GUI Arch Linux?

shadowhand · 2005-01-20 09:28:51

I just came across this topic in one of the forums. http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=3494

I'm doing a bit of check up because I'm thinking about creating a Arch LiveCD with Xfce and a GTK (no Gnome) desktop aimed at new linux users. (People with wireless, people who want to switch to Arch, etc. I know the AMLUG cd already exists, but my aim is a little different.)

Anyways, just wanted to check if there has been any progress on the GTK Pacman front-ends and ask if anyone would be willing to help out if I got the project off the ground. I believe it would just require setting up a new repository (which I can provide) for an installable version (ala something knx-hdinstall like) and setting up hardware detection.

rasat · 2005-01-20 17:03:42

Check out at user-contributions.org. There is a live cd project going on:
http://user-contributions.org/forums/us … c.php?t=51

sarah31 · 2005-01-20 17:50:29

There are a number of frontends for pacman none are vry active none are official and most will likely not go much further without some collaboration and a libidized pacman.

kth5 · 2005-01-21 01:16:34

sarah31 wrote:

There are a number of frontends for pacman none are vry active none are official and most will likely not go much further without some collaboration and a libidized pacman.

for my behalf i hope pacman will never be libidized! it works superb, easy and the unix way like it should just how it is. no point in making a lib of it just to make some windows style GUI possible, right? :?
alright, pacman could use some more functionality for orphaned packages but that would be about everything you ever need. honestly, GUIs only make things more complex since they aim to be compatible with ppl that still want to think their way. unix is unix, and that's it.

shadowhand · 2005-01-21 02:15:11

kth5 wrote:

sarah31 wrote:
There are a number of frontends for pacman none are vry active none are official and most will likely not go much further without some collaboration and a libidized pacman.
for my behalf i hope pacman will never be libidized! it works superb, easy and the unix way like it should just how it is. no point in making a lib of it just to make some windows style GUI possible, right? :?
alright, pacman could use some more functionality for orphaned packages but that would be about everything you ever need. honestly, GUIs only make things more complex since they aim to be compatible with ppl that still want to think their way. unix is unix, and that's it.

If the Linux community ever wants to make Linux get anywhere, things have to be GUI. This is the one and only reason that Linux isn't as sucessful as Windows or Apple in the desktop market. OSX is headed in the proper direction: putting something beautiful looking on top of something that is stable and secure.

Whether or not _you_ like it, 95% or more of the world uses the GUI and doesn't know how to use a CLI. For the good of everyone's computing, the Linux community needs to embrace this (even if they don't like it) and make distros that are more user-friendly and more powerful than Windows.

In short: I'm glad you can be elitest and I'm glad you find the CLI more powerful than a GUI (I use both equally and agree that the CLI is much more powerful) but this is the 21st century. The CLI is great for people that understand it, but most people don't. How about showing Microsoft users that OSS _is_ more powerful, easier to use, and just as user friendly?

We can leave the eye candy development to the E team and the Apple team, but we can get more people to switch to something better just by making it understandable to the majority.

Forse · 2005-01-21 02:21:53

I don't understand why does linux have to be popular? Why force it on users? I think it's just great they way it is...and I wouldn't myself want linux to get more popular then windows...

If linux will get all gui like I will just move to something like NetBSD

sarah31 · 2005-01-21 03:12:29

shadowhand wrote:

If the Linux community ever wants to make Linux get anywhere, things have to be GUI. This is the one and only reason that Linux isn't as sucessful as Windows or Apple in the desktop market. OSX is headed in the proper direction: putting something beautiful looking on top of something that is stable and secure.

kth5 was not saying that he doesn't want linux to go anywhere, in fact there is nothing like that in here at all. He was just stating an OPINION. Besides Arch has no aspirations to be anything bigger than it is right now whether you think it should be or not.

If you had done some reading and searching here you would know that pacman IS being libidized and it is not JUST for a frontend to pacman. While it does facilitate that it also enable other possibilities.

