Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

EAD · 2006-07-03 21:28:39

Hii, I have noticed that in many others Distros like Gentoo and so on there is an Handbook.
I don't have problems using ARCH, and it is very simple, but why can't we also have a nice well done Handbook? :?:
I really think this is a good suggestion, and maybe it can bring more new people to start using ARCH with out any problems.

mcmillan · 2006-07-03 21:42:42

Because we have the wiki. I'd say it has similar to what I've seen in the slackbook, haven't looked at gentoo's to know what it's like.

user · 2006-07-03 23:10:17

we have handbook in our virtual instinct already.

brain0 · 2006-07-04 00:18:58

Arch users are so competent, they do not need a handbook. But if you want one, why not start writing one?

benplaut · 2006-07-04 00:42:30

we don't need no stinkin handbooks!
*throws chair*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's not a bad idea... the wiki is very nice for tweaks, but a unified general guide wouldn't be a bad idea.

McQueen · 2006-07-04 03:01:26

EAD wrote:

I don't have problems using ARCH, and it is very simple, but why can't we also have a nice well done Handbook? :?:

No reason at all...all it takes is the willingness to see it through. Arch is community based and as such the community is perfectly capable of providing such a resource if it really has the desire. My suggestion would be very simple: recruit and put together a team of like minded people, then start posting some output of your text for further suggestions and enhancements.

rayjgu3 · 2006-07-04 03:47:41

well i myself go along with the wiki for a handbook
to actually write one though would be a bit monotonous as it changes
when i started with arch there was devfs naming scheme /dev/discs/discX/partY
then switched to /dev/hdXY or /dev/sdXY
and there was kernel26 kernel26-scsi
all modules were loaded if you said to load them
then came hwd then lshwd
then added initrd
we did away with -scsi added -beyond & -mm and switched from devfs to udev
then udev loaded modules unless you said no
then xorg7
now we are switching from initrd to mkinitcpio

im sure theres stuff there that im leaving out & what i mentioned is probably in the wrong order but these changes do/will happen
my point is once you write it then get it published , it will be outdated
so if you really really want to write it go ahead but i doubt youll get to far with it
if you didnt know its one of the biggest hold backs on archie (the changes that is)from what i understand but i would say thats just part of the bleeding edge i guess
besides whats wrong with the install guide i would say its fairly current

these are only my thoughts & i reserve the right to ammend, change, or enhance them in any way shape or form that i see fit

Gullible Jones · 2006-07-04 03:48:44

Well, we have a very nice installation guide, which is a kind of short handbook... I found that after that the system, the wiki, and other users provided all the help I needed.

benplaut · 2006-07-04 05:33:27

I guess i agree with Gullible Jones... the install guide gets you started, and the community continues it. The problem is for those who don't... find the wiki

McQueen · 2006-07-04 19:37:33

The Gentoo handbook was mentioned so I'll just refer to that as an aside. It having been quite a while since I last installed Gentoo (during which I used the Quick Install Guide), I decided to use their latest LiveCD and new GUI installer. My goal was simply to perform a base stage 3 install w/X, immediately upgrade the packages from the CD, followed by a kde-meta emerge. I figured this would be a path a new user might travel and I wanted to see how bumpy or smooth it would end up being. All my emerge settings were the default or recommended ones mentioned in the GUI installer help files.

It went relatively well and the whole emerge process was only interrupted by the following:

* GUI Installer failed during the stage 3 install
-fixed by updating the Installer via provided FAQ
* A circular dep
-fixed by making an entry to package.mask
* Two ebuilds that blocked other packages
-fixed by removing then using replacements
* Modular Xorg issues
fixed by implementing the Xorg7 Upgrade Docs
* Access violation errors with QT
-fixed by using a ~x86 version of QT
* Failed ebuild due to MAKEOPTS setting
-fixed by reading bug report

Basically, just like Arch a user would've had to dig a little deeper than just the respective install guide and/or handbook in order to get everything in working order. And similar to Arch the install process contained a few hic-ups, but nothing that could not have been resolved with some additional reading (wiki, forum, bug reports, FAQ).

It would be nice if it were possible to not encounter any issues at all, but with rolling release distos this is very difficult since upgrade paths do often require some user intervention, and such occurances are generally documented in resources other than the official install guides. And as can be seen, even a LiveCD is no better than the base of packages it contains and is certainly no magic bullet.

ScriptDevil · 2006-07-05 06:06:59

does anyone volunteer along with me to write the handbook??

Mr Green · 2006-07-05 06:08:03

Are the Arch docs not good enough then :?

ScriptDevil · 2006-07-05 06:09:44

they r Mr. Green, but lets do this so that people have a unified resource

Mr Green · 2006-07-05 06:21:16

Arch has Docs, Wiki & forums what else do you need ?

:oops: & a cacti

gradgrind · 2006-07-05 07:58:34

Firstly, EAD has a good point. The fact that some people (apparently including EAD himself) don't really need any more docs does not detract from its validity.

Then there is the question of whether there really is a "market" for such a handbook. This is difficult to answer pre-emptively. With some things you only know when you've done it.

The installation guide is a good starting point.

The wiki has some useful information, but it is sometimes a little difficult to find what you are looking for, and there are quite a lot of pages which are out of date, which can be confusing. It has the advantage that anyone can contribute, but the concomitant disadvantage that it is thus difficult to structure.

The forums are really good, but I'm sure there are contributors who would wish for a slightly less frequent repetition of some questions.

