Rather than persists in the future thread...

dunbar · 2003-07-03 21:43:41

The point I was making would be for Archs documents to pick up where man pages leave off, but whatever.
If you think I stated Arch must fix man pages, not so. I was intending to show that docs as a whole, leave whole subjects unhandled, Arch could provide the answers in its own docs and come out as a hero.
Or maybe not.

And remember, users who cannot configure ppp cannot get on the internet to get the ppp configuration docs. Or any other docs, for that matter. One failed configuration needing web documents might leave the newbie stranded.
Or maybe not.

I personally think that a lot of configuration has to be made before Linux (Arch or others) will communicate over the internet to a remote website, so as to allow documentation to be visible..... but hey, maybe I missed something? Like the document to get a modem setup? So I could get web based documents? Chicken and egg?
Maybe not, eh?

As for the concept of needing to be an experienced admin - these folks usually do not need any docs. That compares to bad docs to a newbie - essentially no docs. Missing docs and no internet access are also useless. Thus, the newbie without documents needs the only thing which gets anyone else through the issue - the newbie needs experience, because the docs are weak or missing or erroneous. Try as you might, that is an issue I went through. Take, for example, when I needed network assistance. Archs forums were not the first place I went asking for help, believe me; I asked and am still asking. 2 years now, and I'm just getting told Samba. Need I say this is baloney? That issue is not Archs fault, but Arch could have a smashing success on its hands if it were to document a few critical areas as well as 0.2 was documented.

Installing and partitioning... What can I say... apeiro is not mentioning anything I've PM'd him about: secondary hard disks getting reformatted. My pm brought me the answer that most Archers never repartition, so the script was.... well, I guess you could say it was a shot in the dark. Fine, but the PM stated the alternative was something like 'I usually use the commandline stuff and simply reformat the existing partitions'.
Why the **** would an inexperienced newbie set up partitions outside of using the installer?? The Arch docs tells the newbie to use the installer to partition their hard disks! What, exactly, is the newbies idea of an installers purpose? Are you a newbie when you decide what a newbie has for skills? The installer obliterated gigabytes of data, I trusted that it was going to perform safely, and yet nobody ever used it to learn of the glitch? Ooookkaaaaayyyy.
Folks, the docs said to use the installer. Never mentioned possibly partitioning from the command line. Take your pick, the newbie was not at fault for following the docs.

I'll run along, because I cannot possibly be speaking truth. Neither am I telling you where I had problems. This is cannot be feedback, it must be dunbars rantings. Does Arch have a future when feedback is considered trolling or flaming the developers? Lighten up, folks, I had once been trying to offer help and sought to get help.

I know this is a labor of love for you all; in many ways, Linux is a labor of mine as well. Sadly, you are not hearing some issue that could help make Arch the distro that some folks want it to be.

hApy · 2003-07-03 22:53:47

hmm I'm not sure what you did, but I used the installer to format a partition for arch, whilst saving my windows partition for dual-boot purposes. So it's not broken.

My basic rule is to be VERY VERY cautious whenever you are playing with your partitions. Make sure you check out all the options (always pick the options which opt for the most control, and if none of it is making sense to you then you probably don't need it and can go back to more basic techniques. It's just good to check out all your options first so you don't accidentally pick the 'easy' way which makes too many assumptions about your system.) I'm sure that if you look for them there are GUI partitioning tools (or at the very least text-menu driven) as well if you are looking to change your partitions after an install.

---------------------------------------------------
Prepare Hard Drive
This will bring you into a submenu. The first choice is Auto-Prepare, which will automatically partition your hard drive into a /boot, swap, and root partition, and then create filesystems on all three. You can choose this option if you don't know much about hard drive partitions, but be warned: IT WILL ERASE ALL DATA ON YOUR HARD DRIVE!

If you choose to do the work yourself, use the other two options, Partition Hard Drives and Set Filesystem Mountpoints to manually prepare the target media.
----------------------------------------------------

Note the warning about erasing all your data!

Now if you are talking about changing the size of your partitions at any time, that has always been dangerous, until recently (I think) that has always meant wiping your drive or at least the modified partitions. Now tools like Partition Magic can do it in a very user friendly way, and I think the "parted" package has similar features (I've yet to use it yet though).

You should always do your own research before you modify such important things on your system to be sure that what you are doing is the right way to do it.

You keep going on about Arch 0.2 docs.. I just don't see how they could have been so much better and then got so suddenly terrible.

The docs tell you exactly where everything is that you need to know and configure. I had never done any manual setup before I installed arch and they sufficed with a bit of trial and error.

As there are no PPP docs included as you point out, all you would need to do is BEFORE your install (a) print out the arch documentation and then (b) print out documentation on how to get your basic ppp setup going on any linux system.

If you want to be really safe and don't trust yourself to be able to set it up properly on the first go and might lose internet access, burn a copy of Knoppix or any other "Live CD" that you can boot off of and have access to the internet.

Hapy.

dunbar · 2003-07-04 18:54:50

hApy wrote:

---------------------------------------------------
Prepare Hard Drive
This will bring you into a submenu. The first choice is Auto-Prepare, which will automatically partition your hard drive into a /boot, swap, and root partition, and then create filesystems on all three. You can choose this option if you don't know much about hard drive partitions, but be warned: IT WILL ERASE ALL DATA ON YOUR HARD DRIVE!
If you choose to do the work yourself, use the other two options, Partition Hard Drives and Set Filesystem Mountpoints to manually prepare the target media.
----------------------------------------------------
Note the warning about erasing all your data!

This is a combined issue, hApy.
First, the installer declared it would partition my hard drive as you posted above, not plural drives. Hard drive is singular, not plural. I elected to install onto one drive, /dev/hda, not onto /dev/hdb. The next step in the installer was to declare the filesystem types for the drives in the system, and if I recall correctly, I also had to declare mount points as well at that screen. So far, nothing said all drives would be reformatted. I chose /dev/hdb = ext3fs, since it already had ext3fs on it, with gigs of data.
When Arch partitioned the /dev/hda drive, it had to format the newly created partitions, I had selected ext3 for the format for those partitions as well as /dev/hdb.

So far, nothing said /dev/hdb would be reformatted. I read the document correctly, hApy, and you also can see that nothing declared Arch would reformat /dev/hdb.

Second, when formatting took place for /dev/hda, I clearly read that /dev/hdb was being reformatted. After the installation was finished, /dev/hdb was empty.
I conclude that the instructions did not tell a newbie it was going to reformat all drives in the system. Since I read singular drive, not plural drives, I took no action as I saw nothing of concern.

I needed to understand what went wrong, in order to help Arch developers get things straightened out. I later repeated the installation and it did exactly the same thing. The documents failed me; no matter what, they failed to state that all DRIVES would be reformatted. I got over it, and learned the lesson that documents needed fixing, actually, the installer needed fixing. I pm'd apeiro. Since you raised the issue, I answered with what went wrong.

You should always do your own research before you modify such important things on your system to be sure that what you are doing is the right way to do it.

