why Arch hides somethingg

iphitus · 2007-05-20 01:06:36

mangus wrote:

iphitus wrote:
well, if gentoo had really taught you how to compile a kernel, you could compile a kernel on any linux system. Otherwise, you've just learnt how to use emerge.
really...first thing I've done on my first installation of arch was compiling my good old kernel with my usual method...
by hand...all done in a blink of an eye. Slackware was my training, though....:D

likewise, first thing i did after ending beyond, was to manually compile 2.6.16.51 for my computers...

James

mangus · 2007-05-20 01:25:38

iphitus wrote:

likewise, first thing i did after ending beyond, was to manually compile 2.6.16.51 for my computers...
James

lol...I knew your rants....:D BTW good work, however... thanks

Xilon · 2007-05-20 04:34:31

geek.arnuld wrote:

iphitus wrote:
learning a GNU OS, isnt about learning how to make partitions. You can know everything about partitions, but know nothing about using a GNU unix system.
James
i know and it is just one and very 1st example. 2nd is, Arch does not even let you know about compiling the kernel. on CRUX and Gentoo, you *have* to understand the kernel compilation and the ALSA modules and drivers differences and even the you get to know the words like journaled filesystems and that leads to understanding of GNU OS in general. but may be you ahve a diferent point of view of learning the *NIX. i am interested in knowing that. please put it here.

As you have pointed out, these distributions force you to "learn" compiling a kernel etc. What if I don't want to? What if I want to install an OS and have it working in 30 minutes? You can't do that with Gentoo afaik, you have to spend a week compiling stuff. I don't see how Arch prevents you from compiling a kernel, it even has guides on how to do it "the Arch way". I have compiled a kernel in Arch using abs many times. Likewise it allows you (read: gives you the freedom) to configure any aspect of the system. The amount of *NIX that you learn is up to you, and I don't think that learning about Arch's internals means learning about *NIX. Of course you will learn how the boot process works etc, but Arch's init system for instance is very different to Sys V, which most distros use. In terms of the other things, you get vanilla applications. You learn something on Arch you can apply it to most other distros, which is really great.

GNU/Linux is a compilation of applications along with the kernel, if you want to learn that you don't need to know any Arch internals, though you are free to explore that if you want. Some documentation on rc.sysinit would be nice, but it's not essential. I think Bash is fairly self explanatory, as long as you sit down and walk through the scripts.

Last edited by Xilon (2007-05-20 04:36:10)

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-20 04:57:14

detto wrote:

I would point you to Slackware in all honest to Arch, but Slack (as it claims itself) is mos UNIX like. Learned things myself there, then afterwars searched for distribution for desktop usage (which Slack can do too, but too much work imo).

Slackware does not have a good package manager. even Slapt-get does not handle package dependencies for packages outside the basic collection :-(, seems like their aim is alike the aim of CRUX community which has prt-get and that is not powerful. these are 3 powerful package manages i have seen, in that order:

emerge (most powerful)
pacman
apt-get

arvster · 2007-05-20 08:49:58

Slackware might not have a good package manager, however I also must agree that it is a very good tool for learning. It wasn't suitable for my desktop usage, as it required just a bit too much work, but there I learned the most about Linux in general. Everything there is up to you to set up, so it in a way forces you to learn. After that, Gentoo or Arch didn't really offer me much new to learn, that I hadn't already figured out in Slack. Gentoo was just too much wasted time compiling stuff for hours or even whole nights on my old computer. Waiting for stuff to compile just to get negligible speed improvement doesn't really help to learn anything, imo.

I find Arch in a good balance; it allows you to tweak everything easily if you wish, but if you don't, then there are some sensible defaults in place already. It may not be the greatest learning distro, as you are not forced to do stuff manually only, but I don't think Arch aims to be one in the first place. Nothing stops you from compiling the kernel here or anything else, but there also is an alternative if you don't want all that. This flexibility is exactly the thing that holds me to this distro. You can install the basic distro in 20 or so minutes and then you are free to do whatever you wish or need to do.

oli · 2007-05-20 11:16:48

geek.arnuld wrote:

iphitus wrote:
learning a GNU OS, isnt about learning how to make partitions. You can know everything about partitions, but know nothing about using a GNU unix system.
James
so i ask: Is it really good idea to use Arch as basis for learning GNU OS (design, internal structure etc.) ?