The amount of work involved in maintaining a good, up-to-date handbook should not be underestimated. Do any of us have this time and commitment?

On the whole I welcome the suggestion, I think it could be a useful addition to Archlinux - the quality of the Gentoo documentation is one of the main things which engenders respect for that distribution. But in order not to simply duplicate the purpose of the wiki, I think such a project should be firmly in the hands of one or two people who wouldn't need to write everything, but should edit and structure it so that the result is clearly a unity.

Last but not least, I wouldn't mind lending a hand.

Romashka · 2006-07-05 09:56:09

I agree with gradgrind.
But before writing a handbook we should define what should be in that book.
I think some Wiki articles can be moved to hanbook.
I can help with writing text, XHTML+CSS template etc. but the problem is that English is not my native language so I can (and will) make mistakes.

I propose the following contents:
1) Installation - first part of the install guide
2) Configuration - rc.conf, mkinitcpio.conf etc. etc.
3) Package management - all about Pacman
4) Configuring desktop - installing X, GNOME, KDE.
5) Configuring server - LAMP, firewalls, squid, mail, FTP.
6) Troubleshooting

Ideas and comments are welcome.

iphitus · 2006-07-05 11:30:27

we dont need a handbook, we have a wiki.

I'll betcha, that if you start this, nobody will maintain it. Nobody will bother to keep it in sync with the wiki, and nobody will make sure it's up to date.

James

Mr Green · 2006-07-05 11:40:39

/nods

Romashka · 2006-07-05 15:03:28

iphitus wrote:

we dont need a handbook, we have a wiki.

Well, who are "we"? Some people need it, I don't know how much.
There is no big difference - will there be a handbook or good Wiki.
The main reasons of a handbook are: all most needed info is in one place, it is well structured, up-to date and maintained. So, you have the point, that if there is wiki then why to create handbook. Maybe it is better to improve wiki.
IMHO it would be better to have handbook as a place to find all basics, and Wiki for more specific info, like configuring FreeNX or some Dell laptop etc.
And IMHO handbook is some sort of "official thing", while Wiki is more "community thing".

iphitus wrote:

I'll betcha, that if you start this, nobody will maintain it. Nobody will bother to keep it in sync with the wiki, and nobody will make sure it's up to date.

You are so optimistic!
Yes, maybe you are right. People are so lazy (me too :oops: ). But if there were 4-5 active volunteers + 1-2 devs involved - then there could be some result.

Mr Green · 2006-07-05 15:13:41

I do not think a handbook is a bad idea just that if we do need one

Arch as a base is easy to set up from docs anyway

After that you add X.. WM etc as you wish, most of the information for doing that is in Forums & Wiki

Maybe a guide to using the secret Archboot project may be a good idea (maybe thats OT I do not know!)

I am writing a book at the moment on the Greatest Arch User (aka Cactus!) who will of course be played by George Clooney in the upcoming movie..

gradgrind · 2006-07-05 15:20:46

@iphitus and Mr Green: You may well be right, but this very fear/scepticism indicates a sub-optimal situation and discouragement like this is not likely to bring about an improvement.

Nobody will bother to keep it in sync with the wiki, and nobody will make sure it's up to date.

Yes indeed, but in quite a few points the wiki is not in sync with the distribution ...

Maybe, if there were a couple of dedicated souls it might be easier to keep a handbook in sync? I don't know about other people, but if I had a set of documentation for which I was responsible, I would find it easier to maintain that than acting as some sort of policeman in a wiki. I would have to overcome quite a bit of inner resistance before going stomping around in the wiki, rooting out outdated or 'irrelevant' material, etc.

A handbook might need to be little more than a pick of the best / most useful and up-to-date wiki entries.

gradgrind · 2006-07-05 15:24:56

Actually, shouldn't this thread be in the "Forum, Wiki and Documentation Discussion" list?

Dusty · 2006-07-05 15:25:56

I don't get what the fuss is about, why not just create a new wiki page, call it 'handbook' and start writing and maintaining it. Link into or copy from existing wiki pages as needed, etc. Nothing to get excited about on either side.

Dusty

gradgrind · 2006-07-05 15:32:58

Might be a good start!

Mr Green · 2006-07-05 15:33:55

/agrees

Arch Linux

#1 2006-07-03 21:28:39

Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#2 2006-07-03 21:42:42

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#3 2006-07-03 23:10:17

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#4 2006-07-04 00:18:58

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#5 2006-07-04 00:42:30

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#6 2006-07-04 03:01:26

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#7 2006-07-04 03:47:41

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#8 2006-07-04 03:48:44

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#9 2006-07-04 05:33:27

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#10 2006-07-04 19:37:33

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#11 2006-07-05 06:06:59

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#12 2006-07-05 06:08:03

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#13 2006-07-05 06:09:44

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#14 2006-07-05 06:21:16

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#15 2006-07-05 07:58:34

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#16 2006-07-05 09:56:09

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#17 2006-07-05 11:30:27

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#18 2006-07-05 11:40:39

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#19 2006-07-05 15:03:28

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#20 2006-07-05 15:13:41

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#21 2006-07-05 15:20:46

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#22 2006-07-05 15:24:56

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#23 2006-07-05 15:25:56

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#24 2006-07-05 15:32:58

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

#25 2006-07-05 15:33:55

Re: Why doesn't ARCH have a Handbook ?

Board footer