Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

jondkent · 2005-10-28 20:39:30

Hi,

I've managed to get Linux Magazine (UK) to let me write a review of Arch which I hope is gonna be a good thing for Arch. Just wanna check something out wrt the installation. Is it best to say do not use devfs, select udev when installing 0.7 - this seems sensible to me as it should save pain later on when you do your first update?

Also, is there anything people think I should ensure that I cover. Already done pacman (obviously) and abs. Will write up about lshwd as well. But if there is anything else let me know.

Thanks for any feedback guys

Jon

Dusty · 2005-10-28 20:42:54

suggesting udev over devfs is definately a Good Thing.

I would suggest a couple links to where to find help ([bbs|wiki].archlinux.org). If you don't have a deadline, it might be wise to wait until the 0.7.1 installer is out, but that could be forever, you never know with these devs.

Dusty

judland · 2005-10-28 21:52:21

I'd also make sure to mention the excellent tutorials available on the Arch Wiki. It's certainly the best distro Wiki I've ever come across.

If it weren't for that resource, I don't think I'd be able to set-up an Arch box with the Linux knowledge I had going into the project.

phrakture · 2005-10-28 22:11:36

And mention Dusty, because he likes publicity - give out his home phone number in big bold letters too.

tomk · 2005-10-28 22:44:23

Don't forget a summary of Arch's principles and philosophy, as described here. I would regard this as essential, to ensure potential users know what they are getting into.

dtw · 2005-10-28 23:24:47

I agree with all teh above - esp waiting on 0.7.1 or you are reviewing old news and esp what tomk said - the Arch philosophy is the most important thing to many Arch users.

Dusty · 2005-10-28 23:27:27

phrakture wrote:

And mention Dusty, because he likes publicity - give out his home phone number in big bold letters too.

I'm mad now.

BTW, was it you that referred that newbie who didn't care for searching goole to me? :x

Dusty

clarence · 2005-10-28 23:37:54

May i suggest a comparison of boot up times with other distros your familiar with?

phrakture · 2005-10-28 23:42:47

Dusty wrote:

phrakture wrote:
And mention Dusty, because he likes publicity - give out his home phone number in big bold letters too.
I'm mad now.

Heh, t'was a joke, good sir.

Dusty wrote:

[BTW, was it you that referred that newbie who didn't care for searching goole to me? :x

Not sure what you're talking about... :?:

kth5 · 2005-10-29 00:14:32

hmm... :?

jondkent · 2005-10-29 09:28:32

Hi,

FYI, its gonna to covering 0.7 as my deadline is 1st November. Thanks for the feedback so far

Cheers,

Jon

dtw · 2005-10-29 10:53:38

Seems virtually pointless to me then, mate. Everyone freely admits that 0.7 is seriously outdated, if you write a critical review of it then you'd be doing Arch a dis-service i.e "not a good thing for Arch Linux" - if you really want to help Arch you'd put them off I think.

IceRAM · 2005-10-29 11:40:20

+1 for dibblethewrecker.

The major changes which occured in the kernel lately require some extra work/knowledge when updating (bleeding edge => updating is a major advantage of ArchLinux which, in this case, brings some extra work). The extra work is not very well seen by people trying new distros.

Well, that's my opinion...

judland · 2005-10-29 14:11:19

I'm a little confused regarding this talk about 0.7 vs 0.7.1.

I'll admit, even after using a Linux desktop for over three years now, I'm still pretty "wet behind the ears" when it comes to the inner workings of a Linux system.

However, after doing some research on Arch, I still wanted to try it. I knew what I was in for when I downloaded the ISO. And when I booted up the CD, I chose to do an FTP installation, which went very smoothly, giving me the "Noodle" release of Arch.

I've had a few struggles with configuring some details on the system (mouse in Xorg, and sound drivers), but possibly these issues would have been less of a bother if I knew more about Linux.

All-in-all, though, I knew that I was in for some reading and learning when I chose Arch. So, would waiting for 0.7.1 really made that big a difference for me? Would I learned less/more/just as much?

If the readers of the article were encouraged to do an FTP installation of Arch, would they not benefit from it just as much as waiting for 0.7.1 (when ever that may be)? Or am I mis-understanding the whole issue?

As a side note, I think it might be a good idea to mention the Archie live CD that's available, too.

dtw · 2005-10-29 15:22:16

Well, yeah, you are right in many respects and infact 0.7.1 isn't going to be that different at all so I dunno what we are talking about - 0.8 will be the big installer improvements.