Whether or not _you_ like it, 95% or more of the world uses the GUI and doesn't know how to use a CLI. For the good of everyone's computing, the Linux community needs to embrace this (even if they don't like it) and make distros that are more user-friendly and more powerful than Windows.

Linux is open source so the "community" free to do whatever they wish. Some who want point and click embrace distros such as Mandrake and Ubuntu while those who want more of a challenge select one of the other distros such as Gentoo, Root, or Arch.

I used a few of those "user-friendly" distros and did not like them. They were heavily laden with bugs, kludges, and I never had the control I did with Arch. Arch is actually the most user friendly distro I ever used. It TAUGHT me how to use my computer. I can get out of al sorts of sticky situations because I know the underlying system. If my WM or GUI app crashes I can live without it AND be productive.

In short: I'm glad you can be elitest and I'm glad you find the CLI more powerful than a GUI (I use both equally and agree that the CLI is much more powerful) but this is the 21st century. The CLI is great for people that understand it, but most people don't. How about showing Microsoft users that OSS _is_ more powerful, easier to use, and just as user friendly?

This sounds alot like you are trying to dictate to kth5 how he should behave according to your view of what linux should be. Facism is not a fun thing to be faced with.

I personally feel that there is zero reason to make a frontend for pacman. I don't think it is hard to use. While many people think that point and clicking or drag and dropping is simpler than typing sudo pacman -Syu or pacman -S <package>, but that is just not always the case.

Also can you just imagine all the repeating questions we''ll get here because somebody's pacman frontend went down and he/she does not know how to use pacman at the cli? I would tire real quick of the questions.

I firmly believe that every user on ANY system should try and learn as much as they can about their computer and how to use it . Having all of these point and click apps is just not benefitting anyone but those that can make money off these people who don't even realize that they have the ability to deal with problems on their own.

Just because I promote CLI doe snot mean I use it. However, I do think that if you want people to be able to use a powerful system/os then they should know the blood and guts of the OS too. Linux community can't grow and become stronger without knowledgable people and in linux EVERYONE has the ability to be masters of their systems with very little effort.

In the end user-friendly is not about how pretty something looks and how easy it is to press your mouse but how well you know your system. The "strongest" users out there are the one that know their systems inside and out. I am by no means one of the strongest users out there but after a few months of using Arch I became more adept at using Linux and a far bigger help to the "community". I was one of those point and click types that used to bawl about how Linux should embrace the GUI, etc in order to be more accepted. Now I know that no matter how GUI it goes there is alot more keeping Linux from "going Primetime".

We can leave the eye candy development to the E team and the Apple team, but we can get more people to switch to something better just by making it understandable to the majority.

.... and GUIfying it is not the answer. The more you dumb it down the dumber the users will become. I see this happening in Window and Mac OS all the time. First simple task is made to look like a SOB to run and people demand a respite from all that typing. So they make a GUI. Bang morre people use it but they don't know how to get working just right so they demand this and that improvement. Many months later they add more point and click. Evetually what people want is the application to run itself because clicking is too tough.

Actually this reminds me of synaptic. Synaptic is a nice frontend for apt and I loved it but one day i couldn't use it any more and I realized that while everyone else was pointing and clicking in a few seconds i had typed in my command and gotten what I wanted. the same task in synaptic would have been twice a long. click open, click command, wait for options or list to com up, click option, wait, click prompt answer, wait for process to complete, click prompt.

Consider file managers while you click and click and click to finally remove a package you could have typed rm /path/to/file. Copying is click, click click, take sten fiften seconds cp foo /to/foodir/ takes way less time.

In the end it matters little what you, kth5, or myself think Linux, and Arch specifically, will take whatever path it wants to. Likely that will mean distro for the "user-friendly" types and distros, like Arch, for those that want a strong stable system without all the bells and whistles.

kakabaratruskia · 2005-01-21 03:33:31

I would like to have a GUI. I like pacman as it is now, but there are some operations that could be a lot easier with a GUI, like uninstalling packages you don't use. It's much easier if you have a list of all installed packages, and you select one, and have all the info regarding it's dependencies and all that stuff, than havind to use pacman -Qe, or pacman -Qs, then pacman -Qi, etc.

sarah31 · 2005-01-21 03:35:42

yes a gui is very good with respect to such tasks. it would be nice to have this ability at the cli to (or have a curses frontend)

rasat · 2005-01-21 04:03:41

kakabaratruskia wrote:

I like pacman as it is now, but there are some operations that could be a lot easier with a GUI, like uninstalling packages you don't use.

