What it mean to be cutting edge?

ioky · 2010-04-14 08:50:42

Have been an Arch Fan for long long time. However, I didn't use Arch as long as have in love with it. the reason why is....

It is too cutting edge. And because of this fact. I think I am about to leaven Arch once again soon....

It is heart broken statement. but it seems very likely to happen. but why....?

It is because of GNOME 3.0. as far as it goes. GNOME SHELL is a super annoying interface. You know with that zoom in and out and in and out effect. and that poorly designed clock at the dead center, which you can't do anything about it. Not to mention that add/ delete Desktop feature. Wow you can add up to 1073 desktop. OK? what are you going to do with all this? little good option makes a huge deal. Most people wouldn't agree with me at this point. because it looks "impressive" but I think eventually they will agree with me. if they really care about work flow, and actually reasonable graphic design (by not mean about "cool" eye candy. but layout, and transition)

I know what the GNOME team is doing can't control by Arch, but by it very arch philosophy. they will eventually use GNOME 3.0 and kick out Gnome 2.30. Just like they did with KDE when KDE 4 come out. They drop KDE 3.5 way before KDE 4 is actually usable. So my question is is really Cutting the edge that important to Arch. perhaps what is really mean be to cutting edge? Is it just because the number is higher or is it the really edge cut break through of a software that actually count. In the case GNOME. GNOME 2.30 is totally a difference interface with GNOME 3.0. They are simply not the same thing. Well, they developed by the same team. But it doesn't seem GNOME3 is more advance then GNOME 2.x. In fact, In a way. GNOME 2.x is more advance than GNOME3.0. (you don't have to agree with me) So if some "release" is more or less is just like a Beta. Why so Arch actually use it as primary package? After all it is ok be to there, but why it has to kick out the old one?

Arch is so wise, to come out with it's great philosophy, but after that, people just following it blindly. I am totally no problem with Arch Linux, except be it being too cutting edge. And just all these latest package even when they are known have problems. Of course, it only happen once for a while, but sometime, it happen to that one thing people really love to have in their box.

In conclusion, the question is simple. Is the cutting edge philosophy it out important anything, like the general quality of the distro. Even so. as I mention above, than what is it actual meaning of cutting edge? Just some personal option about Arch Linux. and Just tell some problem I have encounter in Arch. I know I know, there are like million way to go around things. which is good thing about the Linux world, but that is not points. and I know some of the point I am making seems a bit too early. But problems happen once, and might happen again.

Thanks all the Develop and users' support on Arch Linux.

Allan · 2010-04-14 09:06:52

Yay for people who complain about software that is six months from release. That "poorly designed clock at the dead center" may not even be there when the actual release is made.

We package the latest stable release and upstream is the ones who make that declaration. And the statement "even when they are known [to] have problems" is just plain wrong.... Take boost for example, which is not the latest version due to issues it has.

So you do not like GNOME shell. Are you sure that you can not run the next GNOME release without GNOME shell installed? I would be surprised if you could not. If it has to be running, install something else. XFCE is basically GNOME without the crap, so that would probably suit.

For every person that complains about packages being "too new", there are others who like it. I'd say move on somewhere else if Arch is not for you, but give it a few months afterwards and all major distros will start using GNOME shell in their GNOME desktop. So your basically doomed to live life as an unsatisfied GNOME user.

fabertawe · 2010-04-14 09:31:18

Allan wrote:

So your basically doomed to live life as an unsatisfied GNOME user.

Hasn't that always been the case? (Yes, I use Gnome).

Edit: Oops, I mean GNOME.

Last edited by fabertawe (2010-04-14 09:32:05)

axel668 · 2010-04-14 09:38:24

1st thing, what version of Arch are you running ?
Arch currently includes Gnome 2.30 (http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=gnome-desktop), which is the latest stable release.

Besides, if you don't like what Gnome has become (or will become with the 3.0 release), you can always use XFCE, or you can install a release- based distro like Debian stable and dig yourself in on the last version that you liked (at least if your hardware is still supported with it).

But don't say that Arch is too cutting edge - Arch includes only releases marked as stable by the developers (Gnome developers in this case) and they are addionally tested before including them in the main repositories. This is NOT too cutting edge, but just right, and I like my Arch this way !!!

wonder · 2010-04-14 10:00:01

@ioky you are not well documented about gnome 3. gnome-panel will exist even after gnome-shell.

Allan · 2010-04-14 10:12:59

wonder wrote:

gnome-panel will exist even after gnome-shell.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise

JezdziecBezNicka · 2010-04-14 11:47:08

Other distros will adapt to gnome 3 almost as fast as Arch.

Ubuntu's releases are scheduled right after Gnome's, so using Ubuntu, you would also be 'doomed' to gnome3. Same goes for Fedora, openSuSe etc.

EDIT: I am looking forward to gnome-shell. If I don't like it, I can always dump gnome and pick up kde or xfce. This has nothing to do with being cutting edge!

Last edited by JezdziecBezNicka (2010-04-14 11:50:18)

ngoonee · 2010-04-14 15:48:39

axel668 wrote:

1st thing, what version of Arch are you running ?

