Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

carzzz215 · 2008-09-01 21:14:36

Just the other day I downloaded the latest 2008.06 Overlord FTP install cd, and really, I was shocked to see that the "base directory will be automatically installed". Previously I had been using the 2007.08 FTP cd, and I enjoyed being able to select which package categories I wanted and which specific packages within those categories. But now I'm forced(?) to install the whole base directory!?

Maybe I'm just picky, but why should I have to install things like vi and reiserfsprogs, when I only use nano to edit and JFS for my file system? I understand that from the standpoint of a brand new arch users, they might not know what to select and de-select. So the best thing for them is just to install the whole base system. But what about me or any other more advanced Archers? Shouldn't there be an option to choose?

In the older 2007.08 ftp cd, the base category was auto selected and all the packages withing were as well, (which makes it easy for a beginner, which is good), but it also made it nice for me because I could de-select the packages that I didn't want. Why can't I choose anymore?

Am I the only one who feels this way?

It's almost a shame that I've become so attached to arch, that I can't imagine the day when i'd have to search for another distro for my main distro. So changes like this kinda stress me out.

Misfit138 · 2008-09-01 21:18:45

See here and here.
If I understand correctly, Simo will be reverting to the 'old way' on the next iso release.

carzzz215 · 2008-09-01 21:20:42

OMG I love you Misfit!!!! Thats great to see that I'm not alone!

Dusty · 2008-09-01 21:24:15

In addition they're downsizing base so that its unlikely it will have things in it that you don't absolutely need.

Dusty

haxit · 2008-09-01 21:35:38

WOOT, sounds great.

amokkk · 2008-09-01 21:45:36

haxit wrote:

WOOT, sounds great.

+1

pogeymanz · 2008-09-01 22:06:51

This kind of had me scratching my head. Thanks for clearing it up for us, Misfit.

Last edited by pogeymanz (2008-09-01 22:19:35)

haxit · 2008-09-01 22:11:26

Wait, are they removing nano from base?

Misfit138 · 2008-09-01 22:23:01

haxit wrote:

Wait, are they removing nano?

I sincerely doubt that would happen. I am sure both vi and nano will remain.

haxit · 2008-09-01 22:24:45

Ok, thank God. I really love nano. It was a pain using vi in solaris at coop. I really never want to go back to it.

Well I cannot wait on the next release. Good work dev's!!

Last edited by haxit (2008-09-01 22:25:03)

moljac024 · 2008-09-01 22:26:03

haxit wrote:

Wait, are they removing nano from base?

If they are that's just wrong...

Dusty · 2008-09-01 22:30:46

moljac024 wrote:

haxit wrote:
Wait, are they removing nano from base?
If they are that's just wrong...

Define base. :-P nano would still be on the install CD and you'd be free to install it at any time. It just wouldn't be in base. There's no reason to have it there.

Dusty

haxit · 2008-09-01 22:31:46

Just imagine if they removed vi, and a whole bunch of old *nix users/devs trying to use nano for the first time. Lol
</stupidness and bordness>

Oh, I see. Thanks for the info Dusty.

Last edited by haxit (2008-09-01 22:32:30)

dsr · 2008-09-02 00:45:54

I, too, prefer the choice to deselect packages. Judging by Misfit's first link, it seems like the only reason for the change in 2008.06 was to ensure that everyone has the base packages installed, since base packages aren't listed as dependencies in PKGBUILD files. The change to the installation media still doesn't ensure that everyone has all the base packages installed, however, since people can just uninstall base packages after their system is up and running. Let's say that Wbr Fpuzbr uninstalled lilo from his system. Then he tried to install someone's shell script from the AUR but didn't realize that it processed some data from a lilo config file. Oops. The script won't work, and Wbr has no clue why.

Okay, that's not a great example, but you get the point. The only advantage of this new change is that it ensures that everyone will have installed the base packages for dependency purposes. That's not even really an advantage since people might have uninstalled some of the base packages at a later point, leading to the same dependency bugs that this change tries to solve. There are quite a few disadvantages:

1. users have no choice as to which base packages are installed (goes against the KISS principle of control)
2. as a result, users won't easily know which packages were installed (goes against the KISS principle of transparency)
3. the new installation media doesn't get at the root of the problem (PKGBUILDs not specifying dependencies from base)
4. as a result, if those same bugs crop up like in Wbr Fpuzbr's example, the cause might be overlooked since forcing users to install all of base "fixed" the problem

Misfit138 wrote:

If I understand correctly, Simo will be reverting to the 'old way' on the next iso release.