How does one politely ask a forum: 'Will your installer be lame and screwup my second drive when it partitions the first drive?' Come on, hApy, how much distrust should I have as a newbie? Should I distrust Archs installer or its documents? Should I trust Arch or not? Before I ever used Arch, I had the following experience with installing distributions of Linux:
I installed RedHat 4.0 at least 2 times on a 486DX2/66;
then RedHat 5.0 5 times on the same 486 and later a Pentium classic, 120 MHz, 3 - 5 installs total;
RedHat 6.0 onto same Pentium about 3 times;
Mandrake 7.1? 7.2? onto same Pentium, about 5 times.
Then I installed same Mandrake onto a P2/233 about 10 times.
Installed Mandrake 8.0 about 100 times (no joke, I counted).
In the end, I discovered that motherboard chipset driver issues would cause filesystem corruption, but I didn't discover the root cause for many months.
The chipset issue was discovered after I installed Mandrake 8.1 for the 40th time.

Over 200 installs/reinstalls, hApy; you have no clue what I know about installing and reformatting partitions. Remember I mentioned a chipset issue? Definitely not my fault, hApy, I did not know the distros were using incorrect chipset drivers, and I did not distrust the distros developers. I assumed they would have included appropriate drivers, wouldn't you make the same assumption?

As there are no PPP docs included as you point out, all you would need to do is BEFORE your install (a) print out the arch documentation and then (b) print out documentation on how to get your basic ppp setup going on any linux system.

There are no docs for setting up a printer, if I had a printer which was compatible, so there! I absolutely must have a printer, everybody has a printer, right? Bah!

If you want to be really safe and don't trust yourself to be able to set it up properly on the first go and might lose internet access, burn a copy of Knoppix or any other "Live CD" that you can boot off of and have access to the internet.

hApy - I already know this, I've passed out several copies of Knoppix, Mandrake, Slackware-Live, DamnSmall Linux, LNX-BBC etc. Just because I sound like a newbie, don't assume I have learned nothing in 3 years of using Linux.

The one most frequent issue I see regarding ALL distributions is the assumption that the docs tell the newbie the truth. Arch started out with the best docs to get the system set up, I agree, but Arch did not declare how to get into the internet to get the how-tos, how to get to the package author to ask. In fact, when I mentioned to a package author that Arch was removing /usr/docs from the packages, that author got extremely peeved that his time and efforts spent creating /usr/docs was simply being discarded by Arch developers. I'd say he was Infuriated! I personally took the hit, backtracked and proclaimed, maybe I misunderstood what Arch meant, sorry, yahda yahda.
I've repeatedly tried to show instances where various docs fail, but Arch in general excuses my suggestions as so much ranting and tells me to get on the internet, as if the internet was 100% effective and 100% correct to 100% of the newbies. It isn't. Neither is Arch. I thought Arch was interested in helping newbies, do you think that reformatting /dev/hdb and then blaming the newbie is helpful?

sarah31 · 2003-07-04 23:33:15

the problem i have is not that the arch documents don't need improvement but that you are very general and conflicting in your comments on them. to me it seems that you do not trust ANY documentation at all so how would we know what to put in the documentation to make you trust it? if we made all the insinuated or sudo suggested changes you point out would you trust them? you don't seem to trust web documents, manpages, info pages, /usr/doc (and for this one you basically are saying that you find them useless AND suggest it is pretty well criminal that we do not include them...so which is it ? you want them or not? do you trust them?), or our abilities to correct our documents. you have accused us of not wanting newbies around, well i don't care if they are or not. if they do come around i, and this will sound snotty but who cares because you have already made your judgement of me, do not want to hold a users hand through everything. our documents quite clearly state that a user should not be afraid of the commandline which should tell you that arch is not for those that don't know what they are doing in linux.

we do not hide or radically change the placement of configuration files. we expect that the user has some experience in setting up and configuring certain things such as fstabs, modules.conf, xfree86, and a host of other things. this is not a evil perspective and indeed both unofficial and official documentation has tried to lessen the blow here. we add documentation as it becomes apparent that it is needed.

as for your partitioning problem i believe that it has been mentioned somewhere that the installer had a bug that would either cause the loss of information on ALL drives or not even acknowledge the second drive. i could be mistaken but i am fairly sure it is mentioned.

as for your ppp issues. if i remember back they were rather unique and i believe that you have recently stated that the answer has not been forthcoming anywhere. this is a sad fact, sometimes problems cannot be easily solved.

personally i don't think you are a newbie, idiot, or whatever self depriciating term you want to use for yourself. you have installed slackware which many could not. and as i remember it is not easy to set up certain things with it either yet you seem to absolve slackware of heavy criticism. i don't hear you ranting about its newbie unfriendly nature.

i think alot of your arguments are vey valid and i know our new documentation person would be more than happy to work on some of your suggested documentation improvements. (mind you you have already written him off several times in these threads). the problem is though, and i have drawn this from your several posts, i don't know where you expect this documentation to be. do you want an installer set of instructions? that may not be bad but with the official iso growing i don't know how easy it would be to fit it on the disc and it would definitely complicate things trying to switch back and forth between the installer and the instructions. something like this would have to be worked into the installer so i would not expect it to be implimented for a few more releases.

do you expect the instructions to be on the web page? the issue with this is that you don't want to print out the installing instructions (as you state in your last post) or you do not have a printer. (which makes me wonder how you may have dealt with some of your previous installs of linux).

so how can we win? i know i would like to see you happy but realistically even before this debate got drawn out i was having difficulty seeing how we would be able to do this. so please let our documentation person know, in fact the whole community know, how we can actually please you. be more specific as i have found many of your examples a little obtuse or vague. if we know what to document then it makes it easy to write it up. if you don't want to then this whole debate is just a pointless venture on all our parts.

documentation is a dynamic process requiring input from many people users and developers. problems can be general or unique. unique problems are harder to document and verify and are often sentenced to ancient scrolls (i refer here to faqs) that many folks barely even scan. it is also a frustrating procedure.

finally, the most frustrating thing here is that you have bound so many disrespectful comments to your arguments. i understand the frustration but posts such as oreleins in the other thread were an attempt to help not insult. orelein is, as i have stated before, a very nice person and very helpful and i have not known him to flame anyone. some of the other posts are a bit more hostile but it is because you wrapped many of your arguments in personal and direct insults. flamewars are a two way venture.

this is the last i will say on this front. i hope that you can put aside some of your anger and hurt and help our documentation person realize your goals of improving the arch linux documentation. i respect your input and hope that other will as well

hApy · 2003-07-05 21:48:33

dunbar wrote:

This is a combined issue, hApy.
First, the installer declared it would partition my hard drive as you posted above, not plural drives. Hard drive is singular, not plural. I elected to install onto one drive, /dev/hda, not onto /dev/hdb. The next step in the installer was to declare the filesystem types for the drives in the system, and if I recall correctly, I also had to declare mount points as well at that screen. So far, nothing said all drives would be reformatted. I chose /dev/hdb = ext3fs, since it already had ext3fs on it, with gigs of data.
When Arch partitioned the /dev/hda drive, it had to format the newly created partitions, I had selected ext3 for the format for those partitions as well as /dev/hdb.
So far, nothing said /dev/hdb would be reformatted. I read the document correctly, hApy, and you also can see that nothing declared Arch would reformat /dev/hdb.
Second, when formatting took place for /dev/hda, I clearly read that /dev/hdb was being reformatted. After the installation was finished, /dev/hdb was empty.
I conclude that the instructions did not tell a newbie it was going to reformat all drives in the system. Since I read singular drive, not plural drives, I took no action as I saw nothing of concern.
I needed to understand what went wrong, in order to help Arch developers get things straightened out. I later repeated the installation and it did exactly the same thing. The documents failed me; no matter what, they failed to state that all DRIVES would be reformatted. I got over it, and learned the lesson that documents needed fixing, actually, the installer needed fixing. I pm'd apeiro. Since you raised the issue, I answered with what went wrong.