Just for clarification, Arch doesn't HAVE versions....

anonymous_user · 2010-04-14 17:25:48

Like Allan has said, Arch Linux uses the latest stable versions of software as defined by the developer.

Complain to the software developers (e.g. GNOME) if you don't agree that their "stable" releases are actually stable.

Last edited by anonymous_user (2010-04-14 22:24:44)

Anikom15 · 2010-04-14 22:07:34

The choices of the developer is not Arch's concern.

If a "stable" release runs and doesn't interfere with how other programs work, it's updated.

lasu1 · 2010-04-14 23:17:41

Hmm....I understand the concern about being upset that you have to upgrade to Gnome 3.0 (whenever that will be). But, you have options -- you can just install another WM if you want. If Arch kept Gnome 2.30 then the maintainers would be required to maintain two versions of Gnome, and all the requisite dependencies/packages/etc for 1.) whatever version you want to keep, and 2.) the current version. I think this would have the unfortunate side affect of entering Arch Linux into the "Desktop Environment" business, rather than the "distrobution" business.

It's unfortunate, but if you're happy with your system "AS-IS" and don't want to upgrade, then you could try that - not upgrading. In my case, though, upgrading has tended to always bring advantages (stability/swiftness/bugs get ironed out, etc.)

Have you tried XFCE? or other wms?

Anikom15 · 2010-04-15 00:07:51

^distribution

chilebiker · 2010-04-15 01:27:36

/etc/pacman.conf: IgnoreGroup = gnome

flamelab · 2010-04-15 01:30:57

ioky wrote:

Just like they did with KDE when KDE 4 come out. They drop KDE 3.5 way before KDE 4 is actually usable.
.

Just a clarification: They didn't do that. They NEVER released KDE 4.0 on Arch, but KDE 4.1 (many months later), which was usable. KDE 4.0 was far away from usable.

Arch stayed with KDE 3 till it's last version (3.5.10).

lasu1 · 2010-04-15 01:34:08

Anikom15 wrote:

^distribution

Ermm....good catch :-) I see "distro" so much that the -o spelling has melded my mind to always write "distrobution" rather than "distribution." Heh.

FallenWizard · 2010-04-15 02:06:15

.. somehow I think we will never see ioky again.

ioky · 2010-04-15 02:11:11

sorry, if i sounded spot light some software and by no mean I am saying Arch is bad, or it shouldn't be the way as it is. And I am not really so noob to Arch. In this post, I just use GNOME as example to point out some issue and corner I have face when I use Arch. And this is NOT a Complain. Though in some degree it might sounds like one, sense everyone take negative comment as complain for some reason. But as Arch supporter, I think at some point, when you see something could goes wrong. I think I should point it out, and listen to people how they think about this problem.

Of course, I have like an million Option. It is Linux. And Yes, I did try almost all the Desktop and WM I can ever come across. I even use a pure CLI environment for like about a month to take idea from, in order to come up with some idea and learn some knowledge from in order to better customize my desktop to improve the work flow. And One of the biggest problem I find on many Software is that they try to all difference way to gain user land, and giving out all these "CANDY" . Yes, at the end they do gain some new User. but at the same time. They are losing their OLD user "long time supporter" because the actually useful feature is gone, or some virtue the software hold for years is not long there.

That is why the title of the thread is call "What it mean to be cutting edge?" Is it the "latest" and "stable" release is cutting edge. or the one who is most advanced as cutting edge? or it means something else. I mean things can be stable but not useful. and thing can be not stable, but the developer just call it finally release. Cutting Edge is great, we all love Cutting edge, But how Arch Linux actually define the Cutting Edge. and how Arch user think what Cutting Edge mean? It is great that it is follow a good set of philosophy, but I think sometime blindly following a good set of philosophy can also be very irrational.

I feel like the quality of Arch is kind of heavily depended on the quality of the software it actually pick up. If software, is under a major shift, and they didn't do a really good job. And Arch pick it up, It will just add weight to the distro.

Once again, I am sorry for the misleading. and hopeful I have got my point strength.

Last edited by ioky (2010-04-15 02:15:18)

ngoonee · 2010-04-15 02:15:21

Unfortunately due to your command of English (this isn't your fault, you're obviously using it as a second or third language) its tough to get what you really mean. From what I understand, you propose that 'cutting edge' should mean 'stable' and 'useful' instead of just being 'latest release developer has made'.

I disagree, simply because it is not Arch's job to mess around with the developer's choices.

pseudonomous · 2010-04-15 04:27:25

ioky wrote:

"What it mean to be cutting edge?" Is it the "latest" and "stable" release is cutting edge. or the one who is most advanced as cutting edge? or it means something else. I mean things can be stable but not useful. and thing can be not stable, but the developer just call it finally release. Cutting Edge is great, we all love Cutting edge, But how Arch Linux actually define the Cutting Edge. and how Arch user think what Cutting Edge mean? It is great that it is follow a good set of philosophy, but I think sometime blindly following a good set of philosophy can also be very irrational.

