Thoughts about Linux.

caved · 2006-11-14 09:27:14

Hi guys,
I have been watching from the sidelines for years and tried most every linux distro there has been before i stumbled over Arch Linux and i like it alot (ofcause due to the time spend i learned to work with Linux). And this morning when i woke up i thought about an idea that has put it all into perspective for me (as i was reinstalling arch on one of my other boxes) and i asked myself the following: what could possibly be better in Arch Linux.

First i want to concider the following things i like about Arch then the dislikes and will make suggestions to make Arch better and yes i have read the guidelines the creator has set for Arch and understand the way he thinks about it.

I totally like pacman, it is simply the best tool i have ever seen in any linux distro whatsoever period.
I like the simplicity and i love the robuustnes of the system, i dont think i will ever leave Arch ( you may ask whats this post is about, i will get there in 1 minute).

I dislike the way the kernel is setup ( i do know that the devs simply tried to make it so that Arch linux runs on virtually every harware out there), therefore they use initrd and load up a generic kernel, another reason is that they want it to be able to be upgraded with pacman -Syu. I know it is possible to grab sources from kernel.org and make your own (which i did)
The only good thing about Gentoo (imho ) is the fact that they force the user to compile their own kernel. There are 2 major advantages to this 1) the software is tailored for your sytem and 2) you only put the hardware support (and load the modules for that matter) that you actually use!

This brings me to the conclusion i had today and i stated that non of the Linux distro's can be considered Smart software, i think this is the only aspect that Gates had right ( i hate windows like the next guy) WY?
People dont know what the exact name of their Ide or ata driver is (i do but i am not a newbee in linux) but they DO know that they want bluetooth or firewire support in their kernel. The thing that struck me today is wy nobody in the linux community has taken any action with this knolledge and made a distro that is self thinking (smart)? Stuff like the internal hardware could be probed while stuff like : do you want Bluetooth support could be asked.

From the questions and the probed hardware, a kernel could be automaticly compiled at install time and THIS is what i consider smart software,(ditch initrd and make sure that only the ide / ata driver would be compiled in (you want simplicity ? there it is!) The same could be true for X and a WM of choise, the hardware could be probed and it would be perfectly possible to create a working xconfig without user interaction and only 1 driver downloaded and installed (intstead) of letting a user figur this stuff out for himself with config scripts. (the stoneage is over).
I also fail to understand wy i would (everytime i want install an x server) reedit the mouse line : /dev/mouse to /dev/input mice. It is not that i am to lazy to do it but its just stupid LOL

If someone ever wanted to change stuff thats fine all config scripts would be still there to edit, the aim would not be eleminate any features of Arch just to make it smart software.

All these things i concider smart software is what is preventing windows users from using Linux and there doesn't seem to be anyone that is able or willing to work with this information, not that this is any of Archs concerns since they don't really aim for a huge user base (it is more a linux issue in general), and as things are it is already steadily growing.

Don't get me wrong, i say Arch is a wonderfull distro and may very well be the best i ever used and i will stay in this corner, and hence i dont want to start a flame war, these are just personal feeling i wanted to share.

If i ever was to make my own distro, it would be an Arch fork, but it would be smart software

gradgrind · 2006-11-14 09:55:57

Go on then

I guess some of the things you would like to see are exactly what many others would like to see, too. And I imagine there are reasons other than laziness or lack of interest for them not having been implemented yet. Maybe the fact that hardware support is a moving target makes the situation even more difficult.

As regards the kernel, I get the impression there are quite a few people who would like to do it differently, but I am learning to appreciate the positive side of the present approach. One of the intentions of udev and mkinitcpio is that - more or less, and if set up correctly - only the required modules get loaded. And it happens automatically. You are welcome to compile your own kernels if you want - I have done it many times - but this is quite a lengthy process with no end of possible pitfalls.

Linux distros have progressed immensely over the last few years, and it is now often easier to install Linux than Windows, unless you have tricky hardware.

