Goals for 1.0?

Roberth · 2007-01-17 00:19:38

Is better bootup process one of the goals for 1.0? I feel that the bootup process isnt so bullet proof as other distros...

skymt · 2007-01-17 00:42:58

Any specific problems you'd like to share with us?

chaosgeisterchen · 2007-01-17 06:58:49

Good morning,

may it be, that you do not understand how Arch is like? The 'releases' as they are called mostly, are nothing more than mere snapshots of the momentary base Arch Linux system. It's unlike Ubuntu, SuSE and so on, which have fixed versions, as we have the Rolling Release System, making it possible to be up to date, whatever version of Arch Linux you are using. You may either update from 0.7.0 to bleeding egde current or do it from a clean 0.8alpha install, both have (almost) no problems upgrading to the newest versions of software included with your system.

By regarding this, 1.0 is a nice version number, but it won't be a significant change, which is fully different from the versions before. It will be still possible to upgrade from 0.7.0 to 1.0 without pain. And I'm glad, it's the way it is.

Regards

cg

Acid7711 · 2007-01-17 08:10:13

Verison 1.0 to come packaged with a free stick of gum. Your choice: Big Red or Juicy Fruit.

iphitus · 2007-01-17 08:20:27

What's to say we don't start going 0.134?

1.0 is a long, long way away. I think Acid7711's predictions are closer than anyone elses could be. It's silly to try to predict otherwise.

James

AndyRTR · 2007-01-17 08:28:12

I dislike our numbering sheme. I'd rather like to have it named by the snapshot date like *buntu or Gentoo.

Dusty · 2007-01-17 14:29:17

I'm pretty sure the relevant discussion on whether or not Judd's chosen numbering scheme is liked by the community can be found on other threads. Many of them. Use the forum search. Lets use this thread to focus on Roberth's booting problems, assuming he explains what he'd like to see changed.

Dusty

phrakture · 2007-01-17 16:29:53

Dusty for the win!

Can you explain what is not bullet-proof? Is it the initramfs (before it begins printing color) or the initscripts (after color) ?

codemac · 2007-01-17 19:57:40

Or by "booting process" do you mean the process from downloading the .iso of a release -> booting a running system?

That's what I think needs the most improvement

deficite · 2007-01-17 20:53:19

AndyRTR wrote:

I dislike our numbering sheme. I'd rather like to have it named by the snapshot date like *buntu or Gentoo.

We already have this. 0.8 is going to be called Voodoo. People on the board just happen to like to refer to them by the number instead of name. *buntu (an example you gave) is the same way. It has a number and a name for all its releases.

Acid7711 · 2007-01-18 07:42:48

deficite wrote:

AndyRTR wrote:
I dislike our numbering sheme. I'd rather like to have it named by the snapshot date like *buntu or Gentoo.
We already have this. 0.8 is going to be called Voodoo. People on the board just happen to like to refer to them by the number instead of name. *buntu (an example you gave) is the same way. It has a number and a name for all its releases.

What I believe he meant by that was saying that Gentoo's (for example) releases are released by date. For example Gentoo 2006.1 is their current release.

Honestly, I do like that idea. It just works for a rolling release system since instead of a version, it's pretty much a snapshot takin on a specific date. But, like they've said it's been discussed.

Now where's my free stick of gum???

Mr Green · 2007-01-18 08:35:58

Roberth wrote:

Is better bootup process one of the goals for 1.0? I feel that the bootup process isnt so bullet proof as other distros...

I am not sure I understand what you mean, generally Arch is one of the faster booting distros.

Been many threads over boot process on forums guess if it does not boot in less than 10 seconds its deemed to slow ..

