You are not logged in.

#26 2003-01-12 22:47:24

scottro
Member
From: NYC
Registered: 2002-10-11
Posts: 452
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

Well, if I understand your point, (that is, if you're referring to developers seeing postings) I suspect that it will have a natural evolution.

As more people join, and posts increase, user X will see user Y's post, and have the answer.  In other words, it won't be as necessary that the head developers see the posts.

Also, as a user base increases, you'll get more and more newcomers--there will be more and more
questions that have already been answered 20 times, or that are simply answered with a little
research.  That's the nature of the beast.

BTW is anyone on this list going to Linux Expo in NYC?

Scott

Offline

#27 2003-01-13 14:19:02

dunbar
Member
From: Central New Hampshire USA
Registered: 2002-08-14
Posts: 106
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

Cooperative help is where Arch can grow.

No need for me or everyone to become one of the haxor l337 (as if).

As a forum member, whenever I see the same problems posted repeatedly, I can either answer it with a 'go thither' message (pointing to the thread with the answer), or, if issues are not yet resolved, I have some access to the top dawgs, which access is based on my demonstrated credibility.
Example: If I'm reading a post from wiggienewbie, this is wiggienewbie post #2 and the post is way off base, wiggienewbie has low demonstrated and low credibility, based on my familiarity with wiggienewbie, the subject matter and their quantity of posts. OTOH, if it is ody posting an answer to a question, he gets top dawg status for both demonstrated and credibility (subject matter determines whether I'll even read the post).

I know ody, I don't know wiggienewbie, so I might ignore wiggienewbie.
Standard forum ranking stuff, occurs everywhere.

The determination of who gets answered and who gets ignored is made by the reader.

(Heirarchy - thats the word.)

Same applies to PM: if I PM ody, reader ody will decide whether and how to answer based on the specifics of the matter, which specifics may include whether I have a demonstrated credibility problem.

Yes, in the future, a larger user base creates larger quantity of posts and a larger quantity of PMs, but we tend to rank these and delegate responses to the lower echelon, as scottro indicates.

Have no fear: we will grow and ranks will develop.

Offline

#28 2003-01-14 04:19:35

mordantly
Member
From: Westside - CenCAL
Registered: 2002-08-16
Posts: 83
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

hax0ring is bad. mmmk. dont hax0r. mmmk. that is a quite valid point... accept than the new kid in the crew doesnt have a fair (or stand a) chance nessecarily to speak and seek an answer do they?? i mean if u (joe blow member) is scannin the posts than u may or will skip that post as it will have been predomanently filed under 'bullshite' no??


try to be a man and some day, you'll understand   -ccr
oh dont u worry.. ill be eating ur balls fur lunch tomorrow.   -Hugh "HughMan" Stahl
MoRdAnTlY [Mr. Wolf '91 - '11]

Offline

#29 2003-01-14 05:47:55

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

actually technically hackers are not bad. it is crackers that are bad. hackers generally do what they do for interest and learning sake. they will not "attack" a "joe user" . nor are they out to wreak havok on the world.

crackers, on the other hand, are a cancer that needs to be cut out.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#30 2003-01-14 23:45:33

beniro
Member
From: St. Petersburg, FL, USA
Registered: 2002-12-31
Posts: 312

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

Hello.  I think I'm dunbar's "wiggienewbie".  smile

The best way to make Arch more popular would be to nurture an Arch Community as much as possible, I believe.  Display prominently all of the energy and optimism surrounding the project.  Possibly make an attempt to keep the front page a bit more updated, even if that means posting more minor news, like: "wrestling with a particularly tough problem in blah today.  i hope to have this ready by bleh."  People will see more recent news items and the project will seem to have more vitality.

Or whenever there is a new release, link directly from the news item on the front page to a forum thread discussing that release.  For instance, to the end of the news item on the release of .4, you could just tack on "Discuss this here".  It would help get more people talking on the forums.