There is always room for improvement - for example, I agree that setting up xorg.conf needs a bit more attention - so there's always somewhere for you to help out!

Romashka · 2006-11-14 10:01:29

Hi caved! Are you caved from #archlinux?

caved wrote:

The only good thing about Gentoo (imho ) is the fact that they force the user to compile their own kernel. There are 2 major advantages to this 1) the software is tailored for your sytem and 2) you only put the hardware support (and load the modules for that matter) that you actually use!

Wrong points.
1) Arch kernel is pretty modular
2) it doesn't load unneeded modules
3) you can blacklist some modules that are detected as needed for your hardware, but you don't want to use them
4) self-compiled kernel will not be better in most cases, except when you setup some minimalistic router.

caved wrote:

People dont know what the exact name of their Ide or ata driver is (i do but i am not a newbee in linux) but they DO know that they want bluetooth or firewire support in their kernel. The thing that struck me today is wy nobody in the linux community has taken any action with this knolledge and made a distro that is self thinking (smart)? Stuff like the internal hardware could be probed while stuff like : do you want Bluetooth support could be asked.

That's exactly what Arch does. You have most modules in kernel26 package, but for wifi and bluetooth you need separate modules and utils packages.

caved wrote:

From the questions and the probed hardware, a kernel could be automaticly compiled at install time

mkinitcpio does something like this at install time. It adds only detected modules to image, so your kernel can boot.

caved wrote:

and THIS is what i consider smart software,(ditch initrd and make sure that only the ide / ata driver would be compiled in (you want simplicity ? there it is!)

How this will be better?

caved wrote:

The same could be true for X and a WM of choise, the hardware could be probed and it would be perfectly possible to create a working xconfig without user interaction and only 1 driver downloaded and installed (intstead) of letting a user figur this stuff out for himself with config scripts. (the stoneage is over).
I also fail to understand wy i would (everytime i want install an x server) reedit the mouse line : /dev/mouse to /dev/input mice. It is not that i am to lazy to do it but its just stupid LOL

That's in todo of Xorg team. They plan to rework xorgconfig to eliminate "stone age" parts and make things better. Basically running

X -configure

and moving xorg.conf.new to /etc/X11/xorg.conf will provide basic working X config now. Of course this could be improved, but that's should be done by Xorg team.

caved wrote:

All these things i concider smart software is what is preventing windows users from using Linux and there doesn't seem to be anyone that is able or willing to work with this information, not that this is any of Archs concerns since they don't really aim for a huge user base (it is more a linux issue in general), and as things are it is already steadily growing.

Windows users still have to do some configuration after Windows install (install vendor's drives, configure video modes etc.).

arooaroo · 2006-11-14 11:08:12

I've seen so many benchmarks comparing default compiled kernels vs freshly compiled for a specific system and there is never any significant difference.

I too used to use Gentoo, and compiling software to use specific arch flags does make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but very little else in the form of a tangible difference.

The other advantage of stock kernels are that they're tested a lot more than any user-specific kernel, which is important if you like a bit of stability.

Basically, I think the Linux kernel is nice and modular so you can enable/disable everything as you need it.

The only time you seem to notice any difference is when you use a patched kernel, which can introduce new performance/stability/security/etc gains, but that's a different debate than the stock vs recompiled.

Have you been able to measure a difference?

I like that you're talking about how to make Linux more viable for non-newbies. I'm not convinced a "smart" recompile of the kernel helps in any real way.

pelle.k · 2006-11-14 17:05:56

mkinitpcio / udev does most of this already. Didn't you know that, or maybe you meant something else?

Do you install xserver package like several times a day [irony mode, couldn't help myself]

I belive the point about "the system asking you what modules you want to cancel out" is not in line with the arch KISS philosofy. I do however welcome the idea of separate "helper" scripts that could do this kind of configuration for you. Also, if you are that convenient with linux, you could probably figure out how to blacklist this module. If not, you would probably not even know what a module is in the first place. Correct me if i'm wrong.

