A perfect combination for a potential new distro

Pajaro · 2006-11-06 19:53:39

I don't know if you ever worked with Mac osx Server:

It has guis for all daemon processes (apache, samba, etc etc) but it takes the information from the real place in the system.

This way changing a conf file is equivalent to change something in the gui.

I got really pissed when I changed the DNS in /etc/resolv.conf in a ubuntu installation and after rebooting the changes had disappeared. That's windows behavior: the system knows better than you what to do.

Mr Green · 2006-11-06 21:43:01

Of course, in reality, no OS supports exactly what any one user wants, and no user wants everything that any one OS provides. In this way, for all users, all OS's are simultaneously bloated and deficient.

Amen

sarah31 · 2006-11-06 21:54:06

Dusty wrote:

Of course, in reality, no OS supports exactly what any one user wants, and no user wants everything that any one OS provides. In this way, for all users, all OS's are simultaneously bloated and deficient.

Damn that is about the smrtest thing you have said Saskatchewman! I like it.

I can attest for Mac OS getting more bloated over the years and having used the first release of OS X and the most current while there is bloat it also is a hell of a lot more efficient.

All I hope for is as a OS progresses it doesn't lose its efficiency.

phrakture · 2006-11-06 21:59:46

sarah31 wrote:

Making something more user friendly ALWAYS means some bloat.

Not entirely true. There have been numerous studies showing that people with no computer experience will pick up command-line interfaces far faster than GUI interfaces. I think "user friendly" is a bit off in this regard... let's say "visually friendly"

sarah31 · 2006-11-06 22:16:24

Well most of you think my "user friendly" = GUI which is not true. "simplifying" even commandline programs means more code more code can mean, but not necessarily, more bloat. Same with GUIs the miore "easy" or the more you design into it the greater your risk of creating inefficencies .. or "bloat".

Its like WYSIWYG apps for web design they very often throw a great deal of unecessary crap into the mix when a bit of knowlwedge and time and practise can allow one to render the same result with a cleaner code.

gunnix · 2007-02-17 22:34:48

I think a clear compact installation and configuration guide for arch linux is all that's needed to have it user friendly. It should be obvious to find it as a newbie, and it should be good structured and with no stuff that almost no one needs. It should be up to date ofcourse, because out of date not working info is really confusing. I think the existing arch wiki is really good, the arch website is very clear and simple. So what's the problem?

Maybe have an easy way to have the wiki offline, like an arch package with the wiki in, so you can have a menu button (integrate script in program menumaker and in kde/gnome) with "arch wiki" starting the browser loading the local mirror...

First linux I started with was Slackware and I had no problems installing it as complete linux (only used windows before) newbie because I followed a good installation and post install config guide. With KISS arch it's even simpler for newbies (as long as they can read)...

If I want to try to do somethings else in the world (like building boats, yurts, making shelter, clothes, making herbal medicine, fire techniques, ..) I try to find information about how to do it just as well (from people, books, video, internet, etc)... I don't expect it to work out first try without the needed knowledge, and I think it's normal that I have to learn and get used to things. I think what so called user friendly os'es try to achieve is in the same line of thought as people who just go to the supermarket to buy things but never try making things themselves, these people don't know and don't care where these products come from, in which manner they were produced (bad paid workers, destroyed ecosystems etc). I think there's something really wrong with that way of acting, and I don't think there's any need for it (better yet, it should be abolished ).

By the way, my grandmother just got a laptop with winxp and I thought her some things, and I clearly notice that she finds it way easier to type in commands on the keyboard, instead of clicking the mouse (it's even difficult to doubleclick).

iphitus · 2007-02-18 09:45:29

Ubuntu+Arch is just a completely conflicting goal with rolling distro. Possible, but difficult and would just result in more bugs.

As for documentation...... read these before you post:

- If you want someone to write new documentation. Write or at least start it yourself. I have never seen any documentation resulting from discussion about writing it.

- If you want something included on the CD's, file a bug, it won't be seen on the forums here.

James.

sokuban · 2007-02-18 12:36:57

Well, I've come here from ubuntu. I'll admit that ubuntu was easier to use at the beggining but I like Arch a lot more now.

I understand very little about ubuntu under the hood. (Same goes with Arch I guess hahaha.)

The problem with ubuntu is that it tries to do things automatcally, and then things that you don't want are set up. So by making something automatic it is hard to be simple.