Also, I think the front page could maybe be redesigned in such a way that it would "sell" Arch a bit better.  Maybe have a "Why Arch?" link or something to that effect.  Make that logo not necessarily bigger, but situate it in such a way that it calls the attention more effectively, because your logo gives a potential user something to grab onto, something immediate to identify with.  After all, even us nerds like purty pictures.  smile

Of course, I realize this takes even more man hours...  sad

Second most important issue for increasing Arch's popularity is to work on the documentation.  This will naturally start to come along as Arch nears version 1.0, I believe/think/hope.

All this being said, I think Arch will grow naturally, because quality products are always in demand...  big_smile

But there's no harm throwing a bit of fertilizer on the roots of this little community.  smile

Offline

#31 2003-01-15 00:25:30

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

yes very good points. points that i have not considered myself. i don't know what it would require man hours-wise but seems to me to be worthy of consideration.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#32 2003-03-01 12:18:02

xirus
Member
Registered: 2002-12-01
Posts: 113

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

to answer the initial question, besides maybe some polishing (jk's posts) I think the only thing that can possible keep people away from this distro is the lack of applications

this will be solved when arch becomes more and more popular ->
user x needs apps a, b, c and will ask for them or build them himself
user y needs apps a, d, e and will ask for them or build them himself
user z needs apps b, e, g and will ask for them or build them himself
this way more and more apps will be submitted (and we will need more package maintainers)

coming from gentoo, arch has a better installer, a better package system (that is: binary and not source based - I think pacman needs a lot of improvements but there's being worked on that), is easier to configure,...
There's no reason to stay with gentoo except for the apps smile

Offline

#33 2003-03-01 14:51:29

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

=X¥®µ§= wrote:

I think pacman needs a lot of improvements but there's being worked on that), is easier to configure,...
There's no reason to stay with gentoo except for the apps smile

just like to comment on these:

yes pacman needs some polishing but since you mentioned gentoo, i would say it is miles better than gentoo's emerge. though emerge works it still has security risks in it that make it quite easy accidenttaly foo bar your emerge. i always hear of it breaking. unmerging is a huge risk in gentoo much more so than pacman -R is.

okay gento has more apps but it is also an older distro than arch. it also has a horrendenously managed packagae tree. i understand the reason for masking, for example, but why even offer the package if you KNOW it is not stable? if only certain people should use a package why offer it? i gave up on gentoo not because they had a small package tree but because that package tree was horrible once i had my system in i felt cripple because alot of what installed was very unstable or down right broken. the other 50% was masked. it was a nightmare for two whole weeks.

finally not using any distro because it does not have what you need package wise is a bad excuse. with arch for example it is easy to make 90% of what you want. sadly only five or six peopl regularily make packages and they will only make what they need and as a result it does not mean as wide a set of packages as some may want, but arch allows the user to actively contribute not many distros will permit user contributions.

more maintainers. with what is in official, unofficial, and soon unstable we currently have enough maintainers. i stay ery busy with main taining and fair ly well ontop of package verions. I have not had much of a chance to add packages recently or build but those are only a small part of my job here.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#34 2003-03-01 16:43:26

xirus
Member
Registered: 2002-12-01
Posts: 113

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

Ok, I believe you when you say that pacman is better under the hood!
And you are correct, my gentoo system was highly unstable in the end, it crashed more than windows 98 did a couple years ago...

However I'm talking as an end user:
1) package groups so you don't have to install all kde apps manually but you just say: pacman -S kde and it installs them all (but I know that there is being worked on this or it's maybe already done)

2) a hierarchy of programs, like other distros do it
http://www.gentoo.org/dyn/pkgs/index.xml if you are searching for eg a webbrowser, you just go to net-www and there you have a lot of options. Or http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html or http://packages.debian.org/stable/ and so on.
ATM archlinux's system will do, because there are so little packages, but once you get a lot of them (and I'm truly confident that this will be true within a year) you can't see the trees through the wood anymore (to say it in a belgian expression). It's a lot cleaner to group packages!

3) I would like to see if a program belongs to unstable, current, stable or testing when I do a -Ss -> if it's in unstable I might not install it at all
And if you install program X wich has dependencies (wich are showed when you are asked if you are sure you will install the application) I would also like to see where these dependencies belong to

4) always having to use 2 chars instead of 1 as pacman options is not really user friendly and confusing to beginners... why not just use "pacman -s" to search for a package??