I agree about simplified automatic (more or less) xorg.conf. Either way i belive the syntax used in this file(and xorg n general) is confusing to say the least, and i hope that the xorg team will improve on this, as well as simplifying dual monitor setups and tv-out. I also think they are in the best position to do this, as they deal with the "end product" (xorg) and hardware directly. This would be a better solution than modifying the already dysfuctional xorg.conf with some dirty hack.

dtw · 2006-11-14 19:50:32

I've got little to add this except to counter a few assumptions:

1) the software is tailored for your sytem and 2) you only put the hardware support (and load the modules for that matter) that you actually use!

Regardless of technicalities these remain the potential benefits, nothing more. I agree that a little more control and choice is a good thing. However, choice and control require someone to exercise them. I personally wouldn't bother to further optimize my kernel (-beyond) because there would be no discernible benefit, therefore presenting me with the choice to do so is not only irrelevant but, in fact, a bit annoying. Why would I also want to completely build my own kernel, which takes 90 mins on my machine, when a pre-compiled one is fine? I use myself purely as an example to highlight the assumptions made i.e. I care what is in the kernel and I have a machine suited to building one.

Simply put: In this case Arch follows its philosophy extremely well. If I want to build my own kernel I can, and I can maintain it and share it with the Arch world. If I don't want to Arch doesn't bother me about it.

I can see you have tried carefully to avoid making this thread about Arch and your personal dislike of one feature, so we'll leave the Arch discussion there.

Now, as far as a universal kernel configurator is concerned, I have had the same idea myself, as, I'm sure, have hundreds of others. Why has it not been done?

My educated guess would be that it could never keep up with the kernel source unless it was maintained by the kernel developers. The kernel changes on an almost daily basis, therefore any testbed for this tool, would be out of date even before the first set of bugs were found. Therefore you'd probably be a major kernel version behind at release of the configurator.

With that in mind: who would want a completely customized kernel that was a whole major version behind the main line that couldn't do it manually faster and probably better?

The answer is no-one. Windows users moving to Linux don't care about how many IDE modules are in the kernel. The people that do care will NOT want to be a whole major version behind just to make the tiny savings involved.

I would rather the kernel devs spent more time developing better support for more hardware rather than developing a tool that, in reality, there really is no call for.

As for X configurators..X comes with two doesn't it?

phrakture · 2006-11-14 22:15:09

I'm not sure I would call requiring a recompile on a user's machine "smart". In fact, let me give you two instances:

Software A is compiled against the python shared object.  This shows up in 'ldd' output.  The linux libdl actually handles the loading of this object and it all works great.

and

Software B uses custom dynamic-loading code (dlfcn.h using dlopen/dlsym).  It attempts to find the python shared object, loads it with this code, and pulls in function symbols.  It carries on just like Software A and works great

Both are fairly similar. However, let me point out a technical difference that is exactly what you are talking about. Software A requires python when it is built. You cannot build it without python. Software B does not require python to build (though it probably does, for the headers, at least) as it is pulling in all symbols dynamically.

Now, the problem. Delete the python so file. Software A now fails to start completely. Shared object not found. Software B is able to detect "huh, python is missing" and either carry on with python features disabled, OR exit with an appropriate error: "python is missing, please reinstall it".

This is the difference between customizing at runtime, and customizing at build time. If you were to ask me which of the above was "smarter", I would say B.

pelle.k · 2006-11-14 22:56:14

When you speak of the devil! About configuring Xorg etc.

One of the possible configuration tools that was given serious consideration was SUSE's SaX2, which was acknowledged as a comprehensive tool for munging X configurations -- particularly dual-head configs.
What's coming in X.org
However, that may only be an interim solution. X.org's Keith Packard turned up for several of the X.org discussions, and he indicated that X.org will be solving some of these problems upstream in the 7.3 timeframe. According to Packard, X.org 7.3 shouldn't even require an xorg.conf -- everything should be autodetected at run time. X.org will receive information about new devices dynamically from D-Bus. X.org will also be moving to fontconfig to make fonts more dynamic.

