Weaknesses of default install

zomg · 2008-12-27 15:21:13

Hello,

I have heard good things about Arch (it's like slackware, it has many Haskell packages, etc.) and as I had some time to kill I commenced the install

The install process went rather smoothly (one of the best GNU/Linux installers I have seen, but I'm mostly experienced with BSDs) and after some while I had the system installed.

So far my experiences are rather negative:
* the default install has no nc, telnet
* apropos doesn't work,
* a minor annoyance that "vim" isn't to be found, but vi is vim (I'd prefer vi symlinked to vim, not vim renamed to vi),
* there is no iptables

pacman is rather ok, afer reading the man page you can do everything you want (but I'd still prefer some "examples" section at the end of it).

Maybe some of these "weaknesses" are just perceived not real ones? For example, is there an analogue of telnet?

mutlu_inek · 2008-12-27 15:30:34

Arch install is supposed to provide a very rudimentary core system. Why would I want telnet or iptables per default on my system?

Vim is not vi. They are separate packages on Arch.

If apropos is broken, please file a bug report.

Misfit138 · 2008-12-27 15:31:53

zomg wrote:

one of the best GNU/Linux installers I have seen..

So far my experiences are rather negative..

Ambivalence +1.

fwojciec · 2008-12-27 15:33:49

For telnet you have to install netkit-telnet package.
For vim you have to install vim package (it's separate from vi package, same goes for gvim).
For iptables you have to install iptables.
Apropos works here, so I'm not sure what the problem is...

The default install is not supposed to have a comprehensive selection of software -- it's main purpose is to facilitate installation of further packages.

zomg · 2008-12-27 15:34:28

mutlu_inek wrote:

Arch install is supposed to provide a very rudimentary core system. Why would I want telnet or iptables per default on my system?

Why would I want arping per default on my system? It is included. Telnet/nc is useful for troubleshooting network problems.

mutlu_inek wrote:

Vim is not vi. They are separate packages on Arch.

On vim/vi: the vi included in default install is practically vim. Maybe vim package includes something more and my argument is flawed.

Last edited by zomg (2008-12-27 15:36:33)

zomg · 2008-12-27 15:35:46

fwojciec wrote:

The default install is not supposed to have a comprehensive selection of software -- it's main purpose is to facilitate installation of further packages.

Oh, ok, it is maybe just matter of philosophy

I will try to investigate more on apropos.

Ghost1227 · 2008-12-27 15:41:56

zomg wrote:

I have heard good things about Arch (it's like slackware, it has many Haskell packages, etc.) and as I had some time to kill I commenced the install
The install process went rather smoothly (one of the best GNU/Linux installers I have seen, but I'm mostly experienced with BSDs) and after some while I had the system installed.

Yay!

zomg wrote:

So far my experiences are rather negative:
* the default install has no nc, telnet

If memory serves, one can be installed from the initial installation cd (it's just not selected by default)

zomg wrote:

* apropos doesn't work,

As previously stated, please file a bug report

zomg wrote:

* a minor annoyance that "vim" isn't to be found, but vi is vim (I'd prefer vi symlinked to vim, not vim renamed to vi),

Also as previously stated, they are definitely NOT the same thing.

zomg wrote:

* there is no iptables

In fact there is iptables, it's just not part of the core install. The core cd is designed to give you a minimal build system from which you can build your system how you see fit. Unless you're building a computer for the NSA, FBI, or some other government agency, what would tthe point be in having iptables setup while you're installing?

zomg wrote:

pacman is rather ok, afer reading the man page you can do everything you want (but I'd still prefer some "examples" section at the end of it).

PACMAN FTW!!! Seriously though, I thought there was an examples section somewhere, and if there isn't one there certainly should be... we'll have to look into that.

zomg wrote:

Maybe some of these "weaknesses" are just perceived not real ones? For example, is there an analogue of telnet?

Almost any (perceived) weakness can be corrected simply by doing exactly what you did and bringing it to the community's attention. In most cases we can point you in the right direction. If it's a legitimate weakness/bug/missing feature/whatever, a TU or Dev will look into fixing it (or you are welcome to submit a fix/patch/update on your own).