5) it takes very long for pacman to search for packages - I think this is caused by using the folder structure as opposed to putting all programs+description+dependencies in 1 file?

6) there were some other small things but I can't remember them atm sad


These are just my 2 cents wink
Don't misunderstand me sarah, I will continue to use arch instead of gentoo (because of the compile time, the unstability and all the advantages of archlinux) because I really believe it is better

However as you already said: arch is still very young so it IS normal that there are things that need to be polished. Every person is different so each user has his/her own complains or wishlist. The 5 points above are mine regarding pacman, what happens with them is up to the developers of course smile

<i>(I might not answer to a potential reply (that might correct me on some points) -> this is not because I'm rude but because I'm away for 10 days, so don't be offended if I don't answer your comments immediately wink)</i>

Offline

#35 2003-03-02 06:36:55

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

3) I would like to see if a program belongs to unstable, current, stable or testing when I do a -Ss -> if it's in unstable I might not install it at all
And if you install program X wich has dependencies (wich are showed when you are asked if you are sure you will install the application) I would also like to see where these dependencies belong to

something like this you mean :

sarah@ArchLinux:~/Arch/unofficial/network/wlan-ng> pacman -Ss mysql
current/mysql 3.23.55-2
    A fast SQL database server
unofficial/mysql4 4.0.10-1
    A fast SQL database server

sarah@ArchLinux:~/Arch/unofficial/network/wlan-ng> pacman -Ss mozilla
current/flashplugin 6.0r69-1
    Macromedia flash plugin for Netscape/Mozilla (nonfree)
current/mozilla 1.2.1-1
    The Mozilla Web Browser

you should notice that with the newest -pacman the search option is quicker---much quicker possibly more so than debians search. as for dependencies here are the rules conveyed to me by apeiro:

official/current packages will NOT have dependencies outside the official/current tree (ie if you install a ANY package from the official tree all of its dependencies will be from official too.

unofficial can have dependencies in official/current or unofficial but not in unstable.

unstable can have dependencies in all the trees.

2) a hierarchy of programs, like other distros do it
http://www.gentoo.org/dyn/pkgs/index.xml if you are searching for eg a webbrowser, you just go to net-www and there you have a lot of options. Or http://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html or http://packages.debian.org/stable/ and so on.
ATM archlinux's system will do, because there are so little packages, but once you get a lot of them (and I'm truly confident that this will be true within a year) you can't see the trees through the wood anymore (to say it in a belgian expression). It's a lot cleaner to group packages!

my own personal preference is not to have too many subroutines for a package search. while i understand it and appreciate such heirarchical organization i found that too many subdivisions is confusing when i was doing searches for debs back in the day i found that it was not so easy to go to foo directory in the heirarchy and be absolutely sure to find a specific app i was looking for. i prefer that such searches be saved for web site and arch already has a heirarchy that if ind is diveded up into catagories that are logical. they may be large in the end but having www-browsers, www-net, www-foo, www-bar, and so forth is getting just a little over the top. debian has less catagories in their hierarchy but still it can be hard to find what you are looking for.

i dunno it is a hard area to get setup so that the majority are pleased. while it is nice to have such features it I would not like such features to make the package manager slower or kludged up with options.

1) package groups so you don't have to install all kde apps manually but you just say: pacman -S kde and it installs them all (but I know that there is being worked on this or it's maybe already done)

task/meta/group packages are something that is a must i think BUT i disagree the ALL kde or gnome (for example) packages be installed. i would think that only those packages needed to run and manage the grouped package be installed and the "fluff" such as games or extraneous tools, etc be left as single, optional packages or their own separate groups. of course the option to install group packages ungrouped should remain as an option.

4) always having to use 2 chars instead of 1 as pacman options is not really user friendly and confusing to beginners... why not just use "pacman -s" to search for a package??

i agree but at the same time i don't think it is possible to have single options only. it is nice to have a small simple set of all lower case options but what happens when you want to do several options at once? well one option is to start having single letters perform what several letters do. that means one could potentially have 26 options for pacman. not entirely easy to remember but entirely possible that as pacman evovles to have this happen. what then happens if you need more than 26 options? well start using capitals i suppose. ....

i assume you see what i am getting at. it is nice to have single options but at the same time it is so much easier to remember eight options and just combine them in  series, like -Syu.