Hmm... I seem to remember from my experience installing that in selecting a partition filesystem in that portion of the installer, you are asking for it to be formatted as that filesystem. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember doing a somewhat similar thing -- choosing a partition I didn't want formatted as a filesystem it was already formatted. I also remember noticing that the effect would be to format that partition. I'm pretty sure there is a point before it actually formats it where you can figure this out, and go back and re-do it. It has been awhile since I installed though, and it's a bit hazy, perhaps somebody can confirm this.

You do bring up a good point: this should be emphasized in the documenation. (or perhaps this is an older bug which has already been rectified and not the same thing I was thinking of.)

Arch isn't supposed to be perfect yet. It's still in major development. You can't expect perfection from the installer yet, or the docs. But the point is that they are working on it all to make it better.

How does one politely ask a forum: 'Will your installer be lame and screwup my second drive when it partitions the first drive?' Come on, hApy, how much distrust should I have as a newbie? Should I distrust Archs installer or its documents? Should I trust Arch or not? Before I ever used Arch, I had the following experience with installing distributions of Linux:
I installed RedHat 4.0 at least 2 times on a 486DX2/66;
then RedHat 5.0 5 times on the same 486 and later a Pentium classic, 120 MHz, 3 - 5 installs total;
RedHat 6.0 onto same Pentium about 3 times;
Mandrake 7.1? 7.2? onto same Pentium, about 5 times.
Then I installed same Mandrake onto a P2/233 about 10 times.
Installed Mandrake 8.0 about 100 times (no joke, I counted).
In the end, I discovered that motherboard chipset driver issues would cause filesystem corruption, but I didn't discover the root cause for many months.
The chipset issue was discovered after I installed Mandrake 8.1 for the 40th time.
Over 200 installs/reinstalls, hApy; you have no clue what I know about installing and reformatting partitions. Remember I mentioned a chipset issue? Definitely not my fault, hApy, I did not know the distros were using incorrect chipset drivers, and I did not distrust the distros developers. I assumed they would have included appropriate drivers, wouldn't you make the same assumption?

How can you call yourself a newbie after so many installs? And then how can you get annoyed at me for explaining too much about formatting and re-partitioning after you have emphasized you are such a newbie?

Why are you trying to assign blame here. It's nobodys fault there were chipset issues. The only important issue is solving your problem and moving on. Sure it sucks when you have a problem that takes ages to figure out, but why does that mean must "distrust the distros developer" it is not their job to know every single possible issue.

hApy - I already know this, I've passed out several copies of Knoppix, Mandrake, Slackware-Live, DamnSmall Linux, LNX-BBC etc. Just because I sound like a newbie, don't assume I have learned nothing in 3 years of using Linux.

Make up your mind, how the hell am I supposed to know if you know these things or not? you call yourself a newbie, then you get your hackles up because I have assumed you don't know a couple things that you actually do know?

The one most frequent issue I see regarding ALL distributions is the assumption that the docs tell the newbie the truth. Arch started out with the best docs to get the system set up, I agree, but Arch did not declare how to get into the internet to get the how-tos, how to get to the package author to ask. In fact, when I mentioned to a package author that Arch was removing /usr/docs from the packages, that author got extremely peeved that his time and efforts spent creating /usr/docs was simply being discarded by Arch developers. I'd say he was Infuriated! I personally took the hit, backtracked and proclaimed, maybe I misunderstood what Arch meant, sorry, yahda yahda.
I've repeatedly tried to show instances where various docs fail, but Arch in general excuses my suggestions as so much ranting and tells me to get on the internet, as if the internet was 100% effective and 100% correct to 100% of the newbies. It isn't. Neither is Arch. I thought Arch was interested in helping newbies, do you think that reformatting /dev/hdb and then blaming the newbie is helpful?

Why are you so damn paranoid? You act like we're out to get newbies, even though all anybody has tried to do is help you. If you are ever having problems with a package, download the tarball from the homepage and extract the /usr/docs if the homepage/www doesn't have enough docs.

Hapy.

dunbar · 2003-07-07 17:24:33

Well, thanks to all.

1] Docs should not not tell a newbie to get ppp docs by visiting a web page - they would need ppp to get on the web, to get the docs. Include the docs.
2] Docs should not tell a newbie to rsynch, if newbie needs major reworking, dialup makes life stink (dialup is still serving over 60% of the surfing public, last I checked).
3] Somebody, somewhere, has to try full installs once in a while.
4] Telling the newbie to get onto the internet to find their documents? They will find crap as well as a correct answer, but before they try anything, they discard the information if it does not come from Arch itself. Why? Because the RedHat oriented explanation will not apply. The newbie is looking for one sentence inside one paragraph, out of thousands of internet docs. You folks have missed my purposes many times, in a few dozen posts; will an inexperienced newbie do any better than you folks?
5] The assumption that the internet will 'always be there' is not true for dialup users.
(Is this starting to sound familiar, yet?)
6] The newbie discards the whole document when one sentence fails - the newbie cannot tell where else in that document they will get bad information; just how many errors will they need to correct, how much research will they need to perform? Make their experience a little less painful, please.

sarah31 wrote:

we expect that the user has some experience in setting up and configuring certain things such as fstabs, modules.conf, xfree86, and a host of other things. this is not a evil perspective and indeed both unofficial and official documentation has tried to lessen the blow here. we add documentation as it becomes apparent that it is needed.

Yes Arch adds docs where needed. I see that, but I have persistently said newbie, and here, you say experienced user. See anything wrong with your statement? It is underlined, in case you missed it. I keep saying newbie, you keep thinking experienced user. I'm not talking about me, today; I'm talking about me, months ago, and others in that same condition. We are called newbies, when we do not have skills.

sarah31 wrote:

personally i don't think you are a newbie

What, I cannot stand in behalf of the issues I suffered as a newbie, I have to say I was an expert back then, because I r an ekspurt now? C'mon, sarah31, I keep saying newbie for a reason! Any other newbie could have those issues, just as I had them. Who cares whether I'm a newbie in your estimation. Think of what other people would see, when they have no experience. Put yourself in their shoes, not mine!

sarah31 wrote:

do you expect the instructions to be on the web page? the issue with this is that you don't want to print out the installing instructions (as you state in your last post) or you do not have a printer. (which makes me wonder how you may have dealt with some of your previous installs of linux).

Then say right up front that the user MUST have a printer if it is not optional. If it is optional, toss the concept of printing anything out the window.

sarah31 wrote:

even before this debate got drawn out i was having difficulty seeing how we would be able to do this.

