Talk:Arch Linux/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pacman (Arch Linux)

Is there really any reason this couldn't be part of this article and redirected? This article isn't too long and it would only mean adding a paragraph anyway. IMO it would be better here anyway. NicM 11:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

I think that it might be better to leave it as a seperate page. some other linux distros (frugalware) use pacman. -Arthur

I also think it's better as a separate page. There is now a pacman 3 development effort which restructures pacman as a library with a defined API. It's clear that pacman is being developed as a packaging tool independent of Arch GNU/Linux.--Kbk 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pacman is part of Arch Linux, but being developed as a seperate tool that other distributions can use. The consensus here is that it should remain a seperate article, so I will remove the notice. -- Michael

Recent revert

This edit needlessly reignites the GNU/Linux naming controversy on this article. It should be reverted; "distribution" is clear enough on its own given the context. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

For anyone interested, I have made an Arch Linux userbox here. --Anthony5429 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use the userbox below instead. It is nicer as it includes the Arch logo. --Anthony5429 (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another userbox template for Arch Linux with logo Template:User Arch Linux --KDesk (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This user contributes with Arch Linux.

Repositories

The section describing repositories needs a rewrite. There has been a reshuffle. I don't know enough yet to write it.

I have modified the repositories section, according to the http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Repositories Claudiu (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the latest pacman.conf, there is now a [community-testing] now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.239.16 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the "release" box.

I think it would be a good idea to remove the release box or at least rename it to "CD Image Build History" or something, because it is misleading. Valcumine (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, maybe call it Rolling Release CD Image History? 58.107.166.49 (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird sentence

Although comparison of distributions is repeated by Linux users, Arch Linux is often compared with Gentoo Linux among others.

Can anyone guess what this is trying to say? Henry^Flower 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Henry^Flower 06:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arch GUI

Anyone have a good screenshot of their Arch desktop?

Its default is no GUI. At least the version I downloaded. --Vellocet Malchickawick

There is no GUI by default but many of the users use at least one of the major window managers. I know of very few users who rely solely on the CLI (though there are a few).

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=9665&highlight=window+manager

If we were to showcase one it would probally have to be XFCE.

Here is one of my desktop... Desktop Screenshot

I use only CLI for my server. After all, no reason to slow it down with a GUI if your only purpose for your machine is to be a server. My desktop machine however runs fluxbox and i'm about to try out xgl+compiz. If I make a snazzy screenshot, I'll upload it. --Anthony5429 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A screenshot of my Arch desktop would be the same as just a screenshot of KDE. --134.58.253.130 23:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, that's a silly screenshot, it shows only the moon 'n a bit of kde nothing else (package system in the shell would be nice etc.)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.23.84 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the screenshot that's on the page right now, it has very little to do with Arch Linux. --78.70.152.241 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and done. I've added one of Archie in the Live section just so the article isn't totally picture devoid. But aparat from that I think a screenshot would just be misleading people into thinking that there is a 'default look', in other words be more disinformatie than informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chochem (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The added screenshots seem irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. I'm removing the one from the info box as it is misleading and the version on as it simply seems to have been inserted at random.

1) There is NO default look or desktop for Arch. People seeing these sceenshots will assume that there is one. Therefore: misleading. If you want pictures go get a grab of the framebuffer when you've started up the install media because that's the common denominator for all Arch installs.

2) This is not the place to show off your desktop. Go to the forum - there are hundreads of thread for exactly that purpose. chochem (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody please remove that ugly screenshot. Not just because of the quality, it's misleading.--06:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to add a screenshot of the basic screen you get after finishing the install ? like the bash prompt with username/hostname. It might give people a general idea what you get after the install.Arungkumar (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Canterbury Distribution: April' Fools? Anyway, it's worth the mention if being it...

Did you people read about the Canterbury Distribution/Project?

The Canterbury Distribution

We are pleased to announce the birth of the Canterbury distribution. Canterbury is a merge of the efforts of the community distributions formerly known as Debian, Gentoo, Grml, openSUSE and Arch Linux.

