User Friendly distro based on Arch?

Romashka · 2006-01-22 14:08:31

IMO Arch Linux is very user-friendly.
There will always be space for improvements, but changing Arch to something completely GUI-based with command prompt and all the system internals hidden from user will not make it more user-friendly!
What is the reason that current dialog-based Arch installer should be replaced with GUI installer? This will not make installer more user-friendly, it will just make it more eye-candy. Feel the difference!
You can try Frugalware - they have GUI installer, bootsplash and an additional collection of tools for package maintainance.

Eliatamby · 2006-02-03 05:55:16

Every now and then, someone posts something like this, and people always pipe up with things like, "Arch is fine the way it is"

I don't recall anywhere in the original posts any suggestion of replacing or modify Arch. In fact, Arch would be an excellent base for another distro -- the Arch Way which people love running to even states that a goal of Arch is to develop into a "perfect base." Arch is more than just the "Arch Way", "experienced user", "no-GUI" philosophy often sprouted. I enjoy this distro for it's structual common sense -- things work in ways that I consistently expect them to. Because of this, and because of it's accessible package management system, Arch would make an excellent base for any aspiring distro.

And for all those people who complain about GUI's, how do you classify ncurses?

iphitus · 2006-02-03 10:00:54

whoa, talk about a way old thread. its from 2k4

firstly, this wasnt about making Arch user friendly, it was about making a distro based on it.

Secondly, people say Arch is user friendly as it is. Thats crap, although I guess what audience you are talking about. If you mean a capable pc user, willing to spend time to learn something yes. Otherwise, no Arch isnt user friendly to 99% of the population. Theres no way my grandma would be able to install it, even with the install guide. It would take faar too long and require a lot of prior knowledge. Required prior knowledge != user friendly.

anyway, arch has a lot of gui config via the gnome and kde projects. I am more than happy enough to configure cups or samba in either of them. Its just network and services we dont have.

iphitus

Moo-Crumpus · 2006-02-03 11:06:53

Arch is userfriendly if the user is a geek or a nerd who is more confused doing configs in several gui tools instead of editing a file. But in both cases the user should know what to do. From the need of knowledge, there is no difference in removing a commentary flag in a config file compared to setting an [x] in an option menu. You gotta know what you gotta know.

Pajaro · 2006-02-03 12:03:09

as far as i know, there are different types of user friendly

lazy friendly - you just don't want to do anything, so everything should be done for u

stupid friendly - you won't have time to learn anything, so everything should be done for u

imaptient friendly - you will learn what "sudo rm -rf /" does by typing it. You need to be prevented of anything

windows style friendly - it has to have the look and feel of a toy for babies, cause if a baby can do it, you can.

freak friendly - the source code is open? then the answers and explanations are there

smart way friendly - everything is well documented, so you can do anything understanding it (arch way)

iphitus · 2006-02-03 12:15:09

No, i still think that's harsh.

A computer should be something you can walk up and use. It should just work. You shouldnt need to reboot it, reinstall this, edit this. If you want to send an email, you just click the button and send.

That's true user friendly, something someone can approach, and use, without research.

iphitus

Xentac · 2006-02-03 15:57:09

Without research...

What if they don't know what an email is?

cactus · 2006-02-03 16:12:16

You don't need to know how to changeout your overhead cam to know how to drive a car. Sure, it can be helpful to know if your car suddenly stops working...But many people drive successfully for years, without knowing how to perform such a "low level system" task on their vehicle.

Xentac · 2006-02-03 16:24:41

Wait, who is that responding to? Me or iphitus? or just the general topic?

I'm trying to understand if anyone understands me.

cactus · 2006-02-03 16:30:55

general topic mostly..
i figured if someone doesnt know *about* email..then they probably don't need to send one.

Xentac · 2006-02-03 16:36:49

My point is that everything has to be learned somewhere.

If I don't know how to drive a car, understanding how to change an overhead cam doesn't make the car any more user friendly. Or if I don't know how to drive a car (or even what a car is), can I call the car's interface user friendly?

cactus · 2006-02-03 16:53:04

aha. I see your point now. I guess I was assuming a tiny bit of preknowledge.

If you don't know how to drive a car, on even a simple level, the difference between "user friendly" and not, would then be..how long does it take you to learn how to interact with the device (in this case, how to drive).

An automatic transmission is considerably more user friendly than a standard. I myself prefer a standard, because I find it more "fun" to drive.

Eliatamby · 2006-02-04 06:06:41

That's fair enough, but how many of us first learned about email by configuring Sendmail?

So to extend to the car analogy, having to know how to changeout an overhead cam before being able to even learn how to drive the car would be considered fairly user-unfriendly

Xentac · 2006-02-04 19:07:44

This is true. I was just arguing the one point that iphitus made about "true user friendl[iness]".