Your mind was already set, eh? That makes for open discussions. :- That is not anger, it is more or less, disgust that I keep hearing 'we'll help, but'. After all, I've only rehashed what has already occurred, I already know the outcomes of the issues, and you've all been fairly consistent in saying there will be no answers for you, so - ask yourself- why did I bother (that is not anger!)? Because I wanted to offer my help, as someone who does not overlook the issues that seem so out of touch to many here - PPP, Dialup, not being able to rsynch, believing the installer will get it right, etc. I've repeated past issues to explain WHY I'm concluding you folks needed my help. I no longer wish to offer my system as guinea pig, and haven't the time to pursue the assistance I once offered. I have lost the once available time when I offered to help.

thydian · 2003-07-08 19:01:59

Dunbar, your ArchLinux experiences have provided some valuable insight into possible installer bugs to be examined and addressed. Furthermore your documentation recommendations would prove as valuable lessons-learned guides for folks new to ArchLinux and any Linux distribution for that matter.

All in all I think the content of your feedback is quite good, I'm just surprised by how your execution affects people. Some folks just rub people the wrong way, and I think you're just one of those folks despite all of your best efforts. I'm actually frustrated by your posts and I haven't even tried ArchLinux yet to become a zealot! It's like you offer so much, and yet nothing at the same time. Surprised by my frustration, I even visited USALUG where you are an active poster and moderator and I felt the same rising emotions while reading your newbie tips and numerous other posts. Is there something about your writing approach?

1. The About page for ArchLinux states: "Arch Linux is an i686-optimized linux distribution targeted at competent linux users." Newbie friendly is not a stated goal. Perhaps this will change as the distro matures and gains an audience (DW can make the latter happen within hours and I hear a review is forthcoming!) at which point having the best docs will certainly win over the masses and minimize the number of newbies that have frightening install experiences.

2. ArchLinux is at 0.4 with 0.5 forthcoming. Many hurdles to get through on the way to 1.0. Have you submitted your bugs to BugTracker or just to the forum? I poked around and didn't see your bug listed?

3. Folks just don't seem to get the gist of what you want in a doc and where you want it. My recommendation is for you to pick a single topic of your choce and write up your "ideal document" on that topic. You've already mentioned frustrations with ppp, the installer and rsync? So pick one you're comfortable with and write up a doc that would have saved your ass at installation time or post-installation and submit it to the ArchLinux folks. Let these folks see exactly what you are talking about in terms of an ideal help doc so there is no more confusion. There are three folks listed under documentation and you're not one of them. You seem to have good ideas learned from experience, so why not submit to them? You don't have to be a core maintainer, but you can certainly submit post-install walkthroughs to them. What you do for ArchLinux will certainly apply to your efforts with USALUG as well, so you won't be wasting your efforts!

4. When submitting your documentation, recommend where ArchLinux should put the docs (CD, website official/unofficial docs, in the FTP dir with the iso image, all of these?). I imagine the majority of folks download the ISO. Perhaps a comprehensive txt document should be sitting right next to the iso image or in the floppy images directory named "Installation_Instructions" or something? It can then be explicitly stated on the site or in the forums that all installers of ArchLinux should download and print out this document BEFORE installing the distribution as some sort of golden rule. Your tips and advice could be in that document if you submit them!

All in all, since folks just don't seem to get what you want in general terms (in the forums) - give them specifics. What's your bugtracker number? Where's an attached one-page or more doc that gets down to business on setting up ppp and all the possible pitfalls you've experienced? If folks just don't seem to care here, then you show them that you care and make a contribution.

I've learned from you is that I might be dead in the water someday after an install because I won't know some critical tidbit of info about a utility to take the next steps. You highlight it's a problem that needs to be addressed and then you stop. Write a sentence. Write a paragraph. Write a page. Or write an entire install manual addressing these issues. You're leaving me hanging so submit something! I'd love to have your advice in the back of my mind at install time or sitting on my desk.

sarah31 · 2003-07-08 23:27:38

thydian,

you pretty well summed up my feelings. dunbar expressed alot of good ideas but was not clear in how a document should be despite insinuating he knows how it shouldbe written.

why he got angry reaction is because despite peoples efforts to help him (and i thought very clearly and concisely help him) he was not able to understand what they were trying to say or what they said did not work (this is not clear in a few posts). back in march he offered to help with a documant on setting up a network and had all the necessary info to do so but he gave up instead. now he blames us for his failure to get things working. THAT is why some of us are angry.

my last post to this thread was to try and patch things up and instead he berated me. he has berated everyone who helped or commented on venomous posts. this was another problem i had with his posts if he was as non personal with his posts as you are with yours. constructive in other words the tune would have been different.

everyone has a right to blow off steam but consistently "adjusting" one's story and history to constantly put them in the hero spotlight is just not something people like.

arch linux documentation is being worked on it is always being worked on but how helpful it is depends on input from the user. dunbar quickly and sometimes inaccurately sums up all arch documentation as being bad. it is not nor is necessarily newbie friendly because an experienced arch/linux user may over look details that are not always evident to the user.

dunbar has valid points and comments and likely many will be addressed unfortunately for three months he has been unwilling to help fix/add what he views as necessary documents. to make matters worse he consistently makes insulting comments about developers, users, and the distro. i know for a fact that the people he chose to insult would and have tried to help him but he blows them off. i know too that the head developer is VERY open to user contributions yet dunbar chose not to contribute.

dunabr is a helpful person but so are the people here. i am active on several forums. i once spent three days helping someone install an application from source even though i was tired frustrated and had plenty of other work/thing to do. orelien, who dunbar took great pains to insult has helped me and many other get things working. apeiro, who has been nothing but good to all he has talked to (that i have seen) is targetted right off the hop.

anyway this is the last i will say to this issue i just hope you understand why i responded the way i did.

PS. i limit my arch linux zealotry to this board where it is perfectly acceptable i don't bother outside of this forum because gentoo zealots are far too plentiful and far too willing to right off any other distro especially ones they have not used.

dunbar · 2003-07-16 21:47:02

Step by step: I mentioned a few weak areas that newbies would not know how to address.
I mentioned that newbie would not necessarily have the skills to get the correct docs from a myriad of websites.
Which appear (and frequently are) obsolete.
When their internet connection was what had failed, the internet doc is not available.
And when they had no Xwindows in which to read HTML documents,
and nothing tells the newbie about CLI browsers.
That was in response to the future thread, where it seemed that the thread topic wants to discuss how to add new users. I used what I could speak about - my own experiences, from when I first encountered the particular issue. Still with me?

The network thing was changed along the way - IPX/SPX was part of the issue, my 5 port switch is another part. I am not berating you, sarah31, nor am I asking anyone to re-write man pages, etc. as several posts seemed to attribute to me. The man pages are the weak spot, Arch docs need to go from there. Never wanted to say more than that.

I'm trying to point out that A] with a presumed goal of gaining Linux users,
B] Arch, being small, uncluttered and likely attractive to newbies (small draws newbies because it is so small (dialup accessible but only one big download at a time) and older systems where XP won't fit on their disks, etc) and also
C] since Arch had very tight documents covering what needed to be done (but might need more topics covered), I felt that was likely going to lead to newbies arriving here in some situations that
D] Arch clearly tries to assume will not need the attentions of forum members (which have the skills) and
E] the newbie does not have the skills.
That would lead to the assumption that Arch was not interested in the users needs.

