My concerns about Arch Linux.

thegnu · 2004-10-19 00:04:02

Let me start off by saying I love Arch Linux, but I just did a reinstall of Arch Linux and here are my thoughts:

1. Right now the latest stable version (0.6) and the devel version (0.7) don't work. I had to load all the modules off the 0.6 disk to get 0.7 to detect my eth0. Then the GRUB deal. This really shouldn't happen in the future. This sucks the proverbial turd.

2. There should be a way to set configuration options for pacman that pacman will not remove everytime you upgrade it. My suggestion before was to have a comment line at the end of pacman.conf, after which you can place your configuration options and pacman will cat that part form the old file onto the new file.

3. There should be a pacman GUI. I know there are some people working on it, but I just want to say it's an excellent idea. For newbies. Because idiots are the strongest force in any movement, catering a weensie bit to newbies wouldn't hurt anybody. If there were a simple, stupid gui that would give item descriptions it would be really neato and impressive.

4. Is there a way to list installed packages? Because that would be cool. If you could also see what packages have not been used for X days, that would be good. Sometimes I install crap to fool around with, and then forget about it.

OK. That's it. I'm just bitching. GAAAHH!!!! I WANT reiser4! AAHH!!!
Love,
thegnu

hyp0luxa · 2004-10-19 00:17:51

Answer to #4: pacman -Qi

kakabaratruskia · 2004-10-19 00:32:37

#2: You can put /etc/pacman.conf as NoUpgrade in pacman.conf

paranoos · 2004-10-19 00:49:18

Answer to #3: No.

soniX · 2004-10-19 00:56:11

#1 Just installed arch on my new laptop from the 0.6 disc and it worked perfectly.. pacman -Syu and "eanbled" udev... still perfect... and grub ..perfect..
I dont read every single post on this forum, so you might have adressed this problem elsewere, but this wasnt exactly my definition of an informative post.

#3 for descriptions on how to use pacman we have the wiki (which is getting better every day) and man pacman.

thegnu · 2004-10-19 01:16:02

I dont read every single post on this forum, so you might have adressed this problem elsewere, but this wasnt exactly my definition of an informative post.

Howbout you eat it? I'm drunk. Did I claim to be informative? I have tried installing Arch from the 0.6 disc on 3 computers, on all of which it failed. The replies to my post have made my post informative. THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS! My opponents must eat it!

I said I was just bitching. Oh, and did I mention how good it is to eat this season? Eat it.

//edit:
Suck it.

//edit:
Thanks hyp0luxa and kakabaratruskia!

soniX · 2004-10-19 02:08:01

why are you mixing questions and bitching ?
Perhaps informative was the wrong word.. "well formulated question" is perhaps more correct..
the answer to your questions can all be found in the documentation, except question one which isnt really a question... just bitching. But I still think im able to give you an answer:

Its not arch's fault that you are too lazy to read the documentation and too fucking retarded too install it. The problem is not the 0.6 .. its beteween your computer and your chair.

paranoos · 2004-10-19 02:21:29

soniX wrote:

its beteween your computer and your chair.

Pebkac T-Shirt

(problem exists between keyboard and chair)

Paul · 2004-10-19 02:40:49

I agree about the pacman gui

typing p-a-c-m-a-n is so hard and takes so long. Don't get me started on how you can't use options like -Ss to search for programs.

dp · 2004-10-19 08:23:04

Paul wrote:

....
typing p-a-c-m-a-n is so hard and takes so long.
....

in fact, once you used it in your bash, you can use reverse-i-search (ctrl-r) and then only type "pa" to get to your commands used before ;-)

i have no idea, what gui is faster than 3 keys ... besides: how do you say in a gui "for i in *.dvi do xdvi i done"?

Mr Green · 2004-10-19 08:27:24

OK. That's it. I'm just bitching. GAAAHH!!!! I WANT reiser4! AAHH!!!
Love,
thegnu

load kernel26mm.....

zezaz · 2004-10-19 12:29:37

dp wrote:

besides: how do you say in a gui "for i in *.dvi do xdvi i done"?

Well, depends on the GUI!

But, on a well-designed file manager i would do...

1) Edit/select pattern
Type '*.dvi'

2) Right-click on one of the selected files, select "Open with..." entry.
Type 'xdvi'

Not all file managers on Linux can do both step 1) and 2); however Konqueror can, for example, and there must be others (xffm can't AFAIK).

Command line is very good for complex tasks, GUIs are good for common tasks. But the frontier between common and complex is not a straight line

(Time to return to my shell prompt, hoping i did not restart a GUI vs CLI flamewar )

phrakture · 2004-10-19 13:58:38

Some of these have been answered in other posts, but here's my 2cents.

thegnu wrote:

1. Right now the latest stable version (0.6) and the devel version (0.7) don't work. I had to load all the modules off the 0.6 disk to get 0.7 to detect my eth0. Then the GRUB deal. This really shouldn't happen in the future. This sucks the proverbial turd.

