config files that are very easy to understand and simple to administer. You know how people say that using the CLI is the best way to understand linux? Well I'd attempted that with various popular and suppossedly user friendly linux distro's (RedHat, Suse etc) and I can honestly say that after many months of blood sweat and tears and many late nights reading so called howto's I basically had absolutely no idea how they worked or how to do anything without a gui. I tried gentoo after all that and for me it was just so complicated and time consuming to even learn how to do something and for me virtually impossible to understand what I was doing that I really don't get why it is so popular. FreeBSD is very simple and easy to understand yet as powerful as any gentoo system and WAAAAAAY more stable. The ports system for compiling instead of loading binaries is stupidly easy to use but in my experience it's no faster than using the binaries which is a testament to the binaries not a criticism of the ports system. It's also got great documentation that will allow you to actually understand how things work and what you're doing.

So really in my opinion, everything I just described about FreeBSD is applicable to Arch. There are many benefits to Arch over FreeBSD though. For instance, if some tool, or driver, or application is available for the *nix's then it will be available for linux, but for too often it wont be available for the BSD's. I think arch is in fact even more logically built and configured than FreeBSD, and finally one of the most advantageous benefits of Arch is the developers. They are so present and open, they talk to us nobodies and treat us with absolute respect and encouragement. They listen, they're sensible and pragmatic and seem genuinely interested in continuing the so called Arch way .... I could go on and on, but lets just say that if you go with FreeBSD then you may get a more political and disconnected environment. I certainly don't think you would have the devs participating in a 'Newbie Friendly vs user firendly distro' forum discussion.

I say stick with arch, the BSD's don't offer you anything more.

(again, sorry for the boring epic post)

tim

Last edited by tim (2008-05-04 21:14:15)

neowolf · 2008-05-04 16:43:08

ProzacR wrote:

don't want to fill your registry with crap <- this is rare problem of bad third party uninstallers.
And it is not problem at all mainly. Because then you remove program you still want to keep settings right?

Personally when I uninstall a program I'd appreciate an option to keep the settings, but in general if I'm uninstalling it I want it gone. Not leaving a bunch of crap on my computer. Or at least if it does, leaving it in such a way that it's easy to remove myself.

b9anders · 2008-05-05 08:40:30

tim wrote:

b9anders wrote:
tim wrote:
It's actually kind of spooky that people are comparing what you're planning to DesktopBSD. I used FreeBSD for years (before I found arch) because for me it was superior to all the linux distros I'd used, but eventually I got bored of tweaking my system.
I've been thinking of a trying a BSD one of these things. What made it superior for you at the time?
For me FreeBSD and Arch are very similar. they are similarly robust, reliable and speedy, but mainly because of the way they are configured. There are a small collection of config files that are very easy to understand and simple to administer. You know how people say that using the CLI is the best way to understand linux? Well I'd attempted that with various popular and suppossedly user friendly linux distro's (RedHat, Suse etc) and I can honestly say that after many months of blood sweat and tears and many late nights reading so called howto's I basically had absolutely no idea how they worked or how to do anything without a gui. I tried gentoo after all that and for me it was just so complicated and time consuming to even learn how to do something and for me virtually impossible to understand what I was doing that I really don't get why it is so popular. FreeBSD is very simple and easy to understand yet as powerful as any gentoo system and WAAAAAAY more stable. The ports system for compiling instead of loading binaries is stupidly easy to use but in my experience it's no faster than using the binaries which is a testament to the binaries not a criticism of the ports system. It's also got great documentation that will allow you to actually understand how things work and what you're doing.
So really in my opinion, everything I just described about FreeBSD is applicable to Arch. There are many benefits to Arch over FreeBSD though. For instance, if some tool, or driver, or application is available for the *nix's then it will be available for linux, but for too often it wont be available for the BSD's. I think arch is in fact even more logically built and configured than FreeBSD, and finally one of the most advantageous benefits of Arch is the developers. They are so present and open, they talk to us nobodies and treat us with absolute respect and encouragement. They listen, they're sensible and pragmatic and seem genuinely interested in continuing the so called Arch way .... I could go on and on, but lets just say that if you go with FreeBSD then you may get a more political and disconnected environment. I certainly don't think you would have the devs participating in a 'Newbie Friendly vs user firendly distro' forum discussion.
I say stick with arch, the BSD's don't offer you anything more.
(again, sorry for the boring epic post)
tim

thanks.:)

drf · 2008-05-21 16:44:51

b9anders wrote:

It would be a fork, but not as distinct as say ubuntu and debian. An apt comparison might be sidux, which uses the debian sid repositories and is essentially debian, except for some added scripts to balance life on the bleeding and some differences in initial setup to make it more accesible for the desktop user.

Just to clarify.

We're not forking anything. KDEmod Live CD is based on Plain Arch + KDEmod4 (that also includes Shaman, Arxin & friends).
If you install Arch and then do pacman -S kdemod4, it's exactly the same. We're just providing a livecd that can help people installing Arch, but we're not turning Arch into Ubuntu in any way. Having GUI isn't bad in the end, look at Arxin. You get the same options you get in rc.conf in a nice layout, easier to edit, and more eye-pleasant way. And most of the times it's also better even for pro users (you can select hooks from a list, for example). But what lies behind is the same. "Easier" not always means "for dumbs". I have no problems in editing rc.conf, but I feel way more comfortable with Arxin, same for Pacman and Shaman. This is why I believed and still believe in those projects.

We're just providing an easier installation process (that, FYI, from today on started to work), more eye-pleasant, that is aimed to give a better experience to the user when installing. But, even if it is not based on /arch/setup, it does almost exactly what /arch/setup does (+ xorg configuration)!! So don't fear forks or anything, as all the devs already said, this is a plus to Arch, and it's a community effort, and it's KISS (look at arxin code for example). So, it's just Arch again, but with a different face

Last edited by drf (2008-05-21 16:46:21)

foxbunny · 2008-05-22 21:15:49

To answer the original post, I've written a blog entry just now. I didn't want to post it in this thread directly becuase I needed more space to explain everything I've discovered in detail.

http://eyedeal.team88.org/node/154

Arch Linux

#26 2008-05-01 15:16:47

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#27 2008-05-01 15:24:22

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#28 2008-05-01 15:41:11

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#29 2008-05-01 18:48:27

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#30 2008-05-01 18:56:41

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#31 2008-05-01 20:24:17

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#32 2008-05-02 04:14:56

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#33 2008-05-02 07:53:02

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#34 2008-05-02 13:50:01

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#35 2008-05-02 14:51:24

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#36 2008-05-02 15:29:11

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#37 2008-05-02 23:44:57

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#38 2008-05-03 07:31:01

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#39 2008-05-03 08:38:03

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#40 2008-05-03 08:51:17

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#41 2008-05-03 09:10:34

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#42 2008-05-03 09:57:39

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#43 2008-05-03 15:07:43

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#44 2008-05-03 17:39:38

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#45 2008-05-04 10:19:35

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#46 2008-05-04 13:04:00

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#47 2008-05-04 16:43:08

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#48 2008-05-05 08:40:30

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#49 2008-05-21 16:44:51

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#50 2008-05-22 21:15:49

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

Board footer