It's not so much "blindly following a good set of philosophy" as it is pragmatic, it's usually a lot more work to maintain a legacy branch than following the current upstream "stable" release. You can't just let the software packages sit there, eventually they will have to be rebuilt to be compatible with new system libraries that have to be updated for use in other programs, eventually the programs won't compile without patching the source; also non-core GNOME applications that you might want to use may only work with newer GNOME libraries unless you backport APIs / features into the old libraries. And bugs will never be fixed unless the maintainers do it. That's a lot of work. I mean, a project with a lot of manpower like Ubuntu or Debian might try and do something like this, but there's not enough manpower amongst the arch devs and TUs, nor I suspect enough desire, to do this sort of thing.

So Arch keeps it simple and just ships the newest upstream "Stable Release" as long as there aren't any big obvious problems with the packages. Side benefit: the developers don't have to decide which version of the software is "most advanced"; which is often entirely a matter of opinion. (KDE 3.5.x still has some features lacking in the KDE 4.x.x series ... but there are a lot of new features in KDE 4.x.x that were never present in 3.5.x ... so which series is more "advanced"? <- not so easy question to answer)

The really elegant thing about the Arch philosophy is that it emphasizes pragmatism, therefore following the philosophy is pragmatic.

Acecero · 2010-04-15 05:40:40

If there is enough dissatisfied GNOME 3 users by the time it's released, I'm pretty sure somebody would likely create a custom repo dedicated to maintaining GNOME 2 with the latest libraries and package updates for the whole community to keep up with.

Also, keep in mind, you can't speak for everyone in community, when you say "people just following it blindly," because not everyone sees and perceives the philosophy the same way. Just as everyone here doesn't use GNOME or same software as you do, doesn't mean you can judge for others as 'irrational' for following it. It's likely the case that you don't like rolling release nature, due to the fact you are attracted enough to specific version of a package, to not want to change and therefore as suggested before, Arch may not be for you (anymore).

There is a reason why I like the Arch philosophy, it's very flexible. There are ways to adapt to different situations and you are never totally screwed out of a problem.

Since it hasn't even been released yet, give GNOME 3 more time, because who knows, you may eventually come to like it's work-flow more than GNOME 2, as you adjust to it over time.

mento · 2010-04-15 09:44:45

So the general problem is, that if the developers won't officially support the older (main) version, arch won't do it as well?
Only packaging the latest stable release is not cutting edge, it's due to the KISS philosophy resulting in a quite cutting edge condition. That's why unsupported software should be maintained unofficially (I won't write community, sounds for me like there are devs/TU/etc. and on the other hand the community). If you or anybody else won't do it, nobody will. If the software is really important it would be time to leave arch.

About GNOME 3, in six months a lot of improvement is possible, even they are half as fast as the KDE guys.

Last edited by mento (2010-04-15 09:46:15)

cesura · 2010-04-15 21:34:25

You don't like GNOME 3? Guess what! Downgrade

timetrap · 2010-04-16 01:34:27

You're only delaying the inevitable. You'll be running all over trying to find an "up-to-date" version of GNOME 2.XX, this is probably a huge waste of time IMO.

Gusar · 2010-04-16 09:23:15

If you or anybody else won't do it, nobody will. If the software is really important it would be time to leave arch.

If it's important to people, a group will form to do it. It was important to people to have a split KDE, and so kdemod came into existence. However, if no one will maintain an old Gnome in Arch, then yeah leaving Arch is an obvious choice. Or you'll move to another environment. For example I was a KDE3 user, but I don't like KDE4, so I've searched for replacements of the KDE3 apps I was using and have moved to an environment with DE-independent apps.

Hirager · 2010-04-28 11:07:20

I read this topic just out of curiosity and I am totally puzzled. Only one unnoticed person pointed out, that GNOME 3 will maintain also "old look". GNOME 3 will do bring new interface, "gnome-shell", but for those loving traditional layout there will be option left to stay with "gnome-panels" interface. Rejoice! Having learned on KDE mistakes GNOME devs will leave two paths to follow. Probably "gnome-panels" won't get new interface additions as it does now, but it will still receive full support for software and libraries.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-04-14 08:50:42

What it mean to be cutting edge?

#2 2010-04-14 09:06:52

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#3 2010-04-14 09:31:18

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#4 2010-04-14 09:38:24

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#5 2010-04-14 10:00:01

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#6 2010-04-14 10:12:59

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#7 2010-04-14 11:47:08

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#8 2010-04-14 15:48:39

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#9 2010-04-14 17:25:48

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#10 2010-04-14 22:07:34

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#11 2010-04-14 23:17:41

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#12 2010-04-15 00:07:51

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#13 2010-04-15 01:27:36

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#14 2010-04-15 01:30:57

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#15 2010-04-15 01:34:08

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#16 2010-04-15 02:06:15

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#17 2010-04-15 02:11:11

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#18 2010-04-15 02:15:21

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#19 2010-04-15 04:27:25

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#20 2010-04-15 05:40:40

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#21 2010-04-15 09:44:45

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#22 2010-04-15 21:34:25

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#23 2010-04-16 01:34:27

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#24 2010-04-16 09:23:15

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

#25 2010-04-28 11:07:20

Re: What it mean to be cutting edge?

Board footer