That's very good. In the meantime, users can always use the 2008.03 ISO.

toofishes · 2008-09-02 02:22:27

People might as well start threads titled "The sky is falling!". You guys read into one tiny decision way too much. Equating "base packages are preselected" with "losing ability to choose" is absolutely ridiculous.

dsr wrote:

I, too, prefer the choice to deselect packages. Judging by Misfit's first link, it seems like the only reason for the change in 2008.06 was to ensure that everyone has the base packages installed

False, actually. The real reason was this option (not having an option of what to install) was much easier given our flat SVN repository layout and the desire to remove fetching an additional packages.list file just to determine what was in base. Simo ran this by me and I thought it was fine as it saved a whole lot of work from the installer point of view (look at all you guys stepping up to help out since you have so much to say, thanks for the help!). As our base install is quite minimal anyway, and no matter how hard we try, will never be minimal enough for everyone. It isn't like it is hard to tweak later.

Obviously there was (constructive) feedback from some people, and a whole lot of bitching and whining from others. I'm sure Simo will take more of the former into consideration when he re-adds the ability to select and deselect base packages.

That's very good. In the meantime, users can always use the 2008.03 ISO.

This is probably the worst suggestion I've seen, which is why I am finally responding to this thread. You will end up spending twice as much time re-upgrading every package on your system if you do a CD install, and I doubt the FTP install will even work. But good luck!

dsr · 2008-09-02 02:44:45

toofishes wrote:

dsr wrote:
I, too, prefer the choice to deselect packages. Judging by Misfit's first link, it seems like the only reason for the change in 2008.06 was to ensure that everyone has the base packages installed
False, actually. The real reason was this option (not having an option of what to install) was much easier given our flat SVN repository layout and the desire to remove fetching an additional packages.list file just to determine what was in base. Simo ran this by me and I thought it was fine as it saved a whole lot of work from the installer point of view

Ah, the truth comes out. That makes a lot more sense.

toofishes wrote:

That's very good. In the meantime, users can always use the 2008.03 ISO.
This is probably the worst suggestion I've seen, which is why I am finally responding to this thread. You will end up spending twice as much time re-upgrading every package on your system if you do a CD install, and I doubt the FTP install will even work. But good luck!

I was thinking in terms of the CD install (I've never used the FTP install since my only network is wireless), but you're right, I guess you don't have to upgrade every package if you use a recent ISO. In any event, I'm glad that this change will probably be reverted in the next installer release, even if it doesn't really pertain to those of us with working Arch systems. I know it sounds like a trivial issue, but a lot of us were beginning to get concerned that Arch might be heading down the wrong path (not unlike Gentoo of late). Fortunately, it isn't!

iphitus · 2008-09-02 04:11:50

netcfg is on the discs, so ftp install should work fine.

cactus · 2008-09-02 07:53:03

*spews water all over his keyboard*

ha

hahaha

oh man. this thread.
HILARIOUS!

*starts cleaning up his watery mess*

neotuli · 2008-09-02 17:03:53

Oh shit! You got me!
This change was made explicitly to reduce your ability to choose. duh.
You see, as our userbase becomes increasingly stupid, we need to decrease their choosing ability and start doing the thinking for them. It's a rather elegant solution to a stupid problem.

kensai · 2008-09-02 17:08:30

Still you can't choose a real alternative to gasoline, and that has been going on for years, so what is the big deal of choosing? We already lost that right a long time ago. Remember Arch Linux is an Anarchy, the installer is governed by Simo.

Mr Green · 2008-09-02 17:13:34

Well just fitted a fan to my case side that has lights in it, a choice I made thinking a bad one!

Dusty · 2008-09-02 17:14:31

kensai wrote:

Still you can't choose a real alternative to gasoline, and that has been going on for years, so what is the big deal of choosing? We already lost that right a long time ago. Remember Arch Linux is an Anarchy, the installer is governed by Simo.

Unless you write your own installer, of course. Simo is not the installer god. He's just a god.

Dusty

neotuli · 2008-09-02 17:18:27

Well. Not really a god but playing god is the idea here... as I was explaining its necessity.

Lord Illidan · 2008-09-02 17:44:55

Wow...mass hysteria!

karoshi · 2008-09-02 17:49:51

im predicting a riot!

Arch Linux

#1 2008-09-01 21:14:36

Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#2 2008-09-01 21:18:45

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#3 2008-09-01 21:20:42

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#4 2008-09-01 21:24:15

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#5 2008-09-01 21:35:38

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#6 2008-09-01 21:45:36

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#7 2008-09-01 22:06:51

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#8 2008-09-01 22:11:26

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#9 2008-09-01 22:23:01

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#10 2008-09-01 22:24:45

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#11 2008-09-01 22:26:03

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#12 2008-09-01 22:30:46

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#13 2008-09-01 22:31:46

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#14 2008-09-02 00:45:54

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#15 2008-09-02 02:22:27

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#16 2008-09-02 02:44:45

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#17 2008-09-02 04:11:50

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#18 2008-09-02 07:53:03

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#19 2008-09-02 17:03:53

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#20 2008-09-02 17:08:30

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#21 2008-09-02 17:13:34

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#22 2008-09-02 17:14:31

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#23 2008-09-02 17:18:27

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#24 2008-09-02 17:44:55

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

#25 2008-09-02 17:49:51

Re: Are we losing are ability to choose with Arch?

Board footer