The perceived 'lack of clarity' on my part is because I am still a newbie. I might have a few things working under Slackware, but I'm not certain, today, where I even made the changes. I'm not asking for hints on how to keep a notebook, I have one, it is 40 miles away, I cannot discuss Linux by reading my notes or grepping my config files, they are 40 miles away. I cannot log into my Linux PC, I only have dial up, the only telephone line in my house is for voice communications. DSL is too far away, Cable is too expensive.... have I never said any of this before? No, not in this thread, but I've always been a hardliner on those points sarah31. I do not match up with what is assumed of me. But here I am, posting, despite my ineptitude.

I believe the deepest undercurrent I see here is diverging viewpoints of what Arch is and diverging goals for Arch. My views are different from a few who assume the Archer has the skills, hApy seems to have a third viewpoint, and yet a third viewpoint exists.

everyone has a right to blow off steam but consistently "adjusting" one's story and history to constantly put them in the hero spotlight is just not something people like.

If my posts reflect an atmosphere of bewildering viewpoiints, I'm not surprised - I've tried to reply to differing posts which take differing opinions; I suppose it is frustrating to anyone to reply to 3 posts at once. I'm replying in order to offer my view of when I was a frustrated newbie (this morning, I think ;-) ). Remember, I was told by a certain forum member that, most certainly, dunbar was a slackware user and the assumption was that he must be nearly expert - yet, I declared, no, I'm not an expert and I freely admit a lack of skills. I was not the one who estimated dunbars skills, Sarah31.
I'm definitely not interested in dissing anyone, not you, nor Gyroplast, nor Apeiro, nor hApy ..... I have pointed out that early on, Arch was interested in being Judds perfect distro... did anyone ask him if he ever said that? As I said, I can offer to cut and paste, if you wish. Yet, I'm clearly getting 2 viewpoints in response to me repeating that fact. Thus, in order to push the reader away from their position, so as to get them to walk in my shoes, I post from different directions aiming toward one central condition. Is the issue me, and me alone? Or did the issue exist, and I'm guilty of responding to all viewpoints and thus I'm guilty of pointing it out?

Anyway, you mentioned the ethernet thread.... thydian is evidently new here. Lets explain that issue out loud (since you already raised the matter). I offered to write a document regarding Ethernet setup, I was not shown what to do (frozdsolid posted that they were "pretty sure that's necessary"). I do not assume that every member here reads every posted message; thus, I believe I had read the opinion of someone who was as newbie to Arch as I myself was a newbie (frozdsolids title still shows only 4 posts even today). Nobody here 'handed me an answer' as some might conclude from your post.

I posted everywhere else on the internet about my situation using IPX/SPX, I heard that it was a dead protocol. I finally found information about IPX/SPX, it was not herein, so the forum was of no use in that instance - that is a fact, sarah31. Now that I have concluded that IPX/SPX was not the best choice and changed the rest of the household over to TCP/IP...... the IPX/SPX issue is no longer the focus, so I dropped the subject; until I was 6 months later, I came back here, saw BluPhoenixs post and was a bit confused. That lead to him suggesting DOSemu, I stated no, that was not preferred, etc. etc. I ultimately thanked BluPhoenix, stated why I was going to drop the issue, and I left the thread cold.

The whole thing got misdirected, away from what I was asking for, as if the topic was no longer my decision alone.

i know for a fact that the people he chose to insult would and have tried to help him but he blows them off. i know too that the head developer is VERY open to user contributions yet dunbar chose not to contribute.

The reasons should be evident by now - when I offered to contribute, I had the time; 6 months of time transpired, I was not able to write because I had no answers with which to generate such a document. I had to revoke the offer. I am taken by surprise that anyone would say I was given the necessary information!

I've known you to be patient, sarah31 (and you are yet teaching me as I write), but when you say I'm taking great pains to insult someone - while I'm waiting months for forum responses and I'm reading internet documents that are obsolete and these are docs which talk about a different distro, refer to a different kernel, puts files in a different location???? That is not appropriate, ever, to assume that the newbie will not find older docs and will know enought to discard the incorrect ones. And since most internet docs are coasting along since, for example, 1999 (re: the IPX/SPX how-to), once again, and I'll ask this, and directly of you, sarah31, why would any newbie assume that 4 year old document applied to their situation?? :oops: I'd ask that people remove useless web documents, but I fear that I'd get only 4 responses. That is reality, not sarcasm.

thydian wrote:

Is there something about your writing approach?

I never tried to analyze my posts, here is the only mention I've heard to date. Thanks, I'll try to watch for it, next time I reply to multiple posts with my one post. Whether that statement seems (to the reader) to be factual or acidic depends on the readers situation, I'm a technician by profession, and a software tester by trade. Like it or not, I post with strength of conviction. Because I am still a newbie.

sarah31 · 2003-07-16 23:59:14

dunbar wrote:

Step by step: I mentioned a few weak areas that newbies would not know how to address.
I mentioned that newbie would not necessarily have the skills to get the correct docs from a myriad of websites.
Which appear (and frequently are) obsolete.

Well, then we include the docs and then non-newbies would complain that we are cluttering the filesytem and you would complain because those documents are obsolete. sound familiar? i have seen this argument before and there is not winning it. people bitch about the manpages, docs, etc ALL THE TIME. you must know that. so the best we can do is add your concerns to our own documents and add necessary documents to the files.

When their internet connection was what had failed, the internet doc is not available.
And when they had no Xwindows in which to read HTML documents,
and nothing tells the newbie about CLI browsers.

i would expect that no absolute green newbies would try arch so those newbies that do show up i would assume have some linux experience (one can be a newbie and have some experience) so i would assume that they would know about lynx or links browsers or at least know how to use cat and less.

another point about this is that if a newbie does not even know how to use cat, less, or a cli editor to view files then they would be very very f**ked with arch linux and having self contained documents would be pretty pointless. so again i would ask is it not wise to print out/write down any relevent install/configuration instructions? you do know how to write since you already say you don't have a printer?

okay so if we include install configuration data in the installer will you know how to access it? is it fair to tell the user that it is in such and such directory and you can access it through say vc1-4? should we scrap our online docs altogether and just have them self contained?

The network thing was changed along the way - IPX/SPX was part of the issue, my 5 port switch is another part. I am not berating you, sarah31, nor am I asking anyone to re-write man pages, etc. as several posts seemed to attribute to me. The man pages are the weak spot, Arch docs need to go from there. Never wanted to say more than that.

and all i wanted to know is what apps do we extend our documentation to? all of them? are you saying that all our apps need extended docs? can you point me to one distro that has extended documents of all their applications? besides ppp what would YOU extend? it is fair to ask this of arch developers/users but they really need to know just what manpages are defunct and have no bearing on arch.

i would not expect a request like this would get fulfilled too quickly there are lots of applications' man pages and docs to go through then the developers would have to determine what is needed and what is not.

as for manpages......i used to find them unreliable but to be honest most manpages i have viewed lately have been very clear and concise about how to operate/configure apps. i am not saying this to contradict you but i say it honestly. when i have been unable to find someone to ask on this forum or irc manpages normally do the trick for me. (and don't say it is because i am some expert with linux because i a definitely not)

