Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

droog · 2009-01-11 03:13:54

I think the wording on the logo isn't the best. Recently i've been able to get a few friends and family to install arch.
They all brought up the "simple" in the logo cause they had a few problems of course.
I know they will do fine on arch and i'm there to help them if needed, but it's kind of misleading to new and old linux users.

on the box-look.org arch group i saw great this quote:

"simplicity", elegance, code correctness and minimalism. "Simplicity", according to Arch, is defined as "...without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications.." and is defined from a developer standpoint, rather than a user standpoint.

Anyways I think minimal is a more appropriate word to express the meaning of simple in this case.

droog · 2009-01-11 03:17:45

on a quick 2nd thought i guess minimal + lightweight is overkill so this post is moot.

mod can delete, thanks.

weasel8 · 2009-01-11 03:25:44

That quote is from the Beginner's Guide:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beg … e_Arch_Way

And frankly, the Arch developers aren't the ones to blame if new users choose a distro based off of the tagline under the logo alone.

Ranguvar · 2009-01-11 03:56:54

I agree with weasel. A lot of people have (IMO) wrong interpretations of 'simple', but I favor being correct and letting the general word of Arch's awesomeness spread

And there's plenty of minimal distros. DSL, for example. Simplicity is much more rare, and thus much more valuable (though of course minimalism is great too).

droog · 2009-01-11 07:55:36

Ranguvar wrote:

I agree with weasel. A lot of people have (IMO) wrong interpretations of 'simple', but I favor being correct and letting the general word of Arch's awesomeness spread
And there's plenty of minimal distros. DSL, for example. Simplicity is much more rare, and thus much more valuable (though of course minimalism is great too).

yessir i was going off what my friends said in first post and fixed in the second post

I've never read the beginners guide so that was new to me, go figure. I thought it fit but i kept hearing my friends say why does it say simple.

I told them simple in linux doesn't mean easy, i'll beat it into their heads soon.

since i already asked for this topic to be removed, i see no point but in saying i was wrong again.

droog · 2009-01-11 08:01:32

weasel8 wrote:

That quote is from the Beginner's Guide:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beg … e_Arch_Way
And frankly, the Arch developers aren't the ones to blame if new users choose a distro based off of the tagline under the logo alone.

frankly they didn't install because of the tagline and i didn't blame arch developers, thanks for the input though.

weasel8 · 2009-01-11 08:07:06

droog wrote:

weasel8 wrote:
That quote is from the Beginner's Guide:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beg … e_Arch_Way
And frankly, the Arch developers aren't the ones to blame if new users choose a distro based off of the tagline under the logo alone.
frankly they didn't install because of the tagline and i didn't blame arch developers, thanks for the input though.

Oh I know, I wasn't referring to you directly. I was just sort of talking about clueless users in general. Sorry.

droog · 2009-01-11 08:34:40

weasel8 wrote:

droog wrote:
weasel8 wrote:
That quote is from the Beginner's Guide:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beg … e_Arch_Way
And frankly, the Arch developers aren't the ones to blame if new users choose a distro based off of the tagline under the logo alone.
frankly they didn't install because of the tagline and i didn't blame arch developers, thanks for the input though.
Oh I know, I wasn't referring to you directly. I was just sort of talking about clueless users in general. Sorry.

No problem

I guess this was about how arch looked to new users, but i never think how mainstream arch is now so it doesn't matter anymore.

it was just what i heard from a few new users so made the post before i thought about it enough, so asked for a mod to remove.

.:B:. · 2009-01-11 09:37:09

weasel8 wrote:

That quote is from the Beginner's Guide:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beg … e_Arch_Way
And frankly, the Arch developers aren't the ones to blame if new users choose a distro based off of the tagline under the logo alone.

Simple has a lot of meanings - the way the slogan intends it to be is simple to administrate - streamlined. Not simple to install . BSD init over System V init, anyone?

On a related note: I think that the 'lightweight' deserves some reconsideration. I don't know who put that in but if you pitch it against Slackware for example there is nothing 'lightweight' about Arch. It's quite heavy on dependencies actually. Despite it being quite the DIY distro it bothers me everytime you sync you pull in an extra dependency because 1 out of 100 users needs it...