It would be great if it was possible, but if it is simple it will fail in the automatic stuff, if not it will fail at being simple.

twiistedkaos · 2007-02-18 21:55:06

Hmm after reading this I became confused. Arch is what you make it, it can be as simple and as complex as you want it. I don't really see why he was having an issue. Sure, if you choose you can have a very simple system with a small Window Manager and do everything by command line, or you can install either Gnome or KDE and have them handle the small issues like mounting. There's pretty much a GUI for everything you can possibly want, just have to look for them. Personally I like my system to be a simple as possible. Yeah sometimes it becomes a pain to type multiple command line options in to do 1 thing, but this is why theres Bash I've made pleanty of little bash scripts to automatically do things for me. I could use GUI's to do it if I wanted. But I happen to be someone who actually likes to know and see what my system is exactly doing. If I wanted an OS to handel everything I do, I'd still be using Windows. I find operating systems, not to troll or anything. Like Ubuntu to baby you. When I have a problem I like to fix it by hand instead of having the operating system do it for me. Deep down, all Linux distro's are the same, nothing but a kernel and some command line options. The GUI doesn't make the distro, it's all about taste. I like arch's KIS and I'll stick with it. I've used multiple different distros and never really learned anything about Linux until I switched to Arch. In my personal opinion, Arch > All.

Bison · 2007-02-22 02:58:51

libervisco wrote:

Hello everyone. I was an Arch user for more than six months this year until I decided to switch to Ubuntu Dapper. What drove me away doesn't have much to do with any Arch "problems". The issues I've had with it are not Arch problems, it's the Arch Way. I simply grew tired of having to configure and do everything by hand, even certain things I consider routine such as printing, mounting CDs, setting up permissions for normal user to be able to burn CDs etc.
After switching to Ubuntu where everything pretty much just works I've been quite impressed. However, I knew all along that Ubuntu isn't as fast as Arch, and I frankly missed some of the simplicity of the underlying system. Sometimes it really is easier to do something on the command line (not everything mind you, and preferences will differ from person to person on this).
And right now I am kind of sitting on the fence between these two worlds. We have Ubuntu, a distribution with a good looking easy to use "surface" and Arch which essentially does not have surface, but rather a simple, clean and fast system everyone can see. Below the surface of Ubuntu there is no such simplicity and cleanness and some of its complexity is what slows it down.
So here's the idea. What about uniting the two concepts into one? What about creating a distribution which is based on Arch (and hence features its underlying system cleaness and simplicity), but which also has the user friendly surface like Ubuntu. GUIs would not work in a way that would require creating complexity. Instead of creating gazillion of some weird scripts just to support the GUI, the GUI would be created as a direct bolt-on front end to configuration files in a way that this front end would act as a configuration file specific editor. I wrote a bit more on that in this topic.
In short, it would be combining of the two seemingly contradictory concepts into one. User friendly GUIs, preconfigured/automated routine tasks and clean/fast/simple underlying system (which Arch readily offers).
Ubuntu experience based on Arch and boosted by Arch.
What do you think?
Btw, I am not currently in a situation of starting a new distro because of my internet connection (very expensive and not so fast upload), but I'm thinking about playing with the idea locally until I can get better broadband and possibly, who knows, start the project. IF anyone else doesn't start with this before that.
This is meant just for discussing the idea and see where we come up.
Thanks
Danijel

Excuse me for being blunt, but thats a dumb idea. There is already such a distro - Frugalware. The best thing about arch is that it doesn't configure anything for you (well, it kind of does, but makes it easy for you to override). Thus, it gives you maximum control. When you add default configurations and such you are inviting an entirely different crowd. Besides that you are hiding what makes arch so elegant.

EDIT: You can add whatever graphic "surface" you want anyways. Arch doesn't prevent you from setting it up how you want.

Last edited by Bison (2007-02-22 02:59:58)

ralvez · 2007-02-22 04:02:39

It is my impression that what has attracted most of the Arch users are :
a) small foot print
b) extreme customization
c) rolling upgrade
Now, while non of the above qualities exclude the possibility of using a GUI Arch is a Linux for people that like to tinker ... adding "anti-tinkering" (read GUI configuration tools) kinda defeats that point ... does it not?
I rest my case...

funkyou · 2007-02-22 08:02:44

Well, i like Arch for KISS... Its fast, lean, does not step into my way and the configuration is also very easy...

But...

I also like GUI-tools... Something i have noticed over the years while using all the "big" distros is that they have a tendency to "overguify" and make their whole base config files unnessecary complex... Take a look at SuSE for example, they start a lot of small processes that "take care" about the system, and you even can not edit your config manually, because they will replace it afterwards...

Arch is, again, very simple and everything is configured by editing small, readable textfiles and not some xml stuff or whatnot... This brings me to the conclusion that some graphical tools should be no big problem, or at least a way smaller problem as on SuSE, Debian or Ubuntu for example...