I'm trying to point out that A] with a presumed goal of gaining Linux users,
B] Arch, being small, uncluttered and likely attractive to newbies (small draws newbies because it is so small (dialup accessible but only one big download at a time) and older systems where XP won't fit on their disks, etc) and also
C] since Arch had very tight documents covering what needed to be done (but might need more topics covered), I felt that was likely going to lead to newbies arriving here in some situations that
D] Arch clearly tries to assume will not need the attentions of forum members (which have the skills) and
E] the newbie does not have the skills.
That would lead to the assumption that Arch was not interested in the users needs.

with respect to this.....well what can i say but you are a complete ***hole. for one thing small does not always attract newbies in fact i know ALOT ALOT ALOT of people that will not even try arch or similar distros because they are small. most people want the choice to kludge up their system if they like but arch is not in this realm yet because we do not offer alot of packages.

i agree we need more stuff covered in our documents and you would not find a single user or developer that would disagree with you. So i guess this point you make throws out your idea of extending the manpages because that is not a concise project (for example manpages for transcode are good but to get into all the basics a newbie would need to know would require one to be alot more verbose similarily with networking documents)?

to say that we here do not pay attention to users is ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG ANSWER. there are only two pages of unanswered post and considering there are always post that are merely statements that do not need to be answered that is very good. in fact if you even bothered to check there are only 79 unanswered posts out of 4512. that's 1.75% of the posts on the forum are unanswered. besides that there are always questions that no one has an answer to. obscure problems do exist i know i have hit many in my ventures in any OS.

besides this forums are a free service. no one is under obligation to use it user AND developers alike. no one is paid here so don't diss anyone and don't feel that anyone is obligated to answer you.

i can also say that you are a complete arrogant ass for saying arch does not care about its users. we don't care about you that is for certain. but i can guarantee that everything i did every package i made, upgraded, donated, fixed, etc was for the user. people wanted openoffice i spent a week building it then it got broken with the upgrade to gcc 3.3 i spent another week trying to fix it without luck then judd spent 3 days compiling and patching 1.1. so do you EVER say we don't fucking care you little ingrate.

The perceived 'lack of clarity' on my part is because I am still a newbie. I might have a few things working under Slackware, but I'm not certain, today, where I even made the changes. I'm not asking for hints on how to keep a notebook, I have one, it is 40 miles away, I cannot discuss Linux by reading my notes or grepping my config files, they are 40 miles away. I cannot log into my Linux PC, I only have dial up, the only telephone line in my house is for voice communications. DSL is too far away, Cable is too expensive.... have I never said any of this before? No, not in this thread, but I've always been a hardliner on those points sarah31. I do not match up with what is assumed of me. But here I am, posting, despite my ineptitude.

"Waaagh i'm a newbie. waggh i don't have highspeed pity me pity meee!"

there are lots of users on dialup here including developers so we don't give a flying f**k.

I believe the deepest undercurrent I see here is diverging viewpoints of what Arch is and diverging goals for Arch. My views are different from a few who assume the Archer has the skills, hApy seems to have a third viewpoint, and yet a third viewpoint exists.

yeah and you are saying we have to conform to your view. typical. funny we seem to be getting more and more users all the time both newbie and non newbie and this despite having a completely uncaring development team and a horrendous set of docs. one of the funny things is that many of the newbies recently are all dialup like you and they still take time to make irc interesting or contribute packages.

If my posts reflect an atmosphere of bewildering viewpoiints, I'm not surprised - I've tried to reply to differing posts which take differing opinions; I suppose it is frustrating to anyone to reply to 3 posts at once. I'm replying in order to offer my view of when I was a frustrated newbie (this morning, I think ;-) ). Remember, I was told by a certain forum member that, most certainly, dunbar was a slackware user and the assumption was that he must be nearly expert - yet, I declared, no, I'm not an expert and I freely admit a lack of skills. I was not the one who estimated dunbars skills, Sarah31.

oh you are soooo subtle in your insults. come on you tell me after hundreds of installs and two years of using linux you don't know anything? find me five green newbies that know how to grep or know to look online for information. personally i and many others here and elsewhere have little time for someone who cries about being a newbie when they obviously aren't.

what is it some sort of ploy to make people feel sorry for you or shorten your look online for info that you likely could find in two minutes? spare me. up to one year you are a n00b after that you are not.

I'm definitely not interested in dissing anyone, not you, nor Gyroplast, nor Apeiro, nor hApy .....

hmmm you care to stand by that or should i pull out several quotes to the contrary?

I have pointed out that early on, Arch was interested in being Judds perfect distro... did anyone ask him if he ever said that? As I said, I can offer to cut and paste, if you wish.

so your point is? is this a bad thing? is it not possible for many of us to believe it is the perfect distro for us as well? why not diss yoper for claiming to be THE distro.

Yet, I'm clearly getting 2 viewpoints in response to me repeating that fact. Thus, in order to push the reader away from their position, so as to get them to walk in my shoes, I post from different directions aiming toward one central condition. Is the issue me, and me alone? Or did the issue exist, and I'm guilty of responding to all viewpoints and thus I'm guilty of pointing it out?

i have been in your shoes and i often get put back in your shoes when i start to use or investigate applications or areas of linux i have never explored before. so whats your point? if it was to fix up the documentation? that was a goal for some time now in fact a few users have made it an ongoing thing.

you are not the only one that is a newbie here nor are you the only one here. there are many things that developers must balance when they do their duties. there will never be a distro that will satisfy all a user's needs but i can tell you that the arch team does try to please as many people as possible. so yeah i think you are the issue to some extent. you could have come in here and politely explained what it is that you felt needed improvement but instead you came in and whine and cried that you were so abused and that we had to change to please you. it was all about you anyone can easily extract that from the way you keep flipping between i'm a newbie, i'm not a newbie but i speak for newbies. if you cannot find the offesive comments you have made along the way or see how some people came to the conclusions they did then it is your fault.

Anyway, you mentioned the ethernet thread.... thydian is evidently new here. Lets explain that issue out loud (since you already raised the matter). I offered to write a document regarding Ethernet setup, I was not shown what to do (frozdsolid posted that they were "pretty sure that's necessary"). I do not assume that every member here reads every posted message; thus, I believe I had read the opinion of someone who was as newbie to Arch as I myself was a newbie (frozdsolids title still shows only 4 posts even today). Nobody here 'handed me an answer' as some might conclude from your post.

well YOU may not have gotten answer but people DID try to answer your question and, in fact, the answer is there. but you could not extract it or did not know how to ask the question properly to get the result you desired.

but of course we are the bad guys here because we took the time to try and give you an answer. man you are such a wanker....

I posted everywhere else on the internet about my situation using IPX/SPX, I heard that it was a dead protocol. I finally found information about IPX/SPX, it was not herein, so the forum was of no use in that instance - that is a fact, sarah31. Now that I have concluded that IPX/SPX was not the best choice and changed the rest of the household over to TCP/IP...... the IPX/SPX issue is no longer the focus, so I dropped the subject; until I was 6 months later, I came back here, saw BluPhoenixs post and was a bit confused. That lead to him suggesting DOSemu, I stated no, that was not preferred, etc. etc. I ultimately thanked BluPhoenix, stated why I was going to drop the issue, and I left the thread cold.

so why insist on blaming us for something that we tried to answer but was obviously beyond our knowledge? you did it at the end of that thread and you constantly do it here. how many other people did you verbally assault along the way?