Multi-selection and -view are the reasons why to support GUI. Example, without the dialog box cli feature in Arch installer CD many users would have had difficulties installing Arch, or when making a customized kernel. GUI doesn't need to look nice as long as showing a broder view of options available.

shadowhand · 2005-01-21 04:16:43

Sarah31: I wasn't trying to dictate anyone's opinion, I was stating mine. I believe the core reason that most "point-click" distros are no good is because the underlying system isn't good. If there was a point-click distro based on Arch (but with the extra packages in a different repository) it might make a distro that was much better than any other point-click distro out there.

I never said the Arch community needed to embrace anything, I said the Linux community. There will always be distros that like Gentoo, Arch, and LFS, just as there will always be distros like Mandrake, Yoper, and Fedora. If the Arch community was willing, Arch could be both, which is something that no distro has ever accomplished before (besides maybe Debian or a Debian meta.)

You might think there is zero reason to have a front end, but how about people moving from Windows that want a fast, stable, and fairly simple Linux experience? Wouldn't it be nice for them to have a GUI front-end until they learn how to use the CLI?

I also agree that every user should know their system inside and out. But the reality is that a lot of people just don't care. They just want to be able to click an icon, browse to a website, and turn the computer off. They don't want to know what browser they are using, what their processor is, or with DE they are using.

Dumbing things down by GUI-fying them doesn't make users dumber, imho. Giving users less choice makes users dumber. I learned a lot by moving from Fedora to Knoppix to Yoper to Lunar to Gentoo to Arch. When someone wants to learn, they learn. When someone doesn't, they don't. Saying that the GUI makes people stupider just doesn't make sense.

The reason for the GUI is that people can process images faster than text. It's that simple. Adding a GUI makes things easier because you don't have to remember 'pacman -Ss foo' instead you just click the "gPacman" icon, then click Search. Bam! So what if it took 5 more seconds to do? It was simplier. Technology isn't going to stop moving forward just because a few people want to do it "the good old way." Some people are happy using Vi, lynx, and BSD mail for the rest of their lives. Good for them. I'm not one of those people. Some things are better done from the GUI, some things are better done from the CLI. I pick and choose, and people should have the choice to do so. Isn't freedom and choice what Linux and OSS is all about?

Personally, I'm hoping that Arch will stay as it is, but there will be Arch metas that make Arch usable for both me and my grandmother.

Forse: I hope Linux will get more popular because it's better. Period. I want people to not have to pay out the arse to get something that's less secure, less stable, and more bloated.

As above, due to the nature of Linux, there will always be YALD that has what you want. I doubt LFS will ever be "all gui like."

cactus · 2005-01-21 05:04:46

I agree with sarah on this one.
I think for some tasks, a GUI is just the wrong tool.

shadowhand · 2005-01-21 07:04:39

shadowhand wrote:

Some things are better done from the GUI, some things are better done from the CLI. I pick and choose, and people should have the choice to do so.

File management is a good thing to do from the CLI, package management can be too. But we have graphical file managers don't we? Why not graphical package management too?

kth5 · 2005-01-21 10:43:36

shadowhand wrote:

You might think there is zero reason to have a front end, but how about people moving from Windows that want a fast, stable, and fairly simple Linux experience? Wouldn't it be nice for them to have a GUI front-end until they learn how to use the CLI?

it sounds like all people trying to run GNU/Linux instead of windoze suddenly try Arch? Arch's philosophy states pretty clear that it aims to be a distro for experienced users (not afraid of the commandline). for me it implies "forcing the CLI more on users than distros like Mandrake etc." and I like that. in fact many people do.