You may be having problems with booting Arch I do not know, we are all here to help thats what forums are for..

manmower · 2007-01-18 09:07:22

Acid7711 wrote:

deficite wrote:
AndyRTR wrote:
I dislike our numbering sheme. I'd rather like to have it named by the snapshot date like *buntu or Gentoo.
We already have this. 0.8 is going to be called Voodoo. People on the board just happen to like to refer to them by the number instead of name. *buntu (an example you gave) is the same way. It has a number and a name for all its releases.
What I believe he meant by that was saying that Gentoo's (for example) releases are released by date. For example Gentoo 2006.1 is their current release.
Honestly, I do like that idea. It just works for a rolling release system since instead of a version, it's pretty much a snapshot takin on a specific date. But, like they've said it's been discussed.

Now where's my free stick of gum???

Yep I think that's what Acid7711 meant. Ubuntu for example has:

Dapper Drake, released June 06 version number 6.06
Edgy Eft, October 06 version number 6.10
etc.

It makes sense indeed, but I don't really see any problems with the current numbering either.

dtw · 2007-01-18 10:38:37

The only problem with the current numbering is the association of 1.0 with a "finished" OSS product, no matter how correct that association is on a case by case basis.

The Arch powers that be basically say that there will be no "finished" version of Arch but in reality we are inadvertantly implying that a 1.0 milestone release is forthcoming by using such a scheme.

The Ubuntu names aren't affected in the same way because although they appear to be a continuation of the OSS standard they are, in fact, based on date.

The simplest thing to do would be to just remove the cause of confusion and change the numbering. If the numbering system is as irrelevant as the devs keep claiming then I don't understand the stubborness around changing it?

Sorry, Dusty

However, for all the assertions regarding a 1.0 release I'd bet money that there will be song and dance around the 1.0 release...

lucke · 2007-01-18 11:19:08

There could a 0.10 release after 0.9 ;-p

Mikko777 · 2007-01-18 17:04:16

Well since I'm kinda new to arch, I remember getting spooked about the version numberin prior to downloading the ISOs.

0.72 just gave the feeling of a smallish, beta, nonpro, barely works, a hobby of a guy and his drinking pal kind of distro

Although nothing could further from the thruth ofcourse...
A small polish here and there, like the version number, reflect the attidude and professionalism imho...

jerem · 2007-01-18 17:35:13

Roberth wrote:

Is better bootup process one of the goals for 1.0? I feel that the bootup process isnt so bullet proof as other distros...

Maybe the lack of "service dependencies calculation" leads you to say that.

Another bad point is not being able to know whether a backgrounded(@daemon) process has successfully ended
(apart from checking manually with a couple of commands).

However, Arch's initscripts are damn fast and really simple, which I like very much.

Perhaps one day we'll be able to use some of the shiny upstart/einit/initng stuff if you prefer that.

phrakture · 2007-01-18 17:59:31

jerem wrote:

Maybe the lack of "service dependencies calculation" leads you to say that.

I've always been of the opinion that dependency calculation should be done manually. If X needs Y, just start X before Y.

Dusty · 2007-01-18 19:09:52

I don't think the OP meant to be trolling with this post, but he certainly succeeded at it. Since he hasn't responded, I'm locking this. If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest making a post titled "Suggestions for bootup process improvement" with relevant content.

Dusty

Arch Linux

#1 2007-01-17 00:19:38

Goals for 1.0?

#2 2007-01-17 00:42:58

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#3 2007-01-17 06:58:49

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#4 2007-01-17 08:10:13

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#5 2007-01-17 08:20:27

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#6 2007-01-17 08:28:12

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#7 2007-01-17 14:29:17

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#8 2007-01-17 16:29:53

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#9 2007-01-17 19:57:40

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#10 2007-01-17 20:53:19

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#11 2007-01-18 07:42:48

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#12 2007-01-18 08:35:58

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#13 2007-01-18 09:07:22

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#14 2007-01-18 10:38:37

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#15 2007-01-18 11:19:08

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#16 2007-01-18 17:04:16

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#17 2007-01-18 17:35:13

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#18 2007-01-18 17:59:31

Re: Goals for 1.0?

#19 2007-01-18 19:09:52

Re: Goals for 1.0?

Board footer