5) it takes very long for pacman to search for packages - I think this is caused by using the folder structure as opposed to putting all programs+description+dependencies in 1 file?

as mentioned earlier you should find the newest pacman much quicker at searches. as for your reasoning why pacman was slow at this function, i don't know absolutely, but i don't think that the folder arrangement is the culprit. think apeiro mentioned what was the culprit in a previous thread and i don't think the folder arrangement was what he mentioned.

the above answers are my opinions and by no means take them to mean that i don't think there is no room for improvement in pacman. i think there are things that can be done but they should be done with due consideration. i would hate to see an option added that ends out  stunting other established features. i would hope that even while the package tree grows that pacman will stay small simple and fast.

many of the features you mention would be very nice to have and i hope to see them added and pacman become the very best regarded package manger in linux. (which i think it is well on the way to becoming)


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#36 2003-03-04 12:43:15

dunbar
Member
From: Central New Hampshire USA
Registered: 2002-08-14
Posts: 106
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

Just reinstalled Arch 0.4 last night, and I discovered a feature of pacman which I have not seen elsewhere (well, not nearly as thorough).
#pacman --help
gives information regarding getting to the very next step.
Lets assume pacman -a, add packages.
#pacman -a --help
Pacman now explains options for pacman -a. Heirarchy in the help command! Exactly what I would have expected, yet rarely implemented.

Offline

#37 2003-03-05 12:17:25

bodgy
Member
Registered: 2003-03-04
Posts: 16

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

>  it is important to remember that Arch is a very young distro and is rapidly develping at this point. As fr as i am concerned it already is very close to being on par with Gentoo and actually surpasses Gentoo and other distros in many ways.  <

Gentoo - yeah tell me about it  roll

This distro has all the makings of becoming popular -  it just needs a few finer touches and then  word of mouth to spread.

I am new at the board - but I have been running AL for a couple weeks now - n even as it stands it surpasses many of the other distro's I have tried (n they have been numerous).

You already have a winner - now all you have to worry about is how good you want to look on the podium  wink

Offline

#38 2003-03-09 20:23:46

xirus
Member
Registered: 2002-12-01
Posts: 113

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

something like this you mean

yep, that's what I meant smile

it's indeed a lot faster now, I don't experience any delay anymore

task/meta/group packages are something that is a must i think BUT i disagree the ALL kde or gnome (for example) packages be installed. i would think that only those packages needed to run and manage the grouped package be installed and the "fluff" such as games or extraneous tools, etc be left as single, optional packages or their own separate groups. of course the option to install group packages ungrouped should remain as an option.

You are right, but on the other hand this doesn't make any sence... For example, kde only needs 2 packages to run things (kdebase and kdelibs). Why bother and do all the trouble for making groups, when it will only install these 2 packages?? Users still have to install all the other packages they want manually... I thought the whole point of these groups was to just install the whole kde/gnome/whatever package??

i agree but at the same time i don't think it is possible to have single options only. it is nice to have a small simple set of all lower case options but what happens when you want to do several options at once? well one option is to start having single letters perform what several letters do. that means one could potentially have 26 options for pacman. not entirely easy to remember but entirely possible that as pacman evovles to have this happen. what then happens if you need more than 26 options? well start using capitals i suppose. ....

Imho 26 options is more than pacman will ever need, but IF this would happen, just use the current system for the less used options... I use Ss, Syu and S 95% of the time... and I think most people do. I think it would make our lives a lot easier to leave the most used commands without the capital, so eg "pacman -s search", "pacman -u upgrade+refresh", "pacman -Ss also_search", "pacman -Syu also_upgrade+refresh"
Do you see what I mean? The current system remains intact, new options can always be added and it saves the end user time smile

Offline

#39 2003-03-09 20:35:48

Mork
Member
From: Visby, Sweden
Registered: 2003-03-09
Posts: 32

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

My first contact with Arch was yesterday.. Someone plugged it in a thread at osnews. I got curios and installed. So far (28 hours) it has been very good. Nice solid installer, smart package managment and beutiful initscripts (I was considering gentoo but their initscripts made my head hurt).. Oh, its fast as hell too (coming from crux I can't notice any difference)..

