What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

rsantiba · 2010-06-30 15:52:58

I agree about the explanation of Xyne. A couple of examples: ArchEnemy, ArchAngel...

Regards

akephalos · 2010-06-30 16:01:33

Misfit138 wrote:

One thing this has led me to is a higher appreciation for the Arch forums; One of the unique aspects of this place is that fanboyism is frowned upon across the board for the most part. In my observation, Archers are more inclined to give ear to a logical and persuasive argument and tend to value facts and truth above conjecture, FUD, misplaced dogma and credulity.

This was my thought as well, after Xyne explained himself about the understanding of "fanboy". I think that Arch tends to attract users who know what they want and why because of its peculiarities. In general people look and ask for "the best" without knowing exactly what this "best" is.

Awebb · 2010-06-30 20:42:12

rson451 wrote:

Awebb wrote:
Xyne wrote:
"I'm 1337 because I use Arch"
I use Arch because I'm 1337
Incorrect. Arch is 1337 because I use it.

Please start using windows now. This might be the only hope

dunc · 2010-07-01 22:18:59

2. Mischievous; roguish: an arch glance.

Everyone seems to be taking this as a bad thing. I'm not sure it has to be. There is something a bit "roguish" about Arch: we don't do things the way everyone else does, and Arch isn't for everybody.

Still, I always took it to be closer to the first definition, even before I first installed it: the ultimate, principal, pure Linux. (But let's not start the Slackware argument up again. )

barzam · 2010-07-06 18:01:08

rent0n wrote:

As you probably studied in history of art at your high school, the arch is a very simple architectural structure, but still very solid, resistant and durable. Like Arch Linux. Moreover, you can build several different sort of things upon an arch (or upon Arch Linux).
So, I always thought that this was the main reason for having Arch in the name. But I might be wrong. I would be curious to hear what Arch developers say about this.

Exactly what I always thought about the name. A solid simple structure that just works.

valium97582 · 2010-07-07 11:43:52

I always thought the Arch logo was the Eiffel Tower... France is 1337! LOL

whacath · 2010-07-07 15:11:07

arch(english)=båge(swedish)=båglinux(swedish)=scamlinux(english)

Cr0k · 2010-07-07 17:35:53

[off] It make me think about Arch Enemy[/off]

Don't know why Arch, but it's pretty

Acecero · 2010-07-09 03:49:33

dunc wrote:

Everyone seems to be taking this as a bad thing. I'm not sure it has to be. There is something a bit "roguish" about Arch: we don't do things the way everyone else does, and Arch isn't for everybody.

I can see what you mean, but that is a vague example. I can say that about every other distro. Each distro has their own quirks to handling software, may it be big or small differences. You might as well say that each is roguish to their own extent, because they are there to feed a need for their own. Those distros are not for us, because we are Archers, and we "always come back" whenever we look at another distro. How about that for food for thought?

cesura · 2010-07-09 05:05:43

Does that answer your question?

tlaloc · 2010-07-09 08:48:53

Minneapolis, I persume?

cesura · 2010-07-09 16:27:42

tlaloc wrote:

Minneapolis, I persume?

St. Louis actually

Misfit138 · 2010-07-09 17:08:18

Acecero wrote:

dunc wrote:
Everyone seems to be taking this as a bad thing. I'm not sure it has to be. There is something a bit "roguish" about Arch: we don't do things the way everyone else does, and Arch isn't for everybody.
I can see what you mean, but that is a vague example. I can say that about every other distro. Each distro has their own quirks to handling software, may it be big or small differences. You might as well say that each is roguish to their own extent, because they are there to feed a need for their own. Those distros are not for us, because we are Archers, and we "always come back" whenever we look at another distro. How about that for food for thought?

I understand your point, but I think a major difference between Arch and many other distros is the fact that Arch does not claim or attempt to be 'for everyone' as they do. i.e.: Debian (the universal OS) Ubuntu (humanity toward everyone)
SUSE and PCLinuxOS, etc.
Arch is unapologetically different, lending to a perceived 'roguishness'.

Acecero · 2010-07-09 19:22:50

Misfit138 wrote:

Acecero wrote:
dunc wrote:
Everyone seems to be taking this as a bad thing. I'm not sure it has to be. There is something a bit "roguish" about Arch: we don't do things the way everyone else does, and Arch isn't for everybody.
I can see what you mean, but that is a vague example. I can say that about every other distro. Each distro has their own quirks to handling software, may it be big or small differences. You might as well say that each is roguish to their own extent, because they are there to feed a need for their own. Those distros are not for us, because we are Archers, and we "always come back" whenever we look at another distro. How about that for food for thought?
I understand your point, but I think a major difference between Arch and many other distros is the fact that Arch does not claim or attempt to be 'for everyone' as they do. i.e.: Debian (the universal OS) Ubuntu (humanity toward everyone)
SUSE and PCLinuxOS, etc.
Arch is unapologetically different, lending to a perceived 'roguishness'.