Please explain how they do not work. Claiming something "just doesn't work" does not help. Hundreds of people here have the ISOs working. Perhaps your BIOS does not support booting from CD, perhaps the ISO was burned wrong, perhaps the downloaded file was corrupt. There are a million possible problems. "the GRUB deal" is what now? Please explain these issues more thouroughly, and we can fix them.

thegnu wrote:

2. There should be a way to set configuration options for pacman that pacman will not remove everytime you upgrade it. My suggestion before was to have a comment line at the end of pacman.conf, after which you can place your configuration options and pacman will cat that part form the old file onto the new file.

There is a NoUpgrade option in /etc/pacman.conf. There should be some packages there by default - check out the file for syntax. If all else fails there's always "man pacman"

thegnu wrote:

3. There should be a pacman GUI. I know there are some people working on it, but I just want to say it's an excellent idea. For newbies. Because idiots are the strongest force in any movement, catering a weensie bit to newbies wouldn't hurt anybody. If there were a simple, stupid gui that would give item descriptions it would be really neato and impressive.

No, this is wrong. Arch is not targeted at "newbies." Catering to newbies only makes a system more complicated. If you just want to see descriptions, here's how you do it: type "man pacman", read, type "pacman -h", read.... if you want a package description, type "pacman -Ss package-name". What can be simpler? In addition, studies have show than command line interfaces are easier for "newbies" to understand than GUI interfaces....

thegnu wrote:

4. Is there a way to list installed packages? Because that would be cool. If you could also see what packages have not been used for X days, that would be good. Sometimes I install crap to fool around with, and then forget about it.

Yeah I'd like this feature too. You could submit a feature request through the bug tracker if you'd like.

Zerosleep · 2004-10-19 15:00:48

Yeah #3: No way!

dtw · 2004-10-19 15:09:40

someone already said

pacman -Qi

Haakon · 2004-10-19 16:45:33

3. There should be a pacman GUI. I know there are some people working on it, but I just want to say it's an excellent idea.

You do of course know about Archibald. I feel a bit guilty since I haven't had time to maintain it lately, and I don't think it even works with the latest pacman. However, I will get it back on track in not too long.

A bit of the "problem" is that I find myself not using the GUI myself. I think many of the features it provides are just quickier to use from bash anyway, especially the things I do most often, like Syu'ing and quickly installing a package I need. I think many people feel that way, but for the less technical users who feel inherently more comfortable with a GUI, it could be nicer.

thegnu · 2004-10-19 23:11:10

No, this is wrong. Arch is not targeted at "newbies." Catering to newbies only makes a system more complicated. If you just want to see descriptions, here's how you do it: type "man pacman", read, type "pacman -h", read.... if you want a package description, type "pacman -Ss package-name". What can be simpler? In addition, studies have show than command line interfaces are easier for "newbies" to understand than GUI interfaces....

OK. Now here it goes...

1. I would actually not use the pacman GUI. Arch Linux, once up and running, is very friendly. A pacman GUI would make it possible to install Arch Linux on a "retard"s computer and having them be able to maintain their computer. Also, GUI interfaces are easier for some. Especially simple GUI interfaces with simple functionality that's laid out before you.

2. Some of my questions have been answered. Thanks.

3. 0.6 faults when installing pacman. This is only recently, with an ISO downloaded a few months ago. Maybe I'm one of those retards I keep hearing about. 0.7 doesn't correctly configure your GRUB menu.lst file, which is a problem. It didn't load the modules off the CD. I had to loaddisk the 0.6 disk, then loaddisk the 0.7 disk to get them to load. Building the kernel from source faults with some error about deps. It doesn't correctly configure fstab if you install udev.

4. People (sonix is a prime example), could stop being such pricks from the get-go. But hey, maybe that's just me. Maybe I'm one of those retards I keep hearing about. I always thought a retard was someone who was better than you at something else, but then again, I might be one of those retards I keep hearing about.

Um, sonix, if I am oh-so excruciatingly stupid and a waste of time, why not go somewhere else? I would imagine a person of such importance as yourself would have no trouble getting people to hang out with you or getting laid. Go let off some steam. If you do in fact have some trouble, you can go ahead and blow me. Really. I don't mind. I'm retarded. I probably won't even notice you're there.

thegnu · 2004-10-19 23:15:32

Haakon:
This is pretty much what I was talking about. I agree with you about not using the GUI. I find myself more and more using the command line for things as I learn how to do them. It's a nice piece of work.

But guys, this is another point. The command line is wonderfully simple, easy and concise as long as you know how to use it. If you don't, it's pretty rough. And sometimes I'm in the mood for browsing, gawdammit.

EDIT:
I just was going to check out Archbald, but I would've had to install another 60 MB of stuff on a fresh install of Arch. I'm holding off for a while.