ever thought of why people switch to GNU/Linux if not for the "less secure", "evil fascism" or "less control" OS? maybe they want to experience something new because they decided to do so on their own. like i did. i think i don't need to add what i mean by "something new" as you never know until you finally try.

shadowhand wrote:

The reason for the GUI is that people can process images faster than text. It's that simple. Adding a GUI makes things easier because you don't have to remember 'pacman -Ss foo' instead you just click the "gPacman" icon, then click Search. Bam! So what if it took 5 more seconds to do? It was simplier. Technology isn't going to stop moving forward just because a few people want to do it "the good old way." Some people are happy using Vi, lynx, and BSD mail for the rest of their lives. Good for them. I'm not one of those people. Some things are better done from the GUI, some things are better done from the CLI. I pick and choose, and people should have the choice to do so. Isn't freedom and choice what Linux and OSS is all about?

what do image processing programs got to do with package management? there is a ViM for X (gvim), lynx is great for stuff in the command line - blind ppl like it plenty for it automagically strips away stupid tables, borked CSS, and IE Afx overkill. - and for BSD mail... ionno, i myself don't use it anymore. i like mutt far too much i guess.

shadowhand wrote:

Personally, I'm hoping that Arch will stay as it is, but there will be Arch metas that make Arch usable for both me and my grandmother.
Forse: I hope Linux will get more popular because it's better. Period. I want people to not have to pay out the arse to get something that's less secure, less stable, and more bloated.
As above, due to the nature of Linux, there will always be YALD that has what you want. I doubt LFS will ever be "all gui like."

GNU/Linux is good for dumb people actually. have someone install KDE/Gnome with a textprocessor, tell them what to click "to get on the internet" (shellscript desktop link probably) and how to open a browser, where the DVD playing app is (make dev-nodes readable systemwide) and finally shut down all services and firewall them. pack a SSH daemon onto the machine for maintainence and let the user be able to easily start it when they call you. it's easy, as it isn't so much different from windows to them anymore but for it doesn't break so easily.
that's how i've done it for my mom (63 atm). couldn't get simpler for her but if she wanted to she could always google for CLI stuff but she'll prolly never going to anyway. she wouldn't have on any other OS either, no matter how easy it would have been. most ppl her age i met though this way. basicly: "never change a runnign system" ... "even if it's windows" and that implied never to install any additional software or customize nothing more than the desktop background.

Algol · 2005-01-21 12:30:44

Think it's time for a first post. I really can't read this without replying.
This is more of a meta-post, just hinting at problems in the argumentation, if you don't care about such, you don't have to read any further.

for my behalf i hope pacman will never be libidized! it works superb, easy and the unix way like it should just how it is. no point in making a lib of it just to make some windows style GUI possible, right?

Right... and how does the linux kernel work for you? Fine? Well, then i guess we better call Linus and tell him to stop developing.

kth5 was not saying that he doesn't want linux to go anywhere, in fact there is nothing like that in here at all. He was just stating an OPINION. Besides Arch has no aspirations to be anything bigger than it is right now whether you think it should be or not.

If you read the above notes, noone stated that kth5 said that, it was an implication of the stipulation that distributions "won't go anywhere"(in the desktop sense of a way) if they arn't easy to use, an opinion that is shared by many. It is also interesting that you state that the intentions of Archlinux is to stay where it is, and not gain new users. If you want to scare people off, this is the way to go.

Linux is open source so the "community" free to do whatever they wish. Some who want point and click embrace distros such as Mandrake and Ubuntu while those who want more of a challenge select one of the other distros such as Gentoo, Root, or Arch.

The freedom of the community is not only to choose prepackaged distribution, but also to make modifications to existing software to give other users more choise (as you might have noticed portage has a few graphical frontends, kpackage and kentoo among others). The stance held by kth5, that pacman should only work as an CLI-app, is something that limits choise.