What about other distros that follow a perceived 'roguishness,' like Gentoo and LFS?

tavianator · 2010-07-09 20:28:01

Acecero wrote:

What about other distros that follow a perceived 'roguishness,' like Gentoo and LFS?

They are also roguish...? No one claims that Arch is the only distro that's different from Ubuntu. We just spend less time compiling .

Misfit138 · 2010-07-10 00:37:44

Acecero wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
Acecero wrote:
I can see what you mean, but that is a vague example. I can say that about every other distro. Each distro has their own quirks to handling software, may it be big or small differences. You might as well say that each is roguish to their own extent, because they are there to feed a need for their own. Those distros are not for us, because we are Archers, and we "always come back" whenever we look at another distro. How about that for food for thought?
I understand your point, but I think a major difference between Arch and many other distros is the fact that Arch does not claim or attempt to be 'for everyone' as they do. i.e.: Debian (the universal OS) Ubuntu (humanity toward everyone)
SUSE and PCLinuxOS, etc.
Arch is unapologetically different, lending to a perceived 'roguishness'.
What about other distros that follow a perceived 'roguishness,' like Gentoo and LFS?

Yes. I used the term 'many other distros' quite specifically. My feeling is that Gentoo and LFS are similar in spirit to Arch, yet Arch seems to be gaining popularity..further enhancing its roguishness. ;)

Acecero · 2010-07-10 01:08:45

tavianator wrote:

Acecero wrote:
What about other distros that follow a perceived 'roguishness,' like Gentoo and LFS?
They are also roguish...? No one claims that Arch is the only distro that's different from Ubuntu. We just spend less time compiling .

I was not referring to the compiling. What I was trying to get was what was made a distro roguish? My idea of Arch being 'perceived roguish,' is because it's not based off any distro, it has it's own package management system, it's own ideology, and a different approach to managing the system that's not 'commonly' found in most distros. I thought Gentoo and LFS had a similar background to being different from the rest.

Earlier I was trying to take a jab at how distros like Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora, etc, were similar to hold the hands of users, but 'roguish' in there own ideology. I guess the differences are considered minuscule enough, that it doesn't matter much.

Misfit138 wrote:

Acecero wrote:
Misfit138 wrote:
I understand your point, but I think a major difference between Arch and many other distros is the fact that Arch does not claim or attempt to be 'for everyone' as they do. i.e.: Debian (the universal OS) Ubuntu (humanity toward everyone)
SUSE and PCLinuxOS, etc.
Arch is unapologetically different, lending to a perceived 'roguishness'.
What about other distros that follow a perceived 'roguishness,' like Gentoo and LFS?
Yes. I used the term 'many other distros' quite specifically. My feeling is that Gentoo and LFS are similar in spirit to Arch, yet Arch seems to be gaining popularity..further enhancing its roguishness.

Hmm, let me see if I interpreted that correctly. Increased Popularity + Enhancing Roguishness = The Best!

ngoonee · 2010-07-10 04:06:13

Acecero wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
Acecero wrote:
What about other distros that follow a perceived 'roguishness,' like Gentoo and LFS?
Yes. I used the term 'many other distros' quite specifically. My feeling is that Gentoo and LFS are similar in spirit to Arch, yet Arch seems to be gaining popularity..further enhancing its roguishness.
Hmm, let me see if I interpreted that correctly. Increased Popularity + Enhancing Roguishness = The Best!

No, no, no, a thousand times No! Increased popularity makes us the establishment, we should resist it at all costs!

*goes off to plant rumours of Arch mirrors being regularly compromised by bot-nets*

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080608

Bruce Lee JR · 2010-07-19 01:47:58

It's obviously Star Trek influence.

Arch Linux

#26 2010-06-30 15:52:58

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#27 2010-06-30 16:01:33

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#28 2010-06-30 20:42:12

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#29 2010-07-01 22:18:59

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#30 2010-07-06 18:01:08

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#31 2010-07-07 11:43:52

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#32 2010-07-07 15:11:07

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#33 2010-07-07 17:35:53

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#34 2010-07-09 03:49:33

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#35 2010-07-09 05:05:43

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#36 2010-07-09 08:48:53

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#37 2010-07-09 16:27:42

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#38 2010-07-09 17:08:18

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#39 2010-07-09 19:22:50

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#40 2010-07-09 20:28:01

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#41 2010-07-10 00:37:44

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#42 2010-07-10 01:08:45

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#43 2010-07-10 04:06:13

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

#44 2010-07-19 01:47:58

Re: What is the significance of the "Arch" in Arch Linux?

Board footer