If you want to learn GNU talk with RMS, if you want to learn "UNIX", well actually using some Linux or BSD is the way to go. I don't need to know how to build a car-engine to actually drive a car or to repair some parts of it. LFS is the way to go if you are eager to build your own distro.

[edit] typo

Last edited by oli (2007-05-20 13:31:45)

detto · 2007-05-20 11:44:00

geek.arnuld wrote:

Slackware does not have a good package manager. even Slapt-get does not handle package dependencies for packages outside the basic collection :-(, seems like their aim is alike the aim of CRUX community which has prt-get and that is not powerful. these are 3 powerful package manages i have seen, in that order:
emerge (most powerful)
pacman
apt-get

Sure those 3 package managers help you along the way to easily get what you want on your PC. But this exactly is te point in Slackware now: you have to manually check your dependencies, you get a knowing which package is for what and is needed for what and so on. Creating SlackBuild files then also is a great step because you'll contact with compiling and configure parameters and what not. The system itself also gives you the control or even forces you to select the modules that should be loaded, decide wether you want devfs or udev (that might change with 11.1) and decide which daemons shold be started at boot (just like with Arch).
So basically, there isnt much difference between Arch and Slack speaking of configuring the base system, but you should look at the package manager of Slackware as a really nice learning tool

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-20 14:03:28

oli wrote:

If you want to learn GNU talk with RMS,

why ? you don't have any clue what an OS is ? OS means Operating System but i know you know that, see more down here

oli wrote:

if you want to learn "UNIX", well actually using some Linux or BSD is the way to go.

you can't compare UNIX and BSD with Linux. UNIX, BSD are the names of OSs, Linux is not an OS, it is a kernel, kernel itself is not an OS. OS has lots of things, compiler, Library, kernel, text editors, configuration files, initscripts, boot manager and hell lots of things. kernel is just a small but important part of an OS. Linus Torvalds created Linux kernel and the compiler he used for that work was GCC ;-).

Arch is a GNU OS using Linux kernel. you can put whole stuff, Arch initscripts and pacman , gcc and everything on some other kernel like Pistachio e.g.

If people do not know then it does not mean Linux is an OS. BTW, you can run OS without using the kernel. before Ken Thompson created UNIX, he used Program Loaders to load and unload programmes, like vi, csh. BSD, in fact, is *the* UNIX. have a peak here:

http://www.slackbook.org/html/introduct … TION-LINUX
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensour … rkmck.html

and for some fun :-) these are my favourites (including that oreilly link):

http://l4ka.org/projects/pistachio/
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-paper.html
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/mercury/
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

oli wrote:

I don't need to know how to build a car-engine to actually drive a car or to repair some parts of it. LFS is the way to go if you are eager to build your own distro.

yes, you are right here, that is sound advice :-)

Fatsobob · 2007-05-20 14:06:05

I can tell you with confidence that I learned almost everything I know now from arch. I got the interest started a little over a year ago and I was only exploring until I found arch. From that day on, it was nothing but learning and I am still using arch. Arch doesn't make you learn EVERYTHING, but you can always do it the hard way anyway.

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-20 14:08:40

detto wrote:

Sure those 3 package managers help you along the way to easily get what you want on your PC. But this exactly is te point in Slackware now: you have to manually check your dependencies, you get a knowing which package is for what and is needed for what and so on. Creating SlackBuild files then also is a great step because you'll contact with compiling and configure parameters and what not. The system itself also gives you the control or even forces you to select the modules that should be loaded, decide wether you want devfs or udev (that might change with 11.1) and decide which daemons shold be started at boot (just like with Arch).
So basically, there isnt much difference between Arch and Slack speaking of configuring the base system, but you should look at the package manager of Slackware as a really nice learning tool

you look like an experienced man :-). IIRC, someone on Gentoo forums also advised me to use Slackware when i posted my goals of choosing a GNU OS there. as i need GCC 4.x for my C++ project , i think i need to download unofficial ISOs. i am using CRUX now and i feel its package manager is nearly like Slapt-get.

