Why I love Arch Linux :D

Today, I enabled kms by default, only editing mkinicpio.
Before kms, I had been totally unable to get a full resolucion frambuffer, even with uvesafb. And i915-resolution didnt even
recognised my card, a Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/GMS/GME, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 03)
But when I first booted with kms, I thought I was in heaven
Also, with this new drivers, that annoying bug in openbox when using rgba + murrine + xcompmgr + openbox(making window borders
use false transparency) is nowhere to be seen n_n.
Last, but not least, because of the x86_64 april's fools day joke, I made the swich to 64-bits in 2 days! And just 10 minutes ago,
I deleted my 32-bit particion n_n
Arch Linux, just rock U_U

XFire wrote:No bloat; rolling release; easy to configure system - no other distro seems as easy to configure; everything seems to more or less work after some configuration; just about everything.
What XFire said. I really love Arch because of this - the community is also pretty big behind it, which is a big plus. Just go to the IRC channel and you will be able to speak to archers right away about your troubles and problems - you don't even have to go out and drink them away!
But I also really like that the system does not break as much as Gentoo did for me after a simple system update. Mostly nowadays it is because of Xorg, which usually is easy to fix. In Gentoo everything broke and took a lot of time to do, because of recompilation and stuff. I am really happy that I made the change, and I got myself a fine sticker for my laptop to show off that this system runs Arch.

Similar Messages

  • Why not use Arch Linux only?

    Named as an Arch Linux "Linux Addict" (according to my upgraded user profile ), for some times I have asked myself why use other distros than AL, especially RedHat, SuSE and Mandrake. What do they provide what AL doesn't?
    One of the roles of RedHat became clear reading Linux Today, though it may not be for the common users but have to admit its impressive (there are three major advances in the new RHEL3 product line....):
    http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2003102200926NWRHSW
    PS.
    Does it sound like I am addicted??... it feels natural   :idea: 

    maturity? stable? can't trust?
    let me tell you something i learned by experience ...
    i runed SuSE for long time (from 5.2 to 8.1) and what i know they do wrong is: if you have e.g. 6.0 (the most stable SuSE i know) then you can update your packages over internet, but after some time you will be "forced" to  buy the next release that is totally differently constructed (7.1, because it uses YaST2 instead of the YaST and other stupid inovations that you cannot easily update from internet) ... and after a while again you have to upgrade by buying the next one ...
    sure, you install it in about an hour and everything works, but hey, each package costs some money and this install is each time from quite 0 (because the integrated update often does not work) :-(
    trusting?
    i trust only in systems i configure myself ... and since SuSE 7.2 i lost the overview in where you can configure what and why ... and you are not sure that YaST2 will change your changed settings to default
    archlinux is fully configureable and does not have a tool that changes files behind your back (well, there is one case: when you update init-scripts with packman without setting in pacman.conf to exclude some files you changed ... but also then you can restore the settings by mv'ing the original files to their right name-links :-)
    why using also other distros?
    well since arch 0.5 i removed all other linuces from my machine (to save space) and now have only arch and winXP ... xp is used only for watching tv (because hauppauge usb "usbvision" module cannot be compiled with  a 2.4.x or 2.6.0tx kernel (but 2.5.x) and because of ebanking software that will not install on archlinux but easily on SuSE and WinXP (need the original sun's java vm, but have no time to construct a PKGBUILD for sun's jdk 1.4)
    ... and the needed other software i built packages of and installed on my local repository (and also copied in incoming) ... now i'm quite happy with archlinux as an OS (and i hope with a more advanced 2.6.x TV will come too, and java i will find one day time to build for ebanking)
    -> "use an OS that works, use archlinux"
    ps
    and about "linux addict":
    no, i dont think i'm addict, but i use this forum as a normal member  (to help others switching to an os that works,  to help people with problems i had myself often some time ago, to ask if i find something interessting or funny about something in arch, to inform that i built packages and put them in incoming :-) ... i would be much happier to have "regular user" instead of "linux addict", but that's something i cannot change

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

    Why is this distribution called Arch Linux? What does the "Arch" part mean? Surely there must be a reason, for the developers could have easily named this distribution "Bridge Linux" or "Trapezoid Linux" for that matter.