I used a few of those "user-friendly" distros and did not like them. They were heavily laden with bugs, kludges, and I never had the control I did with Arch. Arch is actually the most user friendly distro I ever used. It TAUGHT me how to use my computer. I can get out of al sorts of sticky situations because I know the underlying system. If my WM or GUI app crashes I can live without it AND be productive. ... In the end user-friendly is not about how pretty something looks and how easy it is to press your mouse but how well you know your system.

Whatever you've experienced with other gui-oriented distros concerning bugs is pretty much irrelevant when you talk about guis in archlinux, don't you think? You cannot colour a whole distributions because of their stance, and then bring that colour to other distributions with a similar stance. it would be like hating all blue cars since all the cars you've been hit by has been blue. While there might be a connection, there doesn't have to be, and you'd probably need a lot more data than just a few distros to get any statistical meaning.
As to the question of user friendliness, you cannot possibly mean that because something forces you to learn it (half-)thouroughly, it is more user friendly? Would it be even MORE user friendly if you had to learn C and network programming to use archlinux? If the ncurses library would stop working you could code your own pacman, live AND be productive.

The fascism part I won't even touch.

I personally feel that there is zero reason to make a frontend for pacman. I don't think it is hard to use. ... Also can you just imagine all the repeating questions we''ll get here because somebody's pacman frontend went down and he/she does not know how to use pacman at the cli? I would tire real quick of the questions.

Well, I'm sure you sat down with a book and then went straight to archlinux and started contributing? Everybody needs help in the beginning, and if people first learnt the graphical front end, they'd have an easier time than going to the CLI based version directly.

I firmly believe that every user on ANY system should try and learn as much as they can about their computer and how to use it . Having all of these point and click apps is just not benefitting anyone but those that can make money off these people who don't even realize that they have the ability to deal with problems on their own.
..
Consider file managers while you click and click and click to finally remove a package you could have typed rm /path/to/file. Copying is click, click click, take sten fiften seconds cp foo /to/foodir/ takes way less time.

Yes, rm <path> normally takes shorter time than clicking, but for some, even rm is hard to remember (or the absolute path). And once you've browsed into a directore (maybe searching for something else) it is faster to just click and delete than opening a console and typing.

Face it, abstractions doesn't have to be a bad thing. You might be a CS professional or something like that, but for many people the computer is just the means to an end. There might be car mechanics who think everybody should know their engines in and out before they start driving, and there might be pilots who think that every passenger should know how to fly a plane before boarding, but that just isn't feasible.

Well, I can understand that you and kth5 don't want other people than techies to use Linux, or at least, keep them as far away from you and your archlinux as possible. You might even want to remove Xorg from arch all together? At least that would've spared you *this* post.

kth5 · 2005-01-21 12:49:12

The freedom of the community is not only to choose prepackaged distribution, but also to make modifications to existing software to give other users more choise (as you might have noticed portage has a few graphical frontends, kpackage and kentoo among others). The stance held by kth5, that pacman should only work as an CLI-app, is something that limits choise.

saying Pacman should stay CLI only does not automaticly dissallow any GUI aproaches. what i had in mind is to keep it simple and easy as it is now. it works and that's it, period.
libidizing it would be possible to help others to write their GUI driven apps of course but doesn't make much sense for Pacman on it's own, right?

Algol · 2005-01-21 13:22:14

Ok, I misinterpreted your intentions then... sorry

Well, libidizing might structure up the code some, but without looking at the code my guess is that it is very nicely structured already. It might also give some better stability since it would be easier to isolate main components, but that is just theoretical, and I've never heard of anyone having stability problems with pacman...

Then again, making it a library shouldn't change any behaviour in the CLI version either, which would function independently of the GUI. (You could even use static linking to have more or less exactly what you have today)

Anyhow, I can understand the concern that "we" shouldn't fix anything that isn't broken (especially since it *might* break something), but opening up functionality (by creating a library) to others who want to use it is one of the core ideas of GNU/Linux (as far as I can understand).
Another issue might be that perhaps this energy should be spent elsewhere, but as sarah31 said, it is already a work in progress so...