The other reason to work on a GUI for pacman would be to integrate advanced functions without undermining the simplicity of pacman. You could at install time, tag packages with different tags. Have a reminder to remove certain packages, or update certain packages. I know, all this functionality is available in Linux, but having a central location (a package manager, if you will) where it all took place is not the bane of Linux.

I seriously don't think making something easier on people dilutes the quality of a project. Is the attitude, "I hate Windows because it configures my sound for me effortlessly" or "I hate Windows because it's bloatware that doesn't let me do what I want"?

aCoder · 2004-10-19 23:22:39

3. 0.6 faults when installing pacman. This is only recently, with an ISO downloaded a few months ago. Maybe I'm one of those retards I keep hearing about. 0.7 doesn't correctly configure your GRUB menu.lst file, which is a problem. It didn't load the modules off the CD. I had to loaddisk the 0.6 disk, then loaddisk the 0.7 disk to get them to load. Building the kernel from source faults with some error about deps. It doesn't correctly configure fstab if you install udev.

Well, that's what bugzilla's for. Go ahead and report your problems if they're not already there, and add your experiences as comments to existing bugs. Bitching, however fun and amusing, is not an appropriate response to installer issues.

That said, if you have more than one optical drive, you could try booting the installer from a different one to get it to properly load the modules from the CD. My CD writer won't load the modules, automagically or with loaddisk, but my DVD-ROM will load everything automagically.

...blow me. Really. I don't mind. I'm retarded. I probably won't even notice you're there.

...
...
...
*hysterical laughing*

soniX · 2004-10-20 13:55:12

@thegnu:
Im sorry I called you a retard.. that was rude and I hope you can accept my apology.
With my first post, I did not try to be a prick.
The thing was that your first question wasnt really a question and I tried to make you explain what the problem was so that me or someone else could help you to figure out why it didnt work as it should. English is not my first language so perhaps I insulted you.. that was not the meaning.
When you then responded with "Im just bitching", and "eat it".. I got pretty pissed, cause that was rude. (and then I insulted you..)

Anyway.. Im here to have a good time, not to fight...
So here is my appology and I hope to get one from you to, so we can put this little "incident" behind us and act like the adults we are...

soniX

phrakture · 2004-10-20 14:32:51

i <3 soniX

thegnu · 2004-10-21 00:20:09

OK, sonix, I'm sorry. I got a little carried away. :oops:

Grrr. You had to go and be the mature one... Who says I'm an adult?

dtw · 2004-10-21 09:52:14

I'm confused...

a central location (a package manager, if you will) where it all took place is not the bane of Linux

do you mean Arch Linux needs a package manager to replace pacman?

thegnu · 2004-10-21 13:28:36

dibblethewrecker wrote:

I'm confused... do you mean Arch Linux needs a package manager to replace pacman?

No, actually what I mean is having a GUI frontend for pacman as a separate package. pacman is as powerful and useful as you need. Having a GUI frontend as a separate, non-recommended package would allow Arch Linux to be a suitable alternative to RPM-based distros fo relatively less technically inclined Linux newbies.

The console is a wonderful thing, and I perform most of my work there, but it is frightening to lots of users if it's their only means of getting somewhere. RPM distros are confusing and bother you with dependencies. Arch Linux is the most worry-free distro I've tried, and I think the audience would be greatly expanded by the addition of a frontend that also separately performed simple calatoging and had a simple Uninstall list for applications.

I don't think people can argue that there are lots of people who don't have a hard time getting things working, but the whole cleaning up after themselves is a tough concept. It would be fairly easy to have a button in something like Archbald that would list orphaned dependencies with the click of a button. You could even click items on the list to see why they were installed and what they do.

*dons helmet*...
And why not?

dtw · 2004-10-21 14:28:23

cool - i would have been worried otherwise

Arch Linux

#1 2004-10-19 00:04:02

My concerns about Arch Linux.

#2 2004-10-19 00:17:51

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#3 2004-10-19 00:32:37

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#4 2004-10-19 00:49:18

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#5 2004-10-19 00:56:11

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#6 2004-10-19 01:16:02

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#7 2004-10-19 02:08:01

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#8 2004-10-19 02:21:29

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#9 2004-10-19 02:40:49

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#10 2004-10-19 08:23:04

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#11 2004-10-19 08:27:24

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#12 2004-10-19 12:29:37

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#13 2004-10-19 13:58:38

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#14 2004-10-19 15:00:48

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#15 2004-10-19 15:09:40

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#16 2004-10-19 16:45:33

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#17 2004-10-19 23:11:10

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#18 2004-10-19 23:15:32

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#19 2004-10-19 23:22:39

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#20 2004-10-20 13:55:12

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#21 2004-10-20 14:32:51

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#22 2004-10-21 00:20:09

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#23 2004-10-21 09:52:14

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#24 2004-10-21 13:28:36

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#25 2004-10-21 14:28:23

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

Board footer