    MkFly wrote:
    http://web.archive.org/web/200206050619 … rg/faq.php
    [Q]  Why the name Arch Linux?
    [A]  From dictionary.com:
    arch
    adj.
    1. Chief; principal: their arch foe.
    2. Mischievous; roguish: an arch glance.
    I came across the well-known term "arch-enemy" in a book and clued in that "arch" means "the primary", "the principal", the one that comes first among others.  Far from true with regard to Arch Linux perhaps, but I'm proud of it.  Now, the second definition may or may not fit; I guess it depends on how you use your computer. 
    That covers definitions 1 and 3 above. Definition 2 applies in the case of Arch fanboys. Strangely they turn up more often on other forums than here.
    But yeah, I should have added that Judd chose the name with the first adjective definition in mind.

  • Virtual-Audio-Cable for Arch linux

    Hello guys,
    I'm quiet new to Arch-Linux and I love Arch-Linux (even if I sometimes hate it ).
    I wont to have and virtual audio-device where I can put some Out-Put of any program (for examble VLC) to an input device like a Microphone used by any application for example Teamspeak.
    In Windows I have the program Virtual-Audio-Cable for this and I already read that pulse-audio should serve this functionality, but when I install pulse-audio I don't get this sound-redirecting to work and I get Bugs like my music is stopping when I start Teamspeak or any application with sound output.
    So I wan't to have it (if possible) without using pulseaudio (I already removed it from my system).
    I'm thankful for any hints.
    Sincerely Basti
    Last edited by basti890 (2015-04-23 12:59:28)

    pulseaudio comes with the module module-virtual-source. You can load it with pacmd and then use it like a virtual audio cable in pavucontrol.
    pacmd load-module module-virtual-source source_name=loop_source uplink_sink=loop_sink
    Then send sound to loop_sink and record from loop_source.
    Edit: If you want to listen and record at the same time, then you should be able to use module-virtual-sink I think and record from the monitor channel for the virtual sink.
    http://pulseaudio-discuss.freedesktop.n … ce-modules
    With pure alsa it should be possible with the aloop driver.
    Otherwise you'll have to learn JACK.
    Last edited by progandy (2015-04-30 19:17:08)

  • Arch Linux on Pandaboard?

    I am University student, and, shortly, I will start working for one of my professors. His main area of research is in embedded systems.
    Currently he has plans to do some projects with Pandaboard, Arduino and few other embedded boards. But speaking particularly on Pandaboard...
    Do you think ArchLinux would be a good alternative to Ubuntu? as for as having lighter system, less bloated. He tried to use Ubuntu on Pandboard, but had some difficulties, and I proposed to him to use ArchLinux as alternative, since you can select only needed packages during install.
    I tried to search online, if there was any work done with Pandaboard using ArchLinux, but I found nothing (seems like people tried to install only Ubuntu or Andriod).
    What do you all think? Have anyone use those board before?
    Here is link to that Pandaboard, if you don't know about it: http://pandaboard.org/
    Last edited by kdar (2010-12-02 03:23:42)

    As much as I love Arch Linux, if I were installing an operating system onto an ARM computer, I think I would choose one designed specifically for it. For example, Debian GNU/Linux and FreeBSD have native ARM ports.
    I guess it also partially depends on your goal: is your goal to get an operating system INSTALLED on the computer, or is it to USE the computer?
    I think this website would be a good place to get help on small ARM computers: http://openplug.org/
    Disclaimer: I have no experience with ARM computers.

  • Why Arch Linux official repository provide MariaDB instead of MySQL?

    First, I want to say I'm not an expert in MySQL or any other RDBMS. I just started to learn mysql a month ago. So didn't know exactly what is the practical difference between MariaDB and MySQL. Both are looks the same (except for the prompt as far as I know). But oracle MySQL is still the majority RDBMS that is being used in comparision with MariaDB. Since I just started to learn, I wanna use the most used. So I choose MySQL.
    My curiosity is why Arch choose MariaDB? Is MySQL going against "The Arch Way" or something like that? I read somewhere when googling that one of the reason why MariaDB is created is because Oracle purchased Sun Microsystems. Or maybe there're some bug issues or something if using MySQL on Arch Linux?

    Search back through the arch news items.  We switched over a fews ago I think.
    EDIT: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/a … 24478.html
    Last edited by graysky (2015-04-13 10:30:28)

  • Arch Linux Won't Boot! Why o' Why?!