Cheers

kth5 · 2005-01-21 14:11:33

Algol wrote:

Anyhow, I can understand the concern that "we" shouldn't fix anything that isn't broken (especially since it *might* break something), but opening up functionality (by creating a library) to others who want to use it is one of the core ideas of GNU/Linux (as far as I can understand).
Another issue might be that perhaps this energy should be spent elsewhere, but as sarah31 said, it is already a work in progress so...
Cheers

i don't mind if there will be a libpacman or something as long as keeps pacman working like it is now. alright, there can be improvements as well but i don't see a point where a lib would improve pacman other than other apps could embedd its functionality more easily (its fairly easy already as it's quite cleanly structured).

phrakture · 2005-01-21 16:29:57

Seriously though, look at the pacman code real quick. You can make a lib out of it in 10 seconds with a handful of Makefile hacks. Of course it would require minor code changes to pacman itself with some dlopen junk... unless of course you all just want a libpacman.a - which would be easy as pie.

sarah31 · 2005-01-21 16:51:17

Shadowhand, Just a few responses to your post:

You might think there is zero reason to have a front end, but how about people moving from Windows that want a fast, stable, and fairly simple Linux experience? Wouldn't it be nice for them to have a GUI front-end until they learn how to use the CLI?

First off most of the people I know I would certainly not suggest Arch to them as a starter. They would have a hard enough time with the "easier" distros and I just cannot devote too much of my time to helping them acclimatize as I know that is what would end out happening.

As for GUI frontend acting as a substitute until they can learn CLI ..... my experience is that most people do not go from frontend to GUI. If there is a GUI app that is percieved to make things easier and everyone makes the CLI seem like sleeping with the Devil then you will get few converts. I don't disagree with this comment/question but I just wanted to let you know that most of the people I know don't want hard they want easy.

Dumbing things down by GUI-fying them doesn't make users dumber, imho. Giving users less choice makes users dumber.

Well theoretically speaking if you are "dumbing things down" you are removing choices in many ways. Many GUI applications "hide" alot of the commandline options or have static settings so that you have to run the app in one way all the time. The GUI's intention is to reduce the decision process for a user and part of that decision is making choices. Besides many people are just as intimidated with messing with a GUIs settings because they fear that they will screw something up.

So I just think this comment is a bit contradictory. Not wrong just not completely accurate.

Algol,

It is also interesting that you state that the intentions of Archlinux is to stay where it is, and not gain new users. If you want to scare people off, this is the way to go.

Yay! thanks fopr putting words in my mouth.

I never said that Arch has no plans to develop any further. I said it has no aspiration to be "big". Big here meaning like Debian, Mandrake, or any of the other major distros. In fact they do not have the resources to compete on this level and won't for some time. Not because they are not trying to make it easy but because they don't have the time, money or staff to do so.

Stop speaking for me.

The freedom of the community is not only to choose prepackaged distribution, but also to make modifications to existing software to give other users more choise (as you might have noticed portage has a few graphical frontends, kpackage and kentoo among others). The stance held by kth5, that pacman should only work as an CLI-app, is something that limits choise.

Sure but you should know that there probably as many people that don't want pacman GUIified as there are that don't so kth5 has every right to express his desire for it to stay CLI. His voice represents choice and you and shadowhand wish to silence it or mock it.

Whatever you've experienced with other gui-oriented distros concerning bugs is pretty much irrelevant when you talk about guis in archlinux, don't you think? You cannot colour a whole distributions because of their stance, and then bring that colour to other distributions with a similar stance. it would be like hating all blue cars since all the cars you've been hit by has been blue. While there might be a connection, there doesn't have to be, and you'd probably need a lot more data than just a few distros to get any statistical meaning.
As to the question of user friendliness, you cannot possibly mean that because something forces you to learn it (half-)thouroughly, it is more user friendly? Would it be even MORE user friendly if you had to learn C and network programming to use archlinux? If the ncurses library would stop working you could code your own pacman, live AND be productive.