I am currenty "studying" a bit about the possibilities of a graphical rc.conf editor... The app should be very small, and should work like described at the following.
When you start the app, the following happens:

1 - rc.conf gets backupped
2 - rc.conf gets parsed (this shouldnt be a hard job)
3 - /etc/rc.d gets scanned to see all available daemons
4 - you can modify the values in the app, for example drag the order of services to start
5 - when you are ready, you can review the new rc.conf file
6 - if everything is ok, press save and the new rc.conf will be saved

The rc.conf should remain the same like before when saving it, even all comments etc. The only thing that should be modified are the values...

I even made some mocks

And please, dont take this too serious, its not a complete concept and i just have fun doing such things

sokuban · 2007-02-22 12:28:42

Wow that sure is cool.

I know you said not to take it serious though haha.

I see your point a bit. You aren't trying to automate the proccess so much as to make GUI tools that edit simpler files.

I would prefer to edit the file by hand myself (because I'm paranoid if the program might screw up) but tooks like that sure are cool.

Pajaro · 2007-02-22 17:25:15

funckyou,

I think that the most interesting thing to add in the gui is the network profiles, since to work with them you have to edit many files. This is when you will feel the power of guis: grouping spread information :: Being able to switch the profile with just 2 clicks (choose profile + apply). With things like this there is no possible discussion about how guis can be "simpler" to work with.

funkyou · 2007-02-22 18:24:48

pajaro,

the concept is not finished, and there is also some stuff missing like the network profiles you mentioned or the part where you can review the edited rc.conf (and possibly the other modified files) ...

for now its just an experiment for me, i am not good in programming but i have a friend who is interested in writing this app, so _maybe_ we get a prototype running in the future... i am also a bit scared about editing/modifying more than one config file at a time with a gui app, but it seems that its necessary for networking stuff...

ralvez · 2007-02-22 19:41:57

@funkyou

I see those tools as nice "add ons", like a GUI for iptables (Firestarter for example) and I think they have value particularly for "new users".
I ,however, dislike the idea of making a gui for every thing we can configure in a few lines using nano. As long as those tools are integrated into the distro as 'added bits' that those who want them can download I'm cool with the idea.
Nice job BTW.

R

keenerd · 2007-02-22 21:44:26

sokuban wrote:

I would prefer to edit the file by hand myself (because I'm paranoid if the program might screw up)

I don't like GUIs for the same reason. I also don't like TUIs, because I'm paranoid I'll screw up.

I don't like UIs that let the user screw up, nor UIs which limit user power.

Computers are good at proof checking and automating things. Pacman automates dependencies. Aurbuild automates a lot. Arch has no proof check, other than restarting the component in question.

All Arch really could use is a system-wide IDE. Maybe there already is an extension for Vim or Emacs. That would be nice. Maybe there is an extension for Eclipse. That would be silly.

Examples:
Make sure your rc.conf startup daemons actually exist in /etc/rc.d/
Hyperlink from the daemon name in rc.conf to its conf file, alert and show a diff if there is a conf.pacnew
Add a daemon and it isn't found. Did you mean this spelling? The name is found in current repo, want to install?

Many many more are possible, these are just the first three that come to mind for one line of one configuration file. Really crazy features would require additional backend components. Like versioning so you can quickly revert any configuration changes and/or package updates.

Sure, the syntax definitions will lag behind the actual syntax, but the IDE would just throw a warning and let you continue. No hand holding, no limits.

Pajaro · 2007-02-22 22:30:20

keenerd, very interesting idea. I would love to have that in vim. This would help reduce mistakes, so the reasons to use a gui would alse get reduced.

On the other hand, I think that what a gui looks for is to reduce the amount of stuff to learn. Arch is a great distro. It is the easiest distro that i know. My bro will never learn how to use configuration files. So he won't learn how to compile. In arch you don't need to learn to compile anything, thanks to AUR, because there you can find anything you look for. I think that GUIs for arch, as long as they respect the arch KISS core are going to be good. Now my bro can setup/maintain his system, but he gets lost when installing programs that are not in the official Ubuntu repositories. I strongly vote for GUIs, as long as they don't mess up the system and don't pressure the developers.

Last edited by Pajaro (2007-02-22 22:31:17)

Leigh · 2007-06-04 03:44:15

Mr Green wrote:

shh you will give away our ages.....

Hmmm, redhat 7.1 came out around 2000 I think.. so umm , I guess, in linux years, that makes you about 6 or 7 years old? That's no so bad!

hungsonbk · 2007-06-04 04:00:51

I don't like GUI oriented Distros such as Fedora or Kunbuntu, etc. I can control my system with command lines and that is what i need. I know many guys using Ubunto or other Distro don't know how to solve problems when somethings happen.:D:D:D. All they know about is to using the mouse correctly. and with that people, Windows is a better choice.