    So, this is prorably the fifth time installing Arch Linux and I've got everything exact.
    - Boot is the first partition
    - I've configured GRUB properly
    - I've installed the basic packages
    - I've partitioned everything properly
    - Grub is set to boot
    But, still, something is stopping GRUB from booting (even though /boot is set to "boot"). There has been no OS on there before - I'm running it in VirtualBox.
    Why is it not working? I'm about to tear my hair out over this!
    BTW: I'm using 2010.05.
    Please Help!
    Josh // Currently a frustrated Linux user
    Last edited by oldtimeyjunk (2011-04-30 07:40:29)

    oldtimeyjunk wrote:Don't need any more help!
    It was because I installed the Bootloader to the wrong place (I stuck it in a partition, which, I know now, your not supposed to do)!
    Thanks for that, I put my grub on /dev/sda, boots fine but wondered if I should have put it on /dev/sda1

  • Why arch linux install media is so big?

    Hi all,
    Yesterday I installed arch linux in my PC. My very first learning/questions regarding arch linux:
    * Why is the install media 650 MB(so big) iso, when it doesnt contain any packages?
    * From the https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_guide page,
       Download
    Download the most recent Arch Linux installation ISO image from the Arch Linux download page: this is a hybrid image that allows booting into an x86_64 or i686 live system, depending on the system's architecture and the user's choice.
    Why the most recent Arch Linux installation ISO? The ISO which is downloaded one year before also will install the latest linux right because everything is downloaded from internet?
    Can anyone please explain what is special about new install media??
    Thanks
    Mario

    Mariappan wrote:
    Download the most recent Arch Linux installation ISO image from the Arch Linux download page: this is a hybrid image that allows booting into an x86_64 or i686 live system, depending on the system's architecture and the user's choice.
    Why the most recent Arch Linux installation ISO? The ISO which is downloaded one year before also will install the latest linux right because everything is downloaded from internet?
    While you are correct that a netinstall will indeed install the latest linux version, it does not mean that an old install medium will boot on the newest hardware, or is up to date with the latest Arch specific packages etc. Using an old installation image can mean that your hardware is not supported, old bugs are included or that you are not at all able to install Arch because of outdated Arch specific packages on the install medium.
    The install medium is merely a specific set of packages combined together in an image, not a special project to install Arch (you can install all packages via pacman). It needs updating, just like a regular Arch install.

  • Why is vi (vim) so bad in Arch linux ? "nothing in register.."

    Hi.
    I use various linux distros - gentoo, suse, ubuntu, fedora and (obviously) arch
    I am slowly coming to the decision that Arch is the distro for me and have installed it on my work desktop also.
    However there is one major issue I am having with Arch linux.
    vim seems pretty much completely unusable in arch linux, not in the way that it is in Debian (i.e the strange arrow keys until you apt-get install vim-enchanced)
    Its much worse, I am not able to paste into vim at all ... When pressing middle button to paste the buffer is says - nothing in register.
    Also (annoyingly) I am unable to right click and paste into konsole (only when using vim) - instead it gives the message ' (insert) VISUAL '
    This occurs from KDE4 and LXDE so it unlikely  to be the desktop settings.
    I do not have vi pasting issues with any other distro.
    Can anyone help me paste ?
    Regards

    I'm having this problem too. PuTTY WinXP, logging into Arch Linux. I used to be able to use right-click to paste from the Windows clipboard (the scroll wheel uses the wrong clipboard) but now it just changes me to (insert) VISUAL.
    I put
    set mouse-=a
    in /etc/vimrc, but it didn't work; perhaps because I need to logout and login. But typing that incantation from within the editor works fine.
    However, I would beg to differ that "In many terminal emulators the mouse works just fine, thus enable it". Should I upgrade PuTTY? (currently 0.53b)

  • Progress on Unity under Arch Linux!