mitsoko · 2007-05-20 22:17:43

...UNIX, BSD are the names of OSs, Linux is not an OS, it is a kernel...

yes, and everyone knows that, everyone also knows that GNU/Linux ( as-in a GNU/Linux Distribution, like Arch or Debian) is often refered to as, just Linux;

you clearly know what was meant here, stop trying to be a smart-ass.

oli · 2007-05-21 00:27:35

@geek.arnuld

Oh nice. Please use your precious kernel without an userland, show me this miracle

>Arch is a GNU OS using Linux kernel. you can put whole stuff, Arch initscripts and pacman , gcc and everything on some other kernel like Pistachio e.g.

Arch initscript aka BSD init style - you should really do your homework. My FreeBSD is using gcc too and FreeBSD ports was the archetype for gentoo portage and so on. Pkgsrc, the package management of NetBSD, is usable in Linux, Solaris and so on, OpenSSH from OpenBSD is part of almost every operating system out there. Remember it's open-source, you can mix it if you like. Of course *BSD are open-source derivatives of UNIX. But to actually learn UNIX you have to learn one thing, it's just a trademark. You have to learn AIX, Solaris, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux xyz and so on ... and then you have maybe some glimpse what an OS is. Btw. some people using a FreeBSD or OpenSolaris kernel together with a GNU userland. This is possible too, so this is no argument.

*BSD is a whole system, without a compiler. It's for most people out there actually useful only together with this compiler, a GNU compiler. To sum it up, with these explanations of an OS you wouldn't reach the the second semester in computer science. But hey, learning "UNIX" isn't something like GNU/BSD or whatever, "UNIX" stands for certain principles. To actually learn something at all you should first acquire some proper terminologies and some bits of OS-history.

over and out

Kern · 2007-05-21 10:06:55

O.P

Arch wiki says Arch is for learning GNU OS (a.k.a Linux):
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
but i don't see one is learning about *NIX much. Do you folks still say Arch makes one learn GNU OS. ? any views/ideas/critiques

Is this thread about Arch or arguing if it fits the various and variable definitons of Linux/Nix/GNU ?

From your link, where does it say Arch is for learning GNU / Linux, where does it say *makes* you learn the OS. The nearest i can find on your link is in Pro's and Cons: - the perfect environment to learn Linux in

To me Archlinux has been this environment.
It's a tool, a front end for Linux or whatever you call it, without disappearing up ur own ar*e on defining gnu/linux. ive found it useful to learn how linux works and a good balance between usability & configurability without it being overly structured, or incredibly spartan.
It hasnt "made me learn" anything. I chose it to enable me to learn. Once in, one certainly needs to accept the need to learn to get best advantage as with all things.

It would appear after a few years practical use that I've found out more about the OS by sticking to it (arch) than i had say from Redhat, too much pre con help, LFS too little, or swapping from Distro to Distro hoping to find nirvana.

Arch for me is my final distro, having given up Distrowatch try&test maybe a couple or 3 yrs back.
just my own 2cents.

kern

iphitus · 2007-05-21 10:29:35

to be honest, you dont learn anything unless you try to. I know someone who uses gentoo, arch on another computer, and also has used debian, slack, mandriva, and others, but still stumble on basic things.

You only learn if you try to learn. And that you can do on any distro.

James

detto · 2007-05-21 12:41:19

Wise words iphitus. My advice to you arnuld , is to prepare some partitions and don't concentrate on only Arch or Slack or Gentoo or whatever but test 'em all, stick with one you're most comfortable with and seem to learn most from.
2c,
deTTo

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-21 14:49:04

raeven wrote:

yes, and everyone knows that, everyone also knows that GNU/Linux ( as-in a GNU/Linux Distribution, like Arch or Debian) is often refered to as, just Linux;

you know that, ask any general Fedora user. he will say "What is that G...N...U ?. Linux is the OS, never heard of GNU". even though 90% of utilities are from GNU Project

raeven wrote:

you clearly know what was meant here, stop trying to be a smart-ass.

i am not smart-ass. i am a smart man ;-) who thinks FSF did lots of hard work and they are responsible for their *NIX and people say "What is GNU ? " :-(

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-21 14:57:42

Kern wrote:

O.P
Is this thread about Arch or arguing if it fits the various and variable definitons of Linux/Nix/GNU ?

