Arch and business

Benedict_White · 2005-01-27 14:51:59

I have been reading some threads around, (I must say I much prefer a news server to a message board, if any one is interested I will set one up)

It seems there have been various discussions about Arch, the way forward etc, and if it could or should be used in business or on mass.

Well, it is being used in business, by me definatly, and not as a hobbiyist distro either, but because it is easy to setup, manage and keep up to date. If I want to make my own private packages I want to keep to myself I can. (Can't see why I would exect for very custom tweaked ones, like a kernel that needs special configs for hardware)

It seems to me that Arch can be all things to most people which is very very good. Most of my Arch boxes do not run a gui mind. Only the laptop I pulled from a skip that I let my kids use has kde on it.

It may be worth while though considering how custom repositories are handled. I see no reason why people can't make their own versions of base (to include nano out of the box) etc. Also to have their versions of current extra etc that match the needs of their target audience. Not a fork, just a custom version. That is one of the outstanding things about Arch is that this is easy to do. So if postfix is mission critical the version in the custom repository is super tested etc.

If groupware is required, well a custom version of that can be there also.

Just my 2p worth.

Haakon · 2005-01-27 15:53:20

Benedict_White wrote:

I have been reading some threads around, (I must say I much prefer a news server to a message board, if any one is interested I will set one up)

I am very much interested. Web fora sucks monkey balls. I don't know why so many people (even power Linux users like Archers) so willingly throw away the excellent NNTP technology which have worked so fine for so many decades If your news server can peer with this forum, that would be kick-ass. Otherwise, I'm afraid it would be little used, unfortunately.

A good alternative is to use gmane. The Arch mailing lists are available as groups gmane.linux.arch.*. I usually subscribe to the lists I want to post to, but change my settings so that no messages are actually sent to me. That way, I can post and read through gmane nicely.

sarah31 · 2005-01-27 17:02:16

Benedict_White wrote:

It may be worth while though considering how custom repositories are handled. I see no reason why people can't make their own versions of base (to include nano out of the box) etc. Also to have their versions of current extra etc that match the needs of their target audience. Not a fork, just a custom version. That is one of the outstanding things about Arch is that this is easy to do. So if postfix is mission critical the version in the custom repository is super tested etc.

Are you saying that Arch should have some customized repos? That is what I am reading. I thiink it is a good idea but the problem is staffing to maintain such repos in an official capacity.

Benedict_White · 2005-01-27 17:12:26

sarah31 wrote:

Are you saying that Arch should have some customized repos? That is what I am reading. I thiink it is a good idea but the problem is staffing to maintain such repos in an official capacity.

No, I am saying that if I want one, i can do it very easily, and point the affected machines to there exclusively and not use the official repros.

That is what I like about Arch.

I do think now that when the libised pacman is out, it would be good to have both CLI and GUI pacman. (As long as the CLI does not suffer).

sarah31 · 2005-01-27 17:19:54

Ah. Okay I kinda thought that you were saying this but I just wanted to know for sure.

Super post! Pretty much nails what I think of Arch.

apeiro · 2005-01-28 01:37:44

Benedict_White wrote:

It may be worth while though considering how custom repositories are handled. I see no reason why people can't make their own versions of base (to include nano out of the box) etc. Also to have their versions of current extra etc that match the needs of their target audience. Not a fork, just a custom version. That is one of the outstanding things about Arch is that this is easy to do. So if postfix is mission critical the version in the custom repository is super tested etc.

No, a custom repository is quite easy to do with Arch. Perhaps what's missing is a handy tool that can watch for updated packages coming in from an abs sync, then copy the updated build files (PKGBUILD, scriptlets, config files, etc) over to the proper location in the custom repository's build tree and notify the administrator that an update was found, so s/he can rebuild the package if they so choose.

This could be done in a little bash script without much trouble.

Or even better, the tool could merge the customizations automatically/interactively as well.

/me stops thinking aloud.

Xentac · 2005-01-30 22:30:41

apeiro wrote:

Benedict_White wrote:
It may be worth while though considering how custom repositories are handled. I see no reason why people can't make their own versions of base (to include nano out of the box) etc. Also to have their versions of current extra etc that match the needs of their target audience. Not a fork, just a custom version. That is one of the outstanding things about Arch is that this is easy to do. So if postfix is mission critical the version in the custom repository is super tested etc.
No, a custom repository is quite easy to do with Arch. Perhaps what's missing is a handy tool that can watch for updated packages coming in from an abs sync, then copy the updated build files (PKGBUILD, scriptlets, config files, etc) over to the proper location in the custom repository's build tree and notify the administrator that an update was found, so s/he can rebuild the package if they so choose.
This could be done in a little bash script without much trouble.
Or even better, the tool could merge the customizations automatically/interactively as well.