Whatever. Sure there is not telling if the GUIs designed for Arch will be bad but the experiences I had with other GUI distros is done to point out the weaknesses of GUIs. It is something that WILL happen in Arch too should they chooose to GUIfy it.

Well, I'm sure you sat down with a book and then went straight to archlinux and started contributing?

Dumbass. Obviously you have not read or searched much here. After some problems setting things up the way I wanted and getting used to the organization of the distro I started making and contributing packages. I didn't even have all of the nice docs that users have available to them now.

Within three months of using Arch I became a package maintainer. At one point I was maintaining over 400 packages. I quit after a year as it was becoming too stressful. I have always been one of the main contributors on this form.

phrakture · 2005-01-21 17:31:23

sarah31 wrote:

Well, I'm sure you sat down with a book and then went straight to archlinux and started contributing?
Dumbass. Obviously you have not read or searched much here. After some problems setting things up the way I wanted and getting used to the organization of the distro I started making and contributing packages. I didn't even have all of the nice docs that users have available to them now.
Within three months of using Arch I became a package maintainer. At one point I was maintaining over 400 packages. I quit after a year as it was becoming too stressful. I have always been one of the main contributors on this form.

who are you??

heh, on a more serious note: I actually like the idea of creating a libpacman. It doesn't mean it has to be used for a GUI, but it can be - in addition, I could write an app to check a specific server for updates real quick in the console MOTD, or taskbar icon, or wmi status text.... with a pacman library that'd be about 5-10 lines of code...
a GUI pacman would be more fluff, I agree, but saying it's not worth it is kinda like saying that gmplayer is worthless and only mplayer should be used (I agree with that too! but I use xine). I think the only thing a gui pacman would help with, for me, is in those bored moments where I go "hmmm I want to look around at packages to play with" - I can't really list everything as it's alot of output... and that's straining to go through after a point.... a nice tree of packages would be great for browsing...

that's just my 3 cents...

OT: sarah31, someone should knock your post count to 10, and join date sometime in late '04 - that way no one would believe you.... I'd get a kick out of it

Algol · 2005-01-21 17:47:27

Yay! thanks fopr putting words in my mouth.
I never said that Arch has no plans to develop any further. I said it has no aspiration to be "big". Big here meaning like Debian, Mandrake, or any of the other major distros. In fact they do not have the resources to compete on this level and won't for some time. Not because they are not trying to make it easy but because they don't have the time, money or staff to do so.

I didn't intend to put words in your mouth, but what you wrote was easilly interpreted that way. You stated that archlinux didn't want to get "bigger"... Well, how are you going to stop us other users rushing in from debian, mandrake and other major distros once we've discovered the beauty that is archlinux? By keeping a high learning threshold that keeps the trash who like GUIs out? Again not what you said, but without stating it any clearer it feels like a likely explanation. Personally I still hope that resources comes with a large userbase; the more that use it, the more can contribute.

Sure but you should know that there probably as many people that don't want pacman GUIified as there are that don't so kth5 has every right to express his desire for it to stay CLI. His voice represents choice and you and shadowhand wish to silence it or mock it.

I cannot speak for shadowhand, but I sure don't mock it. ("stop thinking for me" comes to mind) When I used mandrake I never used the GUI, but I used their CLI manager. The fact that I mentioned kth5 at all was because of a misinterpretation (as you can read in the previous notes) of his statement that seemed to say that he *only* wanted a CLI version and was directly opposed to anything else. Ofcourse he is entitled to his opinion, as are we all, but I have a hard time understanding people who are against things that won't affect them.

Whatever. Sure there is not telling if the GUIs designed for Arch will be bad but the experiences I had with other GUI distros is done to point out the weaknesses of GUIs. It is something that WILL happen in Arch too should they chooose to GUIfy it.

Ok, if you're sure, you're sure... nothing I say will change your mind. I just want to mention that lots of distributions have CLI interfaces for their package management (urpmi, apt, yum etc), many of which have had their times of instability and bugs, and still, someone thought that maybe a new CLI manager (pacman) might be better than the rest.