Arch will keep growing simply on it's merits. Of course growth will be faster with advertisment, putting a link in your signature and writing good stuff on forums might do wonders..


"Plurality should not be assumed without necessity" or "keep it simple"
            - William of Ockham (1285-1349)

Offline

#40 2003-03-09 21:33:59

Arielext
Member
From: Amersfoort, the Netherlands
Registered: 2002-08-12
Posts: 362
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

Welcome to the archlinux community!
hope you enjoy this distro


apt-get install arch

Offline

#41 2003-03-09 21:47:59

Mork
Member
From: Visby, Sweden
Registered: 2003-03-09
Posts: 32

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

.. seems I forgot to mention the nice community  big_smile Thanks!


"Plurality should not be assumed without necessity" or "keep it simple"
            - William of Ockham (1285-1349)

Offline

#42 2003-09-12 02:58:41

rasat
Forum Fellow
From: Finland, working in Romania
Registered: 2002-12-27
Posts: 2,176
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

Arch Linux has moved up on DistroWarch's hit list from 40 to 22. AL went up earlier but DW's counter doesn't seem to be stable. But now for few days Arch Linux is 22 and going up.

http://distrowatch.com/

Offline

#43 2003-09-12 04:34:03

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

hmmm i wonder how that happened it was mired in 40 + place for a long time while other distros  were jumping all over the place. i just dunno how the heck we are below some of those other distros. damnsmall linux? come on we are better than that  roll


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#44 2003-09-12 07:16:03

Mork II
Member
From: Visby, Sweden
Registered: 2003-05-14
Posts: 87

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

The distrowatch statistics largely depend on how much coverage you get on distrowatch (exept for the big guns who have a bit more momentum). If you release often you will get higer ranking. Arch shot up after the 0.5 release and the interview with Apiero. Now we are going down again (if you check page hits for the latest month, as opposed to the latest three, Arch is back to forty-something).
//Edit: Typos, lots of 'em//

Offline

#45 2003-09-12 17:44:58

marin_linuxer
Member
From: San Rafael, CA U.S.A.
Registered: 2003-09-03
Posts: 111
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

Hey Mork,

If you saw my 'anonymous' plug for Arch at OSNews in the 'OneBase' thread, then ... Howdy!  I'm glad I reached someone.  I'm sure OneBase will be another interesting addition to the distro-mosaic.  I'm just hooked on Arch now.

  tongue


-- Linux!  Isn't it time?

Offline

#46 2003-09-13 04:58:28

ladislav
Member
Registered: 2003-06-21
Posts: 8
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

hmmm i wonder how that happened it was mired in 40 + place for a long time while other distros were jumping all over the place.

The reason is simple - I have changed the default time span for the page hit statistics. I used to provide a simple table listing the average number of page hits per day over the past 52 weeks, but many people requested more options. So on the top of the table you get to choose your own time span - between the last 4 weeks to last 52 weeks, as well as cummulative ranking during the year 2002.

In other words, if you select the "Last 12 months" radio button and reload the page, you'll still see Arch somwhere around 40+, but it is a lot higher if you only include hits during the "Last 3 months" (with the new release, interview, etc). The 3-months default is more dynamic and therefore more exciting than the rather stale 12-months ranking. Most importantly, those who tend to complain about the lack of options can now shut up, because they have a choice :-)

I hope the above explains Arch's "jump" in ranking.

Offline

#47 2003-09-13 05:29:18

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Why isn't Arch more popular

ladislav wrote:

Most importantly, those who tend to complain about the lack of options can now shut up, because they have a choice :-)

lol. so true but now that you added this feature they will want more.

btw, thanks for helping us out with all the press around the last release. it did indeed help "sales" of arch. maybe we can get more press of our own out more often...once we have the people to do it.

as for the "rankings" to be honest i don't care where in the rankings we are because it really is not a reflection of how good or bad a distro is. all i care about is that we have users. users will determine just how long any distros staying power is. crowds may come and go but if you get a good solid base of users then that should ensure a distro's staying power.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB