My concerns about Arch Linux.

iphitus · 2004-10-22 14:50:40

thegnu wrote:

dibblethewrecker wrote:
I'm confused... do you mean Arch Linux needs a package manager to replace pacman?
No, actually what I mean is having a GUI frontend for pacman as a separate package. pacman is as powerful and useful as you need. Having a GUI frontend as a separate, non-recommended package would allow Arch Linux to be a suitable alternative to RPM-based distros fo relatively less technically inclined Linux newbies.
The console is a wonderful thing, and I perform most of my work there, but it is frightening to lots of users if it's their only means of getting somewhere. RPM distros are confusing and bother you with dependencies. Arch Linux is the most worry-free distro I've tried, and I think the audience would be greatly expanded by the addition of a frontend that also separately performed simple calatoging and had a simple Uninstall list for applications.
*dons helmet*...
And why not?

The simple fact of the matter is - Arch doesnt want to be user friendly, it simply isnt the aim of arch. You want userfriendliness? Go play with mandrake, suse, linspire or fedora.

iphitus

sarah31 · 2004-10-22 15:24:38

i don't need a gui and i personally don't care how many people or what type knowledge those people have use arch. there are plenty of "user friendly" distros out there. arch is stated as design for "advanced" users and that implies that it is not easy.

i have no issues with guis except that having one for a brutally simple app like pacman or apt does two things:

1. is the foot in the door for gui-izing or dumbing down of everything

2. it encourages laziness in the sense that the less the user HAS to learn the more likely they will need their hand held for everything and users here and on the mail list will continue to have to do the work for these people. i really don't mind helping a green newbie learn arch or linux at all but i don't expect to have to teach them everything.

the sooner people learn that consoles/terminals are not their enemies the better off everyone is. the more people know their OS and their system the less they will have to rely on others and the more time and money they will save. not only the community's time and money but their own. self reliance builds a stronger community and definitely enables developers to improve their applications/project because the more knowledge/experience people gain the better they can give feedback and improve the product.

i am forever greatful that i found arch and even more thankful that some of the members at the old linuxnewbie forum forced me to think for myself. now i enjoy the ability to use both the console and gui environments not only in linux but on my Mac using OS X. the knowledge and experience i have gained has saved me a truckload of cash and time.

at one point in time i was one of the many whom cried for and easier linux but the truth is that if you want to use linux and use it best your HAVE TO get your hands dirty. thank god my friend told me that from the onset.

phrakture · 2004-10-22 18:12:53

I most definately agree with sarah... self sufficiency is at a low these days... I would blame it on the huge debacle that is "The Linux Desktop" - pulling in newbies from all over the place.
Independant studies have shown that the easiest way to learn "computers" is through a command line interface... the study I read they tested it with like 60 year old guys who had never touched a computer, some tests on linux, some on dos... it's not the OS, but the fact that you do what you want and nothing more from the command line.
If linux newbies really want to learn the OS, you start at the command line and work up, not the other way around (this is a windows problem as well).

dekernel · 2004-10-26 02:35:32

The link you have for Archibald is broken. Do you have the source somewhere else?

thegnu · 2004-10-28 17:14:29

The simple fact of the matter is - Arch doesnt want to be user friendly, it simply isnt the aim of arch.

Is the aim of Arch to be user-unfriendly? Does providing an optional package to a database of packages undermine the quality of another package in that database?
Hint: No, but it seems lots of people here think it does.

So if someone programmed an application (like Archibald, for example), and decided to develop it and support it, with no help other than the exchange of information between them and the Arch developers (and maybe a little help from willing parties), would it be a bad idea to write a PKGBUILD for it, and stick it in extra?

1. is the foot in the door for gui-izing or dumbing down of everything

bah! bah! IMHO. God forbid we have a simple interface for things. It'll allow stupid people and gypsies to use our OS.

EDIT: I'm of course omitting the fallacies I use in my arguments , but "foot in the door" is another way of saying "slippery slope". And the slippery slope claim is a load of hooey. In the humble opinions of ethicists and psychologists.

2. it encourages laziness

People who want to be lazy will be lazy. People who want to learn will learn. Have I been the only one with this experience? You know, other than that "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" guy?

Would you have gotten into Linux if someone had set you down at a console, and said, "OK.... GO!" Maybe you would. Maybe lots of Windows users would. Maybe they wouldn't.

the easiest way to learn "computers" is through a command line interface... the study I read they tested it with like 60 year old guys who had never touched a computer

I don't disagree. I'd like to see them take a long-time Windows user, and put him in that situation. I think since most people DON'T HAVE TIME FOR COMPUTERS, they will actually just try to read their email, do their online banking, and go to sleep. So put them in a situation where they can do what they want AND learn.

sarah says thank god she found Arch. But don't make it any easier for anyone to find Arch. How, sarah, do you feel when someone is pressuring you to perform outside of your bounds? This is not a rhetorical question. If you get people into an environment they can work in and that they accept, then when you encourage them to progress from there, they are receptive.

It took me a year to get into Linux, from the first install to the first install I actually used. Because I didn't know enough yet, and don't like the rpm-based distros.

Maybe it's just me, but I think on a geo-political level, getting more people into Linux is a step towards freedom (again). That is my one-sentence summary of where I'm coming from with this.

You know, I even have friends who know nothing about computers. And servicing home computers, I've found that a lot of pain and suffering could be avoided if these people used a well-configured Linux box. It would save them money too. And they could learn as much or as little as they wanted.

EDIT 2: Since arch isn't about the newbies, what say we get rid of the Newbie forum here at archlinux.org and tell them to get bent? That'll teach them to try and learn.

phrakture · 2004-10-28 17:42:45

thegnu wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is - Arch doesnt want to be user friendly, it simply isnt the aim of arch.
Is the aim of Arch to be user-unfriendly? Does providing an optional package to a database of packages undermine the quality of another package in that database?
Hint: No, but it seems lots of people here think it does.

The simple fact is this: Arch is not made for dumbasses. And no, I'm not saying people who want a GUI are dumbasses. I am saying that having an easy-to-use gui DRAWS the dumbasses - you open up an exercise club, no one shows up, put a McDonald's in the middle and here come all the fat people! It's called "enabling" - you are giving people something to fall back on. The idea isn't "I don't want a simplification", it's preventing the attitude of "Ah so it has a GUI, I don't have to learn anything new I just click crap"

thegnu wrote:

So if someone programmed an application (like Archibald, for example), and decided to develop it and support it, with no help other than the exchange of information between them and the Arch developers (and maybe a little help from willing parties), would it be a bad idea to write a PKGBUILD for it, and stick it in extra?

no, no one ever said the package would be denied entry into the repos (it's up to pkg maintainers for that)

thegnu wrote:

1. is the foot in the door for gui-izing or dumbing down of everything
bah! bah! IMHO. God forbid we have a simple interface for things. It'll allow stupid people and gypsies to use our OS.

Stupid people and gypsies already have many OSes targeted at them. Try one of them.

thegnu wrote:

2. it encourages laziness
People who want to be lazy will be lazy. People who want to learn will learn. Have I been the only one with this experience? You know, other than that "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" guy?
Would you have gotten into Linux if someone had set you down at a console, and said, "OK.... GO!" Maybe you would. Maybe lots of Windows users would. Maybe they wouldn't.

This is the kind of people drawn to arch - the people who like things for the sake of having knowledge... I "got into Linux" because I was curious... the first distro I ever installed was a base (no-X) slackware system. Many people here probably have similar stories...

thegnu wrote:

the easiest way to learn "computers" is through a command line interface... the study I read they tested it with like 60 year old guys who had never touched a computer
I don't disagree. I'd like to see them take a long-time Windows user, and put him in that situation. I think since most people DON'T HAVE TIME FOR COMPUTERS, they will actually just try to read their email, do their online banking, and go to sleep. So put them in a situation where they can do what they want AND learn.
sarah says thank god she found Arch. But don't make it any easier for anyone to find Arch. How, sarah, do you feel when someone is pressuring you to perform outside of your bounds? This is not a rhetorical question. If you get people into an environment they can work in and that they accept, then when you encourage them to progress from there, they are receptive.
It took me a year to get into Linux, from the first install to the first install I actually used. Because I didn't know enough yet, and don't like the rpm-based distros.
Maybe it's just me, but I think on a geo-political level, getting more people into Linux is a step towards freedom (again). That is my one-sentence summary of where I'm coming from with this. You know, I even have friends who know nothing about computers.

Oi, ok here's the facts. Arch is a niche distro - as are many others. If you do not fit the niche, then you don't belong with the distro. Arch is made for simplicity - see here for details

There are hundreds of distros out there - if you don't like a part of the philosophy then try something else. THAT is freedom - freedom isn't forcing a distro to mold to YOUR image, it's about letting it exist for the sake of existing and ignoring it if it doesn't fit your standards. I hate when I hear statements akin to "why not use RPMs, that way everyone can choose anything - that's TRUE freedom" - no thats wrong... hell Hitler said "The world would be better if everyone had blue eyes and blond hair" in the same way the "Freedom Legions" scream "the world would be better if everyone used RPMs".

I'm not trying to bash you - I'm saying that most of the long-time arch users agree with this philosophy of simplicity. If that doesn't suit you, then move on, you have a choice...

Dusty · 2004-10-28 18:54:18

phrakture wrote:

Oi, ok here's the facts. Arch is a niche distro - as are many others. If you do not fit the niche, then you don't belong with the distro. Arch is made for simplicity - see here for details

Although some of your comments seemed to be a little heavy-handed (only Sarah and I are allowed heavy-handed comments, you knew that didn't you? ), this is one of the best summary responses to the eternal "Arch needs to change" question I have seen. I'm sick of the question, I've documented it, I've fought it, and now I'm giving up on it.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that posting in the forums isn't likely to get Arch changed. Neither is posting in the mailing list. The best chance of getting a change is to come up with a specific change and list it as a feature request in the bug tracker.

Dusty

dtw · 2004-10-28 19:51:42

i feel like i say "niche distro" till it is coming out of my arse!

it may take a while to find yours but you can if you try!

someone asked me the other day if it took a long time to Arch set up - i can;t be arsed to PM him and tell him how easy it is - especially if you have used another distro and migrate your configs and /home/me over - took me about three hours to get to the point where i left off in my other distro

thegnu · 2004-10-28 19:54:06

Oh, looky! I read your link:

Pacman Back-end

hmm.... back-end....

Libraryizing pacman in this way will allow other programs (such as GUI frontends) to easily interface with the pacman functions. This is much more efficient and extensible than making calls to the pacman program itself. The CLI frontend will still, of course, be available.

GUI? Damn you, Dusty Phillips!

So, here he's talking about what I suggested. Hmmm... Makes me look bad, but for different reasons. Sure, I'm in agreement with the Arch philosophy, but I should've read the article about arch philosophy.

I also shouldn't have used the word "should" when I was talking about a pacman GUI frontend. It would be oh-so-nice if a developer were to develop a GUI. Maybe I should word things better.

Now, responses:

Another thing I'd like to point out is that posting in the forums isn't likely to get Arch changed.

Yeah, I think the GUI doesn't necessarily need to be responsibility of the Arch developers. I know there are lots of Arch users who are also programmers. I posted my thoughts on the forum. I shouldn't have said "should". It has caused so much confusion.

it's preventing the attitude of "Ah so it has a GUI, I don't have to learn anything new I just click crap"

See, if someone WANTS to learn something, they'll learn, GUI or no. That's what I'm saying. If someone doesn't want to learn, they won't, GUI or no.

That being said, some people just want their computers to do 3 things for them, and aren't interested in learning a better way. We call those people Windows users. The problem with Windows is NOT the GUI, and from your statements, it can be inferred that you think it is.

Stupid people and gypsies already have many OSes targeted at them. Try one of them.

Are you, sir, inferring that I'm a gypsy? I like Arch. RTF thread.

if you don't like a part of the philosophy then try something else. THAT is freedom - freedom isn't forcing a distro to mold to YOUR image

Words are not force. Who is exerting more force over the direction of Arch Linux, you or me?

I'm not trying to bash anybody either. I understand your sentiment. I just think you might be missing mine.

thegnu · 2004-10-28 19:57:35

dibblethewrecker wrote:

i can;t be arsed to PM him and tell him how easy it is

Hell yeah, I think arch is the easiest distro out there. Thus any tiny steps in the direction of "easier" is a commanding percentage of the remainder of the voyage.

Dusty · 2004-10-28 20:00:34

thegnu wrote:

Damn you, Dusty Phillips!

*blinks*

thegnu · 2004-10-28 20:02:00

Dusty wrote:

thegnu wrote:
Damn you, Dusty Phillips!
*blinks*

You're aware I'm kidding, right? :oops:

Dusty · 2004-10-28 20:22:40

If I thought you were serious I would have put you in my mental list of idiotic users that really make phpBB need an Ignore List and would not have bothered to reply at all.... :-D

Dusty

dtw · 2004-10-28 20:36:05

DUSTY! will you stfu about an ignore feature

Dusty · 2004-10-28 20:44:25

dibblethewrecker wrote:

DUSTY! will you stfu about an ignore feature

Who said that? :?

I know I know.... I should go to the trouble of hacking PHPbb myself or finding a mod and have Apeiro install it but... I don't miss it that much. Maybe dp can implement it....

Dusty

Arch Linux

#26 2004-10-22 14:50:40

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#27 2004-10-22 15:24:38

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#28 2004-10-22 18:12:53

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#29 2004-10-26 02:35:32

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#30 2004-10-28 17:14:29

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#31 2004-10-28 17:42:45

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#32 2004-10-28 18:54:18

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#33 2004-10-28 19:51:42

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#34 2004-10-28 19:54:06

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#35 2004-10-28 19:57:35

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#36 2004-10-28 20:00:34

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#37 2004-10-28 20:02:00

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#38 2004-10-28 20:22:40

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#39 2004-10-28 20:36:05

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

#40 2004-10-28 20:44:25

Re: My concerns about Arch Linux.

Board footer