/me stops thinking aloud.

Ooooo! Ooooo! You just described srcpac. Except without the repo creation support. But detecting and building with custom changes is exactly what srcpac is for. A simple extension would make it work well to create custom repos like that.

cactus · 2005-01-31 00:33:07

/me wishes he knew how to use srcpac.

Xentac · 2005-01-31 02:34:18

cactus wrote:

/me wishes he knew how to use srcpac.

How about this then? I teach you how to use srcpac and you write a web page/man page for it?

cactus · 2005-01-31 04:01:43

sounds good Xentac.
8)

xerxes2 · 2005-01-31 15:41:37

didn't I post a draft for a manpage some time ago, try and search for it, might save you some time,

it would be cool if libpacman could do this natively instead of using a hack like srcpac,

xerxes2 · 2005-01-31 15:43:28

didn't I post a draft for a manpage some time ago, try and search for it, might save you some time,

it would be cool if libpacman could do this natively instead of using a hack like srcpac, maybe Xentac should "help out a little" with it, could get the development pace up hopefully,

ravster · 2005-02-01 02:52:40

xerxes2 wrote:

maybe Xentac should "help out a little" with it, could get the development pace up hopefully,

LOL This reminds me of a thread that was on the mailing list, when someone asked how the arch development process was, and someone else said that people keep asking for a feature, and finally Xentac saves us all from the depths of hell by coding something up.

Sorry, didn't mean to go off-topic
/me slinks away

Xentac · 2005-02-01 05:43:36

xerxes2 wrote:

didn't I post a draft for a manpage some time ago, try and search for it, might save you some time,
it would be cool if libpacman could do this natively instead of using a hack like srcpac, maybe Xentac should "help out a little" with it, could get the development pace up hopefully,

It makes me wonder what makes you all think I live in a time sync or something. "Oh, we have something to do, let's get Xentac to do it!" With pacbuild, srcpac, namcap, tur/aur, and other side projects... plus karate and work I'm running out of hours in a week.

LavaPunk · 2005-02-01 06:14:29

I heard they were making a longer week just for you Xentac.

sarah31 · 2005-02-01 09:18:36

Xentac wrote:

It makes me wonder what makes you all think I live in a time sync or something. "Oh, we have something to do, let's get Xentac to do it!" With pacbuild, srcpac, namcap, tur/aur, and other side projects... plus karate and work I'm running out of hours in a week.

Nah they just know that if they procratinate and whine then you will get fed up and do it. If you don't have enough time for all your computer projects that is your own problem really. Sometimes you just have to say no to some of your urges to do everything.

cactus · 2005-02-01 09:37:14

sarah31 wrote:

Sometimes you just have to say no to some of your urges to do everything.

Blasphemer!
My project laundry list is of considerable size too. Not enough time, too many cools things to do..

I am taking a good step forward today though. I nuked my gaming hardrive.
*watches it burn*
Mayhaps less gaming will yeild greater productivity. Besides, there are better things to do with my free time than play video games. I am not 25 anymore.
:cry:
Heh. Damn this growing old.
*shakes fist*

phrakture · 2005-02-01 19:42:35

cactus wrote:

I am taking a good step forward today though. I nuked my gaming hardrive.
*watches it burn*
Mayhaps less gaming will yeild greater productivity. Besides, there are better things to do with my free time than play video games. I am not 25 anymore.
:cry:
Heh. Damn this growing old.
*shakes fist*

I almost did that... the only game I still have left is Warcraft III...

yeah I have all these wondeful ideas for little projects... not much effort involved in any of them, I just don't have time to do anything... sigh

Arch Linux

#1 2005-01-27 14:51:59

Arch and business

#2 2005-01-27 15:53:20

Re: Arch and business

#3 2005-01-27 17:02:16

Re: Arch and business

#4 2005-01-27 17:12:26

Re: Arch and business

#5 2005-01-27 17:19:54

Re: Arch and business

#6 2005-01-28 01:37:44

Re: Arch and business

#7 2005-01-30 22:30:41

Re: Arch and business

#8 2005-01-31 00:33:07

Re: Arch and business

#9 2005-01-31 02:34:18

Re: Arch and business

#10 2005-01-31 04:01:43

Re: Arch and business

#11 2005-01-31 15:41:37

Re: Arch and business

#12 2005-01-31 15:43:28

Re: Arch and business

#13 2005-02-01 02:52:40

Re: Arch and business

#14 2005-02-01 05:43:36

Re: Arch and business

#15 2005-02-01 06:14:29

Re: Arch and business

#16 2005-02-01 09:18:36

Re: Arch and business

#17 2005-02-01 09:37:14

Re: Arch and business

#18 2005-02-01 19:42:35

Re: Arch and business

Board footer