I would agree that Arch's method isn't as userfriendly as other distros, but it's also designed like that.

lumiwa · 2006-02-05 22:51:12

I agree with iphitus: "A computer should be something you can walk up and use..."
But do you trust someone to do job for you? My answer is NO. "No" for now (maybe I am to paranoid) but I like to have a tools with which is easy to configure system. Because that I like SuSE Linux. Their Yast is very friendly tool. I am now on ARC more than month, I have just Arch on my computer, and I start learning again and I like it .

Lone_Wolf · 2006-02-05 23:33:44

It all depends on what you want.

In a so-called 'user-friendly' OS/Distro the devs have usually configured a lot of things the way they THINK people want it.
If their decisions fit what you want, such an OS seems to be user-friendly.

Many people will put M$ & Suse in that category.
I have used many M$ versions and several Suse versions.
Everytime i wanted to do something differently that the way the devs had set it, i was struggling with those OS/distro to get them to do what I want.

To me user-friendly means 'the user gets to decide how things are done'

In short, i feel AL is more user-friendly than M$ and Suse.

Dusty · 2006-02-05 23:46:45

Lone_Wolf wrote:

It all depends on what you want.

Well then its a moot point, isn't it? All this arguing over a term who's definition depends on the user. ;-)

Dusty

jeebusroxors · 2006-02-06 06:00:03

I am a unix guy by job and have been playing with linux for some years. What I like about Arch is the fact that I do what I want. There's no graphical BS in the way to hide whats actually going on, bloat the system and otherwise mess stuff up. While there is a high learning curve, you also have to take into effect that this user base is perhaps the best around, second MAYBE only to Gentoo (in terms of the wiki at least). The resources availible to us are vast and if you have a problem, chances are someone else has had it too. If not a quick google search will most definatly solve your problem.

All that being said, I dont know that it would be possible to have an unbloated, user friendly distro. I say keep things the way they are now. Have new users start off with FC and once they get into it more they'll find there are better alternitives out there.

lumiwa · 2006-02-07 17:53:38

Lone_Wolf wrote:

It all depends on what you want.
In a so-called 'user-friendly' OS/Distro the devs have usually configured a lot of things the way they THINK people want it.
If their decisions fit what you want, such an OS seems to be user-friendly.
Many people will put M$ & Suse in that category.

In short, i feel AL is more user-friendly than M$ and Suse.

If you don't like GUI (Yast) you can do ALL configuration in the SuSE distro in the CLI.

shadowhand · 2006-02-07 19:26:16

cactus wrote:

An automatic transmission is considerably more user friendly than a standard. I myself prefer a standard, because I find it more "fun" to drive.

I perfer a standard because I know how to shift gears better than a computer. And it makes me feel l33t to fly by people driving autocraptics.

I guess you could say my choices are defined by "l33t" and "not-l33t".

Btw, I'm totally on topic here. If you think I'm not, read the above until you get it.

ibrahim · 2006-02-22 13:27:49

lumiwa wrote:

I agree with iphitus: "A computer should be something you can walk up and use..."
But do you trust someone to do job for you? My answer is NO. "No" for now (maybe I am to paranoid) but I like to have a tools with which is easy to configure system. Because that I like SuSE Linux. Their Yast is very friendly tool.

If you're saying that yast can't be trusted what makes you think you can trust pico/nano/vi/gedit/whatever on arch?

iphitus · 2006-02-23 08:24:55

ibrahim wrote:

lumiwa wrote:
I agree with iphitus: "A computer should be something you can walk up and use..."
But do you trust someone to do job for you? My answer is NO. "No" for now (maybe I am to paranoid) but I like to have a tools with which is easy to configure system. Because that I like SuSE Linux. Their Yast is very friendly tool.
If you're saying that yast can't be trusted what makes you think you can trust pico/nano/vi/gedit/whatever on arch?

I trust vi.... but not emacs...... yawn, this thread should so die.

Arch Linux

#26 2006-01-22 14:08:31

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#27 2006-02-03 05:55:16

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#28 2006-02-03 10:00:54

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#29 2006-02-03 11:06:53

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#30 2006-02-03 12:03:09

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#31 2006-02-03 12:15:09

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#32 2006-02-03 15:57:09

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#33 2006-02-03 16:12:16

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#34 2006-02-03 16:24:41

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#35 2006-02-03 16:30:55

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#36 2006-02-03 16:36:49

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#37 2006-02-03 16:53:04

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#38 2006-02-04 06:06:41

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#39 2006-02-04 19:07:44

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#40 2006-02-05 22:51:12

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#41 2006-02-05 23:33:44

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#42 2006-02-05 23:46:45

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#43 2006-02-06 06:00:03

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#44 2006-02-07 17:53:38

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#45 2006-02-07 19:26:16

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#46 2006-02-22 13:27:49

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

#47 2006-02-23 08:24:55

Re: User Friendly distro based on Arch?

Board footer