Taken from this article - Ubuntu Developer Summit report

caved · 2006-11-15 08:33:30

Me again folks,
I have created this threat and have red the reactions, maybe i wasn't clear enough about my reasons for posting this or maybe some part were red wrong becouse all posters completely are missing my point here.

This threat isn't an Arch Linux threat it also isn't a "how do we handle the kernel" or whats the best solution to do things post. This post was about the hostility Linux devs have to make things alittle bit more userfriendly.

I see Arch Linux as a template (a raw set of tools if you will) to mold into something i want and thats absolutely fine, i just wondered wy noone took this "raw diamond" and molded it into something more userfriendly.

The common mindset of Linux devs (and this is were i was getting at) is like saying: Hello user here you have the tools, now if you wanne set it all up go read the wiki's because i am not helping you with any setup tools hence scrips that ask simple questions and fill in some of the blanks for you. I even dare to say that the one who took the powerfull Arch template and made it userfriendly could have 10 times the userbase that Arch has.

You can do things in maybe 10 different ways, you can tell people they have to go edit locale.gen then load up rc.conf to fill in their locale and after that do a locale-gen OR you could ask people what country they are from and fill in the blanks for them. Please dont post comments like: how many times do you setup your locale. Even if i did it once, that last way is the userfriendly way the first way isn't.

Wy is Ubuntu 4 times more popular then Debian (after all its based on Debian). I don't like Ubuntu at all, let me say that upfront. Ubuntu is far more popular because of 1 thing and 1 thing only, Those devs got only 1 thing right and that is the fact that they understood that they have to make the distro USERfriendly (this was probebly the one thing Shuttleworth asked them since Linux devs simply donot think that way), and THAT is my point.

I read arguements about it is supposed to be Xorg's job to provide the correct template: the /dev/mouse ---> /dev/input/mice example.
Correct me if i am wrong: What Romashka is saying is basicly the devs of xorg are deciding wether or not they change things and Arch Linux just goes along with it, wy ? I always thought Arch Linux has its own packaging system with which they can basicly do what they want, no? So in short: Arch Linux perfectly has the ability to change the xorg packages as they see fit yet they choose not to, wy?

This is the last post i wanted to add on this subject, i understand that people sometimes a) don't want to see things the way i do b) don't care.
and all that is fine with me, i just wanted people to think about the subject.

iphitus · 2006-11-15 11:02:48

caved wrote:

I see Arch Linux as a template (a raw set of tools if you will) to mold into something i want and thats absolutely fine, i just wondered wy noone took this "raw diamond" and molded it into something more userfriendly.

they have. there's a multitude of derivatives of arch already. Google is your friend.

The common mindset of Linux devs (and this is were i was getting at) is like saying: Hello user here you have the tools, now if you wanne set it all up go read the wiki's because i am not helping you with any setup tools hence scrips that ask simple questions and fill in some of the blanks for you. I even dare to say that the one who took the powerfull Arch template and made it userfriendly could have 10 times the userbase that Arch has.

well, that's not how Arch works -- we don't use easy configuration tools, because they themselves bring in a load of other problems. It's not that easy.

As for generalising 'linux devs' - do you mean kernel devs or distro devs? - Assuming you meant distro devs, we don't have time to answer everyone's questions and help them individually, hence we have the wiki, where you can help yourself. Arch wouldnt be as up to date as it is, if it had silly configuration tools for everything.

You can do things in maybe 10 different ways, you can tell people they have to go edit locale.gen then load up rc.conf to fill in their locale and after that do a locale-gen OR you could ask people what country they are from and fill in the blanks for them. Please dont post comments like: how many times do you setup your locale. Even if i did it once, that last way is the userfriendly way the first way isn't.

again. arch was never designed to be user friendly -- it's a design choice. There's other distros, like ubuntu who are. use them. You're simply looking at the wrong distro.