What happened to building stuff yourself if you need an extra dependency? I find myself recompiling stuff to *throw* out some deps now .

droog · 2009-01-11 10:30:29

yessir it was the many meanings of simple, first thing you think of is easy.
I think arch is very easy but i heard alot different while crusading and getting some people to convert.

I agree that dependencies are bad on some things but i think thats to keep the gnome and kde people happy but idk.

Last edited by droog (2009-01-11 11:02:53)

Xyne · 2009-01-11 11:23:13

B wrote:

On a related note: I think that the 'lightweight' deserves some reconsideration. I don't know who put that in but if you pitch it against Slackware for example there is nothing 'lightweight' about Arch. It's quite heavy on dependencies actually. Despite it being quite the DIY distro it bothers me everytime you sync you pull in an extra dependency because 1 out of 100 users needs it...

That's yet another reason to actually handle optdepends. Check this thread and the discussion on flyspray.

finferflu · 2009-01-11 11:26:40

droog wrote:

on a quick 2nd thought i guess minimal + lightweight is overkill so this post is moot.
mod can delete, thanks.

I guess it's too late now...

droog · 2009-01-11 12:07:01

finferflu wrote:

droog wrote:
on a quick 2nd thought i guess minimal + lightweight is overkill so this post is moot.
mod can delete, thanks.
I guess it's too late now...

aww wish i still had delete powers.

but i guess i learned of this.

Xyne wrote:

That's yet another reason to actually handle optdepends. Check this thread and the discussion on flyspray.

.:B:. · 2009-01-11 23:27:58

Xyne wrote:

B wrote:
On a related note: I think that the 'lightweight' deserves some reconsideration. I don't know who put that in but if you pitch it against Slackware for example there is nothing 'lightweight' about Arch. It's quite heavy on dependencies actually. Despite it being quite the DIY distro it bothers me everytime you sync you pull in an extra dependency because 1 out of 100 users needs it...
That's yet another reason to actually handle optdepends. Check this thread and the discussion on flyspray.

Optional dependencies are a great way to solve that - but it only meets halfway. You still can't strip a dependency a package has a hard dependency on (ie a library that the program requires to run, without it present it will not start). But I guess I'm asking too much .

Heller_Barde · 2009-01-12 14:31:46

B wrote:

But I guess I'm asking too much .

yes, you are, go use gentoo
(j/k)

I partially agree with you though, i'd sometimes love to kick out the gnome deps. i find myself rewriting the PKGBUILD sometimes though and there are actually some AUR packages that deal with that problem (e.g there is some version of a desktop search which has a nongnome PKGBUILD )

cheers Barde

userlander · 2009-01-12 16:32:37

It does seem a bit inaccurate, at least potentially. Like many "DIY" distributions, Arch is really only as simple and lightweight as you want to make it. "A fast, flexible, and modular linux distribution" seems better. Or some word other than modular, can't think of one atm off the top of my head.

"Lightweight" also has an unfortunate negative connotation, as in "you're such a lightweight." But it's definitely fast and flexible, I don't think anyone could argue with that. By saying "flexible" you're also highlighting the important aspect in Arch of user involvement in shaping and customizing the system.

Last edited by userlander (2009-01-12 16:37:28)

Misfit138 · 2009-01-12 16:44:29

Gonna close this one, as it is approaching the point where it outlives its usefulness. It was also requested that it be deleted by the OP.
Topic closed.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-01-11 03:13:54

Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#2 2009-01-11 03:17:45

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#3 2009-01-11 03:25:44

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#4 2009-01-11 03:56:54

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#5 2009-01-11 07:55:36

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#6 2009-01-11 08:01:32

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#7 2009-01-11 08:07:06

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#8 2009-01-11 08:34:40

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#9 2009-01-11 09:37:09

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#10 2009-01-11 10:30:29

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#11 2009-01-11 11:23:13

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#12 2009-01-11 11:26:40

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#13 2009-01-11 12:07:01

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#14 2009-01-11 23:27:58

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#15 2009-01-12 14:31:46

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#16 2009-01-12 16:32:37

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

#17 2009-01-12 16:44:29

Re: Archlinux logo - simple vs. minimal

Board footer