STiAT · 2007-06-04 06:43:51

The simplicity of arch depends on the tools you're using. Ubuntu also just uses tools, and there have been written some modules / plugins for programs to be able to configure ubuntu easily.
All this can be done for arch - if someone who likes this starts to implement similar things.
You perfectly could write things like a configuration editor for all tasks. That's all about configuration files.
It's most of the things you described is about tools you use. If you just don't install similar tools as ubuntu provides for their "simplicity" it's clear you don't like the things.

For the simplicity of tasks, actually i'm using KDE, where most of the things you described can be configured just in the control center.

ibrahim · 2007-06-24 11:24:19

sokuban wrote:

I would prefer to edit the file by hand myself (because I'm paranoid if the program might screw up) but tooks like that sure are cool.

This doesn't make sense to me, if there is a c++ written GUI app that opens a file, manipulates a text string then re-writes that file in what way is that somehow more likely to break your config than a c++ written text app that opens a file, manipulates a text string then re-writes that file?

I'll answer for you, assuming a basic level of competence in the GUI's coder, there is no higher likelihood.

Pajaro wrote:

On the other hand, I think that what a gui looks for is to reduce the amount of stuff to learn. Arch is a great distro. It is the easiest distro that i know. My bro will never learn how to use configuration files. So he won't learn how to compile. In arch you don't need to learn to compile anything, thanks to AUR, because there you can find anything you look for.

You seem to be tricking yourself into believing that because you use the command line you are a more knowledgable user. The AUR (and pacman for that matter) work in the same way as a GUI insofar as they "reduce the amount of stuff to learn". If you were to be consistent then you'd (at the minimum) compile AUR programs yourself.

"My bro will never learn how to use configuration files. So he won't learn how to compile. In arch you don't need to learn to compile anything"

So is not learning how to to compile good or bad?

Personally, I use cli + vim for most things because it IS easy + more flexible to do things like that (once you learn how of course). I think a lot of CLI advocates though are just like those kids who think liking unpopular music makes them cool/smart/deep/whatever

hussam · 2007-06-24 13:05:02

A user friendly ui doesn't always mean a gtk/qt3 frontend.
ArchLinux's installer is already a very user friendly and easy to use ncurses ui.

Pajaro · 2007-06-25 06:51:00

So is not learning how to to compile good or bad?

The question is not if it is bad or good.

I have to learn to compile because of my work. Someone else who just wants to use firefox does not need to learn to compile.

What i meant is that thanks to aur arch users don't have to learn to compile, but ubuntu users have to, because there is no equivalent to aur in ubuntu, AFAIK.

You seem to be tricking yourself into believing that because you use the command line you are a more knowledgable user. The AUR (and pacman for that matter) work in the same way as a GUI insofar as they "reduce the amount of stuff to learn". If you were to be consistent then you'd (at the minimum) compile AUR programs yourself.

I am looking for the reduction of effort. Compiling every arch package by myself (i think that you mean creating the PKGBUILDS by myself) would be pointless. Do you also think that i would have to recode the whole GNU project by myself to be consistent? ¬_¬'

ibrahim · 2007-06-25 07:10:57

a) No, when I said compile I meant compile, not write a PKGBUILD

b) Actually yes, to really be consistent you should be rolling your own tools. Unless of course being against a GUI because it tends to "reduce the amount of stuff to learn" was just some weak excuse for trying to feel smug about having mastered the amazing depth of computer knowhow it takes to issue three commands and get a package to compile

Arch Linux

#51 2006-11-06 19:53:39

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#52 2006-11-06 21:43:01

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#53 2006-11-06 21:54:06

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#54 2006-11-06 21:59:46

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#55 2006-11-06 22:16:24

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#56 2007-02-17 22:34:48

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#57 2007-02-18 09:45:29

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#58 2007-02-18 12:36:57

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#59 2007-02-18 21:55:06

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#60 2007-02-22 02:58:51

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#61 2007-02-22 04:02:39

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#62 2007-02-22 08:02:44

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#63 2007-02-22 12:28:42

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#64 2007-02-22 17:25:15

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#65 2007-02-22 18:24:48

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#66 2007-02-22 19:41:57

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#67 2007-02-22 21:44:26

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#68 2007-02-22 22:30:20

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#69 2007-06-04 03:44:15

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#70 2007-06-04 04:00:51

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#71 2007-06-04 06:43:51

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#72 2007-06-24 11:24:19

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#73 2007-06-24 13:05:02

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#74 2007-06-25 06:51:00

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

#75 2007-06-25 07:10:57

Re: A perfect combination for a potential new distro

Board footer