Wy is Ubuntu 4 times more popular then Debian (after all its based on Debian).

I can make up statistics too (distrowatch is not statistics btw).

I read arguements about it is supposed to be Xorg's job to provide the correct template: the /dev/mouse ---> /dev/input/mice example.
Correct me if i am wrong: What Romashka is saying is basicly the devs of xorg are deciding wether or not they change things and Arch Linux just goes along with it, wy ? I always thought Arch Linux has its own packaging system with which they can basicly do what they want, no? So in short: Arch Linux perfectly has the ability to change the xorg packages as they see fit yet they choose not to, wy?

Why? It's our policy to distribute it the way the developer intended, which means defaults in most cases, and when defaults are non functional, minimal configuration/modification. As a result, yeah we do lose some user friendliness, but we cut down on the typical bugs you see in applications on other 'user friendly' distros.

This is the last post i wanted to add on this subject, i understand that people sometimes a) don't want to see things the way i do b) don't care.
and all that is fine with me, i just wanted people to think about the subject.

We've thought about it, but we use arch because we do not want user friendly systems where everything is done for us. You don't seem to understand the complication this adds -- we don't want this.

As a developer, I'd rather spend my time keeping my packages up to date, then fussing over silly bugs in an auto configuration tool. The point of Arch is to be up to date, and simple in it's design (does not always correlate to user friendliness). Rather than attempting to be the eight thousandth distro aiming for user friendliness, arch fills a niche of being simple in it's design, allowing capable and advance users to mould it to their desktop requirements, more so than any other distro.

You're the one missing the point, not us.

mods? reckon this thread has run it's course, it's starting to go in circles through the OP's lack of understanding of arch philosophy, and he has stated that he won't return to this thread.

Romashka · 2006-11-15 11:27:52

A small correction.

iphitus wrote:

arch was never designed to be user friendly -- it's a design choice.

In fact, Arch is "user friendly" IMO. The problem is that the term "user friendly" has many definitions.

Arch is definetely not "click here, then select this, than this, and click OK and OK and yet again OK" distro.
If this is "user friendly" then... I don't know where some Linux distros are going.

iphitus · 2006-11-15 11:33:38

Romashka wrote:

A small correction.
iphitus wrote:
arch was never designed to be user friendly -- it's a design choice.
In fact, Arch is "user friendly" IMO. The problem is that the term "user friendly" has many definitions.
Arch is definetely not "click here, then select this, than this, and click OK and OK and yet again OK" distro.
If this is "user friendly" then... I don't know where some Linux distros are going.

well that's what I meant by user friendly -- click here/select this -- that's the user friendly caved is talking about, and this thread has been about. and thank god arch aint that.

James

scarney · 2006-11-15 11:39:44

iphitus wrote:

and thank god arch aint that.
James

amen brutha.

Romashka · 2006-11-15 12:12:40

iphitus wrote:

well that's what I meant by user friendly -- click here/select this -- that's the user friendly caved is talking about, and this thread has been about. and thank god arch aint that.

+1

caved · 2006-11-15 14:50:37

again. arch was never designed to be user friendly

And i said that was fine by me -> read

It's a design choice.

And i said that was fine -> read

There's other distros, like ubuntu who are. use them.

Don't you think that if i wanted to look at U i would !? Please don't (in your deffence) tell other people were to look or what to do. I think this is a bit childish, and not needed. There is no need to deffend Arch either, i said it is fine appart from a few annoyances.

You're simply looking at the wrong distro.

I am not really looking at Arch Linux in particular, if you read what i wrote and also understand it , you would realize that i am talking about a general Linux (NOTE that i posted under the header LINUX DISCUSSION) issue or attitude which isn't even Arch specific, it is about the way Linux distro devs think. I just think editing some basic stoneage stuff and having to spend the time onit is stupid, and could be easily avoided again this is personal opinion, your opinion may differ and i am perfectly fine with that.