The target is to produce a really unified effort and be able to stand up in a combined effort against proprietary operating systems, to show off that the Free Software community is actually able to work together for a common goal instead of creating more diversity.

All address point to the same site, you can access each original pages from each Distro by clicking on each color from the up section.

http://www.debian.org http://www.opensuse.org/ http://www.archlinux.org/ http://www.gentoo.org http://grml.org https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=911489 --79.144.146.26 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Arch HURD

Is it worth mentioning that Arch is being ported onto the HURD? --Faillord adam (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I added in a link in the see also page to Arch Hurd, that's probably all it really deserves on the page (the Arch Hurd article is very small). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Pacman and Signed Packages

Maybe it's worth mentioning the controversy about unsigned packages and the recent development in this respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.194.98 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Malfunctioning redirect?

It seems that usually when I search through through to the Arch linux redirect, I get an older revision of the page. The redirect page itself looks to be formatted correctly. It's not consistently reproducible so I can't make sense of it and I haven't been able to find much info on this. Has anyone heard of this happening before?| Je mir (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirects don't rewrite the URL so I guess the page is cached separately in your browser. Clearing your cache might fix the problem. strcat (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I cleared my cache, and it seemed to fix it. Then it happened again. Then it happened while I was on a liveUSB, then another computer. Now it seems to have stopped. I'm utterly confused as to the cause, but if it's fixed, it's fixed. If it wasn't a Wikipedia issue, sorry for the spam. | Je mir (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize for trying to improve Wikipedia, even if it turned out to be nothing. - SudoGhost 02:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Arch Linux ARM

It's a bit strange that there's neither a sub-section on this page, nor a dedicated page of its own, to Arch Linux ARM - especially as it's one of the more mature Linux distributions for ARM, and is already running well on machines like the SheevaPlug and Raspberry Pi. What do people think - add it to this page, or set up a dedicated Arch/ARM page... or neither? -- Tawalker72 13:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

what sort of sources do you have? Remember that for something to have its own article it should be notable, check WP:N for the requirements. To have a section on this page it should have due weight, see more about due weight here: WP:DUE. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arch Linux ARM is not part of Arch Linux, it is a separate project (source: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/42787). Hence I will remove ARM from the list of platforms supported by Arch Linux , apparently it confuses some people. catwell2 —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy?

While the current contents is a good model of what should be provided to the technician, I would also like to see something about the development philosophy, such as if the Unix philosophy is just an informal culture or if it is formalized. Also, what is the communication and development model? Taking a fresh example, Gnome seems to be meeting heavy criticism based on a long term Cathedralian behavior, Linux the Kernel seems to still be Bazaar, BSD is still Elder-Listener-organized, Debian is likewise but also Concordance democratic within the Elder-sphere. Does it have a wiki, and what is discussed there? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm considering contributing here, but then I need to at least make a test installation. The philosophies are pretty formal and written here: The Arch Way and The Arch Way v2.0. The development and user culture is losely regulated by trusted moderators exercising a Forum Etiquette removing unproductive and inflamed posts which is irrelevant for the development and usage of Arch Linux. As far as I can see the etiquette set is pretty extensive, but there are no sanctions mentioned, meaning that it is a guide line, rather than a law. Anyone tempted to start writing about it before I have time is welcome. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdated and mistakes

The article mention many thinks that now aren not true or are outdated "one unique centrar rc.con" False, now are 5 /etc/hotname,vconsole.conf,modules-load./modules.conf,timezone,rc.conf) "A Intall using dialogs" False, now is a no-gui-neither-dialog install ala gentoo or ala arch-10-years-in-the-past "User Centric" False, Allan and other devel say in the forum many thimes that Arch is only for Arch Devels and if a user want hear need to vecome a Arch Devel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.233.209 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You are completely right; I am currently working on a full revision. hajatvrc @ 23:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mention the vanilla feature

The mostly un-patched nature of Arch packages is worth mentioning. The about page talks about this just after the rolling-release model:

Arch strives to keep its packages as close to the original upstream software as possible... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.211.152.246 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)