The whole thing got misdirected, away from what I was asking for, as if the topic was no longer my decision alone.

what a pile of BS. it was YOUR thread so get in there and assert yourself. threads get out of hand sometimes but the original poster can easily get control again if they have a pair.

i know for a fact that the people he chose to insult would and have tried to help him but he blows them off. i know too that the head developer is VERY open to user contributions yet dunbar chose not to contribute.
The reasons should be evident by now - when I offered to contribute, I had the time; 6 months of time transpired, I was not able to write because I had no answers with which to generate such a document. I had to revoke the offer. I am taken by surprise that anyone would say I was given the necessary information!

BS again you just stated that you got your answer (outside of our forum) so you could have easily posted back with what you had found out and then provided documentation later. and you mean to tell me that you have not had time in the last six months to wing something together. shit you have practically written a novel here.

it is obvious to me that you just want to guard that knowledge and us it to flame and troll here. once you had the answers you were sure to come back and flame that thread and continue flaming on a regular basis. what an ass.

I've known you to be patient, sarah31 (and you are yet teaching me as I write), but when you say I'm taking great pains to insult someone - while I'm waiting months for forum responses and I'm reading internet documents that are obsolete and these are docs which talk about a different distro, refer to a different kernel, puts files in a different location????

yeah so you waited for an answer and didn't get one...it happens. you stated that barely anyone knew the answer. fianlly you got one and then came back and rudely blamed us for poor documentation and a barrel of other things. nice guy.

all i saw was orelein answer you in a nice and proper fashion and you called him eliteist. you also were rather rude about judd in your first post in the future thread. so yes i see all throughout attempts to belittle and brate and not one instance of sober commentary from you.

and here you are again balming us for online docs that are not ours.

That is not appropriate, ever, to assume that the newbie will not find older docs and will know enought to discard the incorrect ones.

this is not limited to newbies.....it can definitely be difficult finding what you need online.

And since most internet docs are coasting along since, for example, 1999 (re: the IPX/SPX how-to)

well if you are checking out and obscure problem that is actually now obsolete then sure the fucking doc will be old but you make is sound like ALL docs are old. so i have to assume that you are very much an idiot because i have found most documentation for most current issues to have current docs. most applications will upgrade their docs as they upgrade or do you even notice that? are you to self absorbed to go around and find out if your wild accusations actually have any merit?

once again, and I'll ask this, and directly of you, sarah31, why would any newbie assume that 4 year old document applied to their situation??

well knowing how many newbies are i would expect them to ask if docs are relevant. or they could possibly look into some of the information. if it was not producing answers...wow i think they would ask for help again. shit do you even pay attention to how newbies act on justlinux?

:oops: I'd ask that people remove useless web documents, but I fear that I'd get only 4 responses. That is reality, not sarcasm.

hmmm remove docs, add docs which is it? fyi arch removes most docs except in rare circumstances. if those docs are html they are html. if a n00b doesn't know how to view them i expect they would ask( that is if they are outside x).

dunbar...stick with slack because arch will never please you. slack is a very nice distro that should have the balance arch does not afford you. that is the great thing about a linux .... if you don't like one flavour then try another. just don't go back to the ice cream dealer and berate him for selling you your choice...get the point (if you don't then fine i expected that)

sarah31 · 2003-07-17 02:10:01

come to think of it...why does a distro focussing on advanced users need to even bother with pleasing newbies?

i realize newbies will want to use arch and we have done a very good job so far accommodating what newbies we have. we could do better but we are not OBLIGATED to do so, as much as you would like to think we are.

so then is there a future for arch? for me there is. as long as apeiro and co. keep developing it i will use it. if no one else does no skin off my hump.

deepfreeze · 2003-07-17 02:41:37

OK I've been reading this thread since the beginning to hear/see the opposing points of view, but I really feel the need to add my two cents in here. When I came to Arch, I had used Mandrake and Slackware for about 4 months combined. I suppose I was a "newbie". However, and I think this holds true for about 95% of "newbies" that are coming to any distro of Linux, I know how to do research, read, take notes, write things down, etc. Nobody picks up a CD with a distro on it (even windows), sticks it in and says "Let's just install this and see how it goes" without doing a least a small amount of research. I know that for about a week before I installed Arch, I was here, reading the forums, reading the primitive yet helpful FAQs and making notes about what I would need to do. Not surprisingly, my install of Arch went off without a hitch.

dunbar, the whole crux of your argument is that "newbies won't/don't/can't do <xyz>" and that we need to give them step by step instructions for every possible scenario. Please don't underestimate newbies by generalizing them like that. Also, something I have not seen mentioned in any of the previous posts is this. Buy a reference book. There are a million of them that show basic commands, how to use them so that you can navigate your way through the filesystem, read man pages, edit config files and even find CLI web browsers (lynx etc) do to online research (provided their net connection is working).

The bottom line really is this: If you properly prepare yourself before you do anything, including installing a new distro, you don't find yourself half way through the process with a problem and no idea how to even begin looking for answers. And even if you do run into a problem, sometimes hacking around and finding a solution is the best learning experience of them all. Then you are able to write documentation, give back, etc, without having to rely on other people to give you the information so you can write a document (as you stated earlier).

Sorry if this is coming across as attacking. It is not intended that way. It's just another persons (admittedly) biased opinion on being a newbie, using Arch, and not selling people short.

dunbar · 2003-07-17 13:11:25

Ok, so now I am an expert once again, because I've been using Linux for over 366 days.
That was rather numbing.

I own 4 books, which books do not discuss things like DEVFS. So I musta bought the wrong books. 'Linux in a Nutshell, 3rd edition' (4th edition came out months after I purchsed 3rd). Unix for Dummies. RedHats books which came with release 4.0 and 5.0. Stupid me, the RedHat books do not discuss Archs structure, they do not tell me how to add a device under DEVFS. The nutshell book also mentions very little by way of Arch specific information. Nor does any other of the books I own. Yeah, I know, you can't help it if I made the decisions to use those books ('whut wuz he thinkin!?'). And before you diss it, allow me: 'Unix for Dummies' was not a good choice, whoop-te-doo. Lesson learned. Does the Nutshell book discuss Arch? No. Kernel 2.4.2x? No. Printed books are already obsolete when they go to press, even when the book does apply to the distro we use. The people using the distro are the ones to get answers from - forums. Now, sarah31 - your words are

come to think of it...why does a distro focussing on advanced users need to even bother with pleasing newbies?

Good answer - when someone does not know how to locate a file, and even tried using the locate command, will they be beneath you, sarah31? What happens when the locate command fails because the database needs to be built before locate will work - newbie fault because they should have discovered the need to make the database before locate would work? And mus do so as root?? Bah. the commands get shortcircuited by such issues, newbies get the shortcircuit because they aren't advanced enough to have setup the database - the very user which should use locate cannot use locate. It sounds to me like you could give a flying you-know-what, because they didn't try in the manner you would require them to try, because the newbie is not advanced enough to know what the advanced user would do! In other words, the newbie gets some kind of second class treatment because they came here?? Are you really ready to help newbies, if you feel this way about newbies?