Clear up another thing, i never asked to add point and click everything features if i wanted those i could add them, i only wondered wy utterly simple stuff can't be just a BIT more userfriendly, again there's no reason to turn this into a "Deffend Arch with my life" threat, i am not attacking it.
Again the reasons i love Arch:
a) Pacman is seccond to none, its just the best.
b) robuustness
c) binary

I guess even the reason wy people use Arch are different for every person. For me a world with different opinions is a perfect world.

To prevent a long discussion about personal opinion, you guys have yours as i have mine, i like to leave it at this (i said that before), i respects your opinions and your discissions to make Arch as it is at this point in time.
Another thing is that i like to thank those people who are letting me make use of Arch Linux since it is really great. (once its setup :twisted: )

Caved.

In conclusion:
When i reread this hole threat i feel that most people rather position themself in deffence then to listen, read and understand what someone is talking about, i think thats a shame. Userfriendlyness doesn't have to be point and click everything but often can manifests in little things, details if you want. Like the: What country are you from ? or an xorg server that actually runs after one has installed it, just little things which make people think wow thats cool and saves them grief and time. Then i had to ask again: Would it really be such a crime if some basic stuff would just work !? (don't answer)

Dusty · 2006-11-15 15:52:12

caved wrote:

To prevent a long discussion about personal opinion, you guys have yours as i have mine, i like to leave it at this

Yes, locking.

When i reread this hole threat i feel that most people rather position themself in deffence then to listen, read and understand what someone is talking about, i think thats a shame.

We understand. We see thread like this all the time and they kind of bore us. That's why I don't read or respond to them, but I always end up having to check in from time to time to lock them.

Arch Linux is the way it is because the person that designed it wanted it that way. I know from personal conversation that he never intended it to get this big. Now there's lots of people maintaining it, and they all want it the way it is too. The people that use it choose to do so because they also want it that way. Asking for fundamental concepts within the Arch philosophy to be changed is asking all of those people to give up their distro and find another one.

The "inconveniences" you note are simply a matter of course for most of us. Case in point, we all know how to get X up and running within a few minutes of installing it. We don't want X to be automatically set up because then we don't know exactly what was done by the automated system and we lose a sense of control. Perhaps we haven't *really* lost any control, but we like to have that sense of control. This is the way that people who use Arch want to do things. That is why they use Arch, and its also why people that don't like this policy don't use Arch.

Dusty

dtw · 2006-11-15 15:53:07

if you read what i wrote and also understand it

That's not easy given your mis-spellings. I also think you have made yourself look a bit foolish by accusing other people of being defensive, when you have become so hostile in your defence.

i just wondered wy noone took this "raw diamond" and molded it into something more userfriendly

Nobody wanted to, or at least not enough people. So, I'd assume, if I were you, that not a lot of people share your opinion. You say you don't care but you obviously do.

Clearly we don't much care for rhetorical debate, we're obviously busy with other things...which is kind of the point that everyone is making.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-11-14 09:27:14

Thoughts about Linux.

#2 2006-11-14 09:55:57

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#3 2006-11-14 10:01:29

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#4 2006-11-14 11:08:12

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#5 2006-11-14 17:05:56

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#6 2006-11-14 19:50:32

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#7 2006-11-14 22:15:09

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#8 2006-11-14 22:56:14

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#9 2006-11-15 08:33:30

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#10 2006-11-15 11:02:48

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#11 2006-11-15 11:27:52

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#12 2006-11-15 11:33:38

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#13 2006-11-15 11:39:44

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#14 2006-11-15 12:12:40

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#15 2006-11-15 14:50:37

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#16 2006-11-15 15:52:12

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

#17 2006-11-15 15:53:07

Re: Thoughts about Linux.

Board footer