I hope that mine and the previous responses have helped you and that you will enjoy your stay with us. If you have further issues, please feel free to address them to the community!

Allan · 2008-12-27 15:51:54

The vi package in Arch IS vim, just a very stripped down install. No X, python/perl/ruby interpreters, etc. The vim package (which has the vim binary) is a fully featured version except for a gui which is provided by gvim.

mutlu_inek · 2008-12-27 15:54:43

zomg wrote:

mutlu_inek wrote:
Arch install is supposed to provide a very rudimentary core system. Why would I want telnet or iptables per default on my system?
Why would I want arping per default on my system? It is included. Telnet/nc is useful for troubleshooting network problems.

Really? I don't have it.

In any case, everyone will probably make slightly different choices as to which packages to include. Generally, however, the base install serves its purpose quite well. If there is anything that is truly redundant or truly lacking (as in it prevents you from running a base system from which to install more of Arch), please shout.

And welcome to Arch. I hope you will enjoy it.

Ghost1227 · 2008-12-27 16:02:48

Allan wrote:

The vi package in Arch IS vim, just a very stripped down install. No X, python/perl/ruby interpreters, etc. The vim package (which has the vim binary) is a fully featured version except for a gui which is provided by gvim.

I stand corrected! I never really looked into it, just did a pacman -S vim as soon as I had connectivity cause I knew the vi package didn't do exactly what I wanted it to...

elide · 2008-12-27 16:38:49

Weaknesses? Just install telnet if you need it.
Is there any reason why telnet must be in _base_ ?

ArchArael · 2008-12-27 22:18:58

BTW....telnet is weak. Use ssh instead. For the other points I guess you obtained answers.

Last edited by ArchArael (2008-12-27 22:20:37)

tomk · 2008-12-27 22:51:08

fyi - arping is provided by the iputils package, which also provides ping, traceroute, and a few other utilities.

Dieter@be · 2008-12-27 23:23:59

ArchArael wrote:

BTW....telnet is weak. Use ssh instead. For the other points I guess you obtained answers.

You can use telnet for anything that runs on TCP (eg debugging of http, smtp etc), not just the telnet protocol itself. He was referring to using telnet for debugging network problems.

That said, including things like telnet or netcat by default has it's pros and it's cons. There is no right or wrong, especially for a distro where everything that could make an installation more bloated/complex than needed must be carefully weighed against it's advantages.

Personally I'm okay with leaving it out by default. Unlike something like arp, which has a much higher "common usefulness"/"make the install biggerness" ratio then telnet.

Last edited by Dieter@be (2008-12-27 23:25:23)

ArchArael · 2008-12-28 08:37:03

Dieter@be wrote:

ArchArael wrote:
BTW....telnet is weak. Use ssh instead. For the other points I guess you obtained answers.
You can use telnet for anything that runs on TCP (eg debugging of http, smtp etc), not just the telnet protocol itself. He was referring to using telnet for debugging network problems.
That said, including things like telnet or netcat by default has it's pros and it's cons. There is no right or wrong, especially for a distro where everything that could make an installation more bloated/complex than needed must be carefully weighed against it's advantages.
Personally I'm okay with leaving it out by default. Unlike something like arp, which has a much higher "common usefulness"/"make the install biggerness" ratio then telnet.

ah...sorry..I misunderstood. My network testing tool of choice is usually ping. But I don't do a lot of network testing I guess.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-12-27 15:21:13

Weaknesses of default install

#2 2008-12-27 15:30:34

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#3 2008-12-27 15:31:53

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#4 2008-12-27 15:33:49

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#5 2008-12-27 15:34:28

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#6 2008-12-27 15:35:46

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#7 2008-12-27 15:41:56

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#8 2008-12-27 15:51:54

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#9 2008-12-27 15:54:43

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#10 2008-12-27 16:02:48

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#11 2008-12-27 16:38:49

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#12 2008-12-27 22:18:58

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#13 2008-12-27 22:51:08

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#14 2008-12-27 23:23:59

Re: Weaknesses of default install

#15 2008-12-28 08:37:03

Re: Weaknesses of default install

Board footer