You've tried to go your way while helping me, but now you are offended. Yet you've implied that I'm an a**hole:

.well what can i say but you are a complete ***hole

What can I say? You've made it difficult to carry on further credible discussion, because I have to reassert that I'm not an expert despite your claims that I'm not newbie, and the very admission that I'm not advanced thus disqualifies me because I'm beneath your threshold of Archs 'advanced user'. The misconception was created by you, sarah31.

oh you are soooo subtle in your insults. come on you tell me after hundreds of installs and two years of using linux you don't know anything

If what I knew applied to Archlinux, maybe I'd know something. All I know is to avoid ReiserFS on one mobo that I own and avoid Mandrake <8.1 on same mobo, and after that..... 95% of my installation was Mandrake on that one mobo (I must be an impatient a**, for not tossing out that mobo, right?). Shame on me for trusting that a distro would always configure itself incorrectly; for having faith in the developers of that distro which fried my filesystem by fscking a mounted partition when neither the user nor root had any deliberate action to cause the fsck. I took my time because I was inexperienced, sarah31.

You used to use Mandrake, sarah31, ask yourself: what had you discovered about Linux when the only distro you had used was Mandrake? If I'm an expert for having installed Mandrake over a hundred times on that one mobo, you must be assuming the lessons were very deep and very meaningful. Just discovering the chipset driver problem took that long, because I'm not advanced enough. Further, sarah31, I know full well that I still have no idea what files were being edited by Mandrakes *drake tools. That lack of knowledge is part of why I call myself a newbie. Would you honestly say you were a 'Linux Guru' after you installed Mandrake a hundred times on one mobo, because of one problem? Would you say you were advanced? I wouldn't. And I didn't call myself anything but newbie. Seriously, I think you assume waaay to much of my knowledge - not at all my fault! I'll accept an apology.

yeah and you are saying we have to conform to your view. typical.

There is no way, then, for you to grasp what I've said, if you won't try to understand the whole package I've offered.

i can also say that you are a complete arrogant ass for saying arch does not care about its users.

See - now I'm an a**hole when I disagree with your perspective - newbies have opinions too!

people wanted openoffice i spent a week building it then it got broken with the upgrade to gcc 3.3 i spent another week trying to fix it without luck then judd spent 3 days compiling and patching 1.1. so do you EVER say we don't fucking care you little ingrate

Here is what I did say to you, posted directly to you, and I was the only person to do so!!! I'll accept an apology.
I installed OpenOffice, it ran fine... except I still could not print (not your fault). I do not have printerdrake, and I can't get the printer to print, despite it being listed at linuxprinter website as being 100% compatible - my printer is not getting configured properly, so I honestly declare that I cannot print - there is no lie there, sarah31, and there is no implied request for assistance in the matter, either! Now that I've brought that up, what kind of advanced user cannot get their supposedly compatible printer to work??? Because I am a newbie, sarah31. BTW: the printer is not 100% compatible. The database matches my 4019E as a 4019, the E version makes the printer incompatible with the 4019 drivers and configuration, but the database is on the internet and must be 100% correct, because it is the definitive website for printers, right? Bah.

but of course we are the bad guys here because we took the time to try and give you an answer. man you are such a wanker....

For over 6 months I looked, no help here. When I got the post, It did not work because of my 10/100 switch. Rather than post that it did not work, I tried other resources. For that, I'm a wanker. Go figure - I did what a newbie is expected to do, there you rant all over me, flame thrower on quick fry, and I'm the wanker!

what a pile of BS. it was YOUR thread so get in there and assert yourself.

Here you go, sarah31, I'm asserting myself: because you read into my statements, you have missed the points I was making and have treid to flame me - should a moderator act this way, unchecked?

I suspect you needed some relief from pressure, sarah31, if so, at least PM me and say this is a relief for you - if it helps you to vent, I'd be better off knowing it wasn't as personal.

sarah31 · 2003-07-17 15:44:10

what do you expect when you come on this board and blame us for all of your problems? personal you bet it is. you made it that way from post one.

i NEVER once said you are an expert. if you read all of my post you would realize i said that there there is newbie and not newbie. you definitely fall in not newbie. if you think that this assumes that i am saying you are an expert then i guess that is your problem.

apology...forget it. you make some serious accusations and since many of them are leveled against me and others who both develop and help with arch and its users then i am free to respond how i see fit. if i get censored then fine but there is no way in hell i will apologize even if it means i lose my status here.

as for my views on newbies and arch if you don't concur then that is fine but to assume that i don't help then you can just take a long walk on a short pier. i do help and i will always help when i feel that i can help solve a problem.

i usded mandrake, debian, libranet and gentoo and all i learned there was applicable with arch with SOME variation. why NONE of what you have learned elsewhere does not apply i have no clue. I did not have to be beaten with a clue stick to make the switch from libranet to arch.

hApy · 2003-07-17 18:20:51

I think the word "newbie" has now lost all meaning to me due to repetition.

Dunbar I think you've said your bit, but now I think this thread is starting to go in circles.

I think all your points have been taken into consideration for the future of arch -- as all user feedback is, I'm sure. When and how/if they are implemented is a seperate issue, and are up to the developers discretion. But I think we should leave it at that as nothing much is being acomplished here anymore.

If you need help later on with arch I'm sure people will continue to be happy to help you out. Keep in mind that people can only help you with what they have experience with. If you are looking into a problem and you find some obsolete documentation or documentation that does not seem to match your current linux (be it arch or not) you can always post and ask how that particular part of it maps to your distribution. Usually even so-called out-dated documentation can have alot of useful information -- indeed if there isn't more recent documentation it usually means that the version you are using will still do the trick. As you gain more experience with linux in general you will become more familiar with what still applies and what is slightly different, or not relevant at all. Forums & IRC will always be there to help you with this differentiation until, and even after, that point.

If these methods are not enough for you, I would really suggest that you PURCHASE (eww I know) a linux distribution which provides support. They are far more equiped to help you with specific support issues because they can focus entirely on your problem since in-depth support is their means of survival as a company. They can take the time to go through specific installations of programs or editing of configs that normal users just cannot afford to do. Otherwise it's down to "googling" your problems until you filter through and find a similar one, and then figure out how it relates to your system.

If you re-install arch at some point, I suggest you leave another OS on a partition, available for dual-boot (or use an archlinux liveCD, etc). That way you can still get help from the net.

Please know that I understand you probably know much of this already, I'm not trying to get into yet another long discussion -- mostly I am summarizing some of the ways to move forwards in your linux understanding for other new users who have similar concerns.

Hapy.

Arch Linux

#1 2003-07-03 21:43:41

Rather than persists in the future thread...

#2 2003-07-03 22:53:47

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#3 2003-07-04 18:54:50

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#4 2003-07-04 23:33:15

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#5 2003-07-05 21:48:33

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#6 2003-07-07 17:24:33

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#7 2003-07-08 19:01:59

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#8 2003-07-08 23:27:38

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#9 2003-07-16 21:47:02

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#10 2003-07-16 23:59:14

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#11 2003-07-17 02:10:01

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#12 2003-07-17 02:41:37

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#13 2003-07-17 13:11:25

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#14 2003-07-17 15:44:10

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

#15 2003-07-17 18:20:51

Re: Rather than persists in the future thread...

Board footer