If you are talking a version of Arch then to me you are talking about the installer of that time and as most reviews of a distro start with an install (god knows why! how much would it bother you how you installed windows once two years ago...) teh version review is pretty likely to affect the review. Does that make sense?

However, an ftp install is pretty much the same across the board but it depends if you are reviewing that or not

judland · 2005-10-29 17:14:09

Yeah, I think I know what you're saying there. It all depends on how the "reviewer" approaches the subject, as well as the individual who may be reading the article.

I also see your point about most reviews begin with the install. Unfortunately, as Linux users, it is usually up to us alone to get our PCs running Linux. Pre-installed boxes are still very few and far between. So the install process is a necessary "evil". But, as you say, if MS-Windows or Mac users had to install their OSes themselves, I think Linux installs would seem very trivial (ie. easy) in comparison.

If it was me, I'd give Arch a very favorable review. But, then again, as I mentioned above, I sort of knew what I was getting myself into and had my reasons for wanting to try something like Arch. However, I could not guarantee everyone reading my review would agree with me.

Just like the Wiki states, Arch isn't for everyone. If the reviewer fits in the "not for" category (or even person reading the review), I guess no matter what version they try, Arch would be a less than favorable experience for them.

elasticdog · 2005-10-29 21:15:54

I think what Dibble is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there have been a WHOLE lot of improvements on Arch since the 0.7 release. Improvement is fairly constant considering the rolling release system and our growing community...the kernel upgrade stuff, the switch over to udev, the libtool slay, gcc 4, AUR participation, the wiki, etc.

From the standpoint of an FTP installation, there is not a huge difference between the 0.7 release and what is planned for 0.7.1, aside from making sure things are udev instead of devfs. The 0.7.1 release will basically just include those major changes automatically, along with copies of all the updated packages that we've got since then. Therefore there will be a big difference when performing an install directly off the cd.

It would be a shame to focus on only the 0.7 release and not mention all of the new shiny features. Does that make it a little more clear?

dtw · 2005-10-30 11:18:05

Yup

sash · 2005-10-30 15:05:37

Dibble, I believe rc.conf is worth a paragraph or two, since it is central to the Arch system configuration.

jondkent · 2005-10-30 16:25:30

Me again,

OK read the feedback so far. I wouldn't worry too much about the version, like Gentoo this is kinda more a point in time than anything else IMHO and I've stated that in the review, so any issues with that statement pls let me know.

As the reviewer of this, I've been using Arch for awhile, so expect a positive review, but not bias .

When I review disto, yup I'll cover the install, but not in any great detail. RTFM is the best way if you are interested, and I have stated that in the review.

Cheers,

Jon

Dusty · 2005-10-30 18:27:52

I like this guy...

jondkent · 2005-10-30 18:33:46

:oops:

Cotton · 2005-10-30 20:16:57

I'd recommend that new users print the Arch Installation guide prior to starting the installation.

Its an invaluable source of info for an Arch newbie.

lilsirecho · 2005-10-30 21:26:10

Recent info on the initrd system indicates that additional considerations may be necessary for a noobie into arch before he uses pacman -Syu following the release of the newest kernel 2.6.14.

Things are changing and some confusion is demonstrated.

Nice to see someone promoting Arch "over there".

jondkent · 2005-10-30 21:42:36

Yeh just noticed that. One more thing to add to that installation overview, definiately think that will be a good idea. All I have to do is remember to do it myself

Arch Linux

#1 2005-10-28 20:39:30

Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#2 2005-10-28 20:42:54

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#3 2005-10-28 21:52:21

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#4 2005-10-28 22:11:36

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#5 2005-10-28 22:44:23

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#6 2005-10-28 23:24:47

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#7 2005-10-28 23:27:27

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#8 2005-10-28 23:37:54

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#9 2005-10-28 23:42:47

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#10 2005-10-29 00:14:32

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#11 2005-10-29 09:28:32

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#12 2005-10-29 10:53:38

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#13 2005-10-29 11:40:20

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#14 2005-10-29 14:11:19

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#15 2005-10-29 15:22:16

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#16 2005-10-29 17:14:09

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#17 2005-10-29 21:15:54

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#18 2005-10-30 11:18:05

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#19 2005-10-30 15:05:37

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#20 2005-10-30 16:25:30

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#21 2005-10-30 18:27:52

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#22 2005-10-30 18:33:46

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#23 2005-10-30 20:16:57

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#24 2005-10-30 21:26:10

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

#25 2005-10-30 21:42:36

Re: Writing Arch Linux article for Linux Mag UK

Board footer