Dumbass. Obviously you have not read or searched much here. After some problems setting things up the way I wanted and getting used to the organization of the distro I started making and contributing packages. I didn't even have all of the nice docs that users have available to them now.
Within three months of using Arch I became a package maintainer. At one point I was maintaining over 400 packages. I quit after a year as it was becoming too stressful. I have always been one of the main contributors on this form.

True, I haven't read much here, I have only used archlinux for a week, and yet I have noticed that you are (at least was) a great contributor and is very respected on the forum and mailing list. However, that didn't have anything to do with my point. You were stating that you didn't want newbies around that couldn't handle if their graphical packagemanager broke down, since they would ask a lot of repeated questions. Well, some time in history I would guess that you too had to ask questions when the functionality in your OS broke down, right? Maybe by keeping these newbies out we're losing another person like you, someone that could, be it in five, six years, maintain 400 packages.

Listen, sarah31, I really have a great respect for what you're doing and your opinion... it is just that you phrase it very aggressively, just look at "dumbass", and maybe without having time to read the previous post thoroughly or state your own mind a little clearer.

Im not trying to spread any bad feelings, I'm just trying to follow a discussion I find interesting, please keep your notes civil as well.

Algol · 2005-01-21 17:59:03

phrakture, wow! If that's just three of your cents, I think they should use your coins to increase the value of the dollar.

shadowhand · 2005-01-21 18:39:39

sarah31: Why don't you want Arch to get bigger? Arch is a wonderful distro heading in more and more great directions all the time. I installed Arch for the first time in early 2004 and couldn't figure it out (I was coming from Knoppix and using point-click.) After using 2 source based distros (Lunar and Gentoo) I decided to give Arch another go, and I've been nothing but happy.

I never intended to "mock CLI users." I do a majority of my local administration in CLI, as I already stated, I choose GUI and CLI based on what's best for me, just as I think everyone does.

I honestly believe that Arch can be better than any of the "big 4" (Debian, RH flavors, SuSe, Mandrake) if it becomes possible to make Arch user friendly. However, I am completely against Arch itself doing this. Instead, I think the Arch developers should allow for the option (making a pacman lib for instance) and let the community build a user friendly meta. I never intended to suggest that Arch itself becomes GUI-fyied.

Also, calling users dumbasses doesn't really help anything. I've been careful to explain myself and so have you. Perhaps Algol wasn't as careful, but there are several ways to interpret what you said. I understand you have your idea of what Arch should be, and I have mine. I think it would be nice to allow for our ideas to co-exist.

phrakture: Thanks for jumping in. I also believe that there can be a pacman lib without effecting the CLI version of pacman.

Algol: Thanks for the responses. You said some of the things that I was thinking but not writing.

shadowhand · 2005-01-21 18:40:33

Oh, I also want to apologize if I've offended anyone. I didn't think this would become such a long winded discussion. :oops:

Arch Linux

#1 2005-01-20 09:28:51

GUI Arch Linux?

#2 2005-01-20 17:03:42

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#3 2005-01-20 17:50:29

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#4 2005-01-21 01:16:34

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#5 2005-01-21 02:15:11

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#6 2005-01-21 02:21:53

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#7 2005-01-21 03:12:29

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#8 2005-01-21 03:33:31

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#9 2005-01-21 03:35:42

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#10 2005-01-21 04:03:41

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#11 2005-01-21 04:16:43

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#12 2005-01-21 05:04:46

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#13 2005-01-21 07:04:39

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#14 2005-01-21 10:43:36

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#15 2005-01-21 12:30:44

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#16 2005-01-21 12:49:12

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#17 2005-01-21 13:22:14

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#18 2005-01-21 14:11:33

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#19 2005-01-21 16:29:57

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#20 2005-01-21 16:51:17

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#21 2005-01-21 17:31:23

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#22 2005-01-21 17:47:27

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#23 2005-01-21 17:59:03

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#24 2005-01-21 18:39:39

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

#25 2005-01-21 18:40:33

Re: GUI Arch Linux?

Board footer