OK.. sorry. you are right, i am messing up the things here by diverting the discussion. i will simply call it UNIX and will keep the discussion limited to Arch only.

Last edited by geek.arnuld (2007-05-21 17:07:44)

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-21 17:26:36

OK folks..... i am Arch-ie now ;-) just installed Duke x86_64 on my AMD64.

at least..... you can welcome me BTW :-)

sweiss · 2007-05-21 17:37:48

Unix and Linux systems have their differences already.
Learning how Arch ticks will probably not benefit you too much when switching to another type of Linux. What it can and will show you is the strength and beauty of simplicity. With an intermediate level of Bash knowledge you will probably understand how Arch works.

But this is also a question of what do you consider Arch to be. I consider a distribution to be init/boot scripts and package management, basically. By learning Arch, you will learn how these tasks are achieved in a brilliantly simple manner.

There is no such thing like a standard Linux-based system. They all have their differences.

pjeremy · 2007-05-21 18:07:55

geek.arnuld wrote:

you know that, ask any general Fedora user. he will say "What is that G...N...U ?. Linux is the OS, never heard of GNU". even though 90% of utilities are from GNU Project

you know what, ask anyone, he will say "you're annoyingly arrogant".
Btw, RMS wants your head out of his ass.

geek.arnuld · 2007-05-21 18:32:04

pjeremy wrote:

geek.arnuld wrote:
you know that, ask any general Fedora user. he will say "What is that G...N...U ?. Linux is the OS, never heard of GNU". even though 90% of utilities are from GNU Project
you know what, ask anyone, he will say "you're annoyingly arrogant".
Btw, RMS wants your head out of his ass.

i could answer it by the same way you did but i will not. all i say you are disrespecting a good-hearted man.

[X] communication finished

pjeremy · 2007-05-21 19:12:01

:: Starting Troll Daemon [DONE]

bolero · 2007-05-21 20:29:38

O.P
are you kidding me? Are you saing Arch doesnt provide you with a system to learn with? I dont want to sound harsh or mean but COME ON. I cant believe you're saying *arch hides compiling the kernel from you*. Where ever you came up with that is beyond me. Install the system, downlaod the source code, and compile the kernel.. simple. Use Arch's wiki for a guide to learn about it.. i dont know what else you want. And regards to your partition creating.. the installer is fantastic. You can have it do it all for you, or you can do it MANUALLY yourself., edit your Conf files.. your fstab etc etc.. and there you go. Dont like the text based menu installer? then use the command line to create your partitions and mount points. I dont know what more you want. I have learned SO MUCH from this Distribution its insane. I have no idea where your getting your *facts* from. But you are boggling my mind.

phrakture · 2007-05-21 21:10:36

locked.

Arch Linux

#26 2007-05-20 01:06:36

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#27 2007-05-20 01:25:38

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#28 2007-05-20 04:34:31

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#29 2007-05-20 04:57:14

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#30 2007-05-20 08:49:58

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#31 2007-05-20 11:16:48

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#32 2007-05-20 11:44:00

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#33 2007-05-20 14:03:28

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#34 2007-05-20 14:06:05

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#35 2007-05-20 14:08:40

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#36 2007-05-20 22:17:43

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#37 2007-05-21 00:27:35

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#38 2007-05-21 10:06:55

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#39 2007-05-21 10:29:35

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#40 2007-05-21 12:41:19

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#41 2007-05-21 14:49:04

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#42 2007-05-21 14:57:42

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#43 2007-05-21 17:26:36

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#44 2007-05-21 17:37:48

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#45 2007-05-21 18:07:55

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#46 2007-05-21 18:32:04

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#47 2007-05-21 19:12:01

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#48 2007-05-21 20:29:38

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

#49 2007-05-21 21:10:36

Re: why Arch hides somethingg

Board footer