    See here for information about the new GNOME 3.12-compatible packages: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 3#p1404683
    I'm now on IRC! Come join us at #unityforarch on Freenode
    To install Unity from my repos:
    See the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/un … mmended.29
    To install Unity from source:
    See the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/unity#From_source
    -- You probably don't want to read anything below --
    The story
    So...rather than wasting internet bandwith to download a new Ubuntu ISO to test out the new Unity features, I decided to try to make it work under Arch Linux. It took a whole lot longer than I expected to get it even partially working. So, here's my story:
    Knowing that Unity isn't in the main repositories, I went the AUR's website and looked for a user created Unity package. That didn't go too well. The Unity package hasn't been updated for 6 months. D'oh! I decided to download the existing PKGBUILD and modify it to work with the Unity 4.xx series. After changing the version number, I tried to "makepkg" it, and was greeted with a message about installing Compiz 0.9.x. I thought it would be an easy install. It was quite the opposite. Compiz's install prefix was set to /opt/unity, but FindCompiz cmake build file expected Compiz to be in /usr, so none of the Compiz packages, except for compiz-core would compile. Then, I tried reinstalling compiz-core, but this time, changing the prefix to /usr. The compiled package ended up being only a few kilobytes big. I guess the mouse wheel was invented for a reason. I looked at the PKGBUILD again, only to find that there was a line at the very bottom that ran "rm -rf ${pkgdir}/usr". That explains a lot! I ended up adopting all the compiz*-git packages and fixing them so they would compile and install.
    So, now that Compiz is working (restarted and tested just to make sure I didn't waste my time with something that didn't work), I went on to install the rest of the dependencies listed in the Unity PKGBUILD file. That went relatively well. I was so happy after seeing the progress counter go up after running "makepkg", but at about 8%, gcc spat out an error about an undeclared function (sorry, I forgot what the function was). Natually, I went to Google and searched the name of the function. 0 results! Exactly was I was looking for! I ended up downloading the Ubuntu 11.10 Alpha 3 ISO and running "find -type f /usr/lib | xargs objdump -T | grep the_function". The problem lied in the libindicator package. There was a newer version available which contained that function. I have no idea why a package that's only 0.02 versions ahead of the AUR package would contain new functions...
    Next! Utouch...ugh...great memories! Not! I was so glad that I had fixed the utouch packages earlier (for touchegg to work). I was too frustrated from compiz and libindicator to try to compile more stuff.
    Cmake. Whoever created the CMakeLists.txt file didn't list all the dependencies required. So after running "makepkg" 10 billion times, waiting for "somebodydidntputthisincmake.h not found" errors to appear, I finally got all the dependencies I needed installed...or so I thought. After installing and compiling all these dependencies, the cmake only continues 3% further before encountering another cryptic gcc error. This time, there no error about a file not being found. So not knowing what dependency was missing, I headed over to http://packages.ubuntu.com and downloaded the Unity DEB source to find the dependencies in then debian/control file. After install those few dependencies that I missed, I ran "makepkg" again, hoping that it would finally compile successfully. CMake went a little further--5% further to be exact--before running into another error. It complained about DndSourceDragBegin() having two return types. Sure, enough "./plugins/unityshell/src/ResultViewGrid.h" had the return type as boolean and "/usr/include/Nux-1.0/Nux/InputArea.h" had the return type as void. WTF? How the heck does this even compile under 11.10???
    After changing void to bool in "/usr/include/Nux-1.0/Nux/InputArea.h", I ran "makepkg" once again anxiously waiting to the see the line "Finished making: unity 4.10.2". CMake compiled about 35% before running into error about an undeclared gtk function. Nooooooooooooo!!! I wasn't brave enough to install the git version of gtk3, so I created a chroot, installed the base packages, and installed all of those dependencies fairly quickly (it gets a lot easier after doing it so many times).
    Moving on to gtk3. After cloning the ~200MB git repository, autotools spits out an error about cairo-gl missing. So, I proceeded to install the cairo-gl-git package, which failed to compile (it compiled successfully outside of the chroot...). GREAT. So, Unity fails to compile because GTK version is too old, and GTK failed to compile because cairo-gl is missing, and cairo-gl fails to compile because I'm in a chroot. GAHHH!!! While thinking about throwing the computer out of the window, I searched the AUR for other GTK3 packages. I just happened to find a package named "GTK3-UBUNTU"! That package was still at version 3.0, but it was pretty easy to get the patches and source code for 3.1 from the Ubuntu GTK source package.
    So, FINALLY, Unity compiles. I was so darn happy, I didn't even care if it ran or not. I logged out and logged back into the GNOME 3 fallback mode, and entered the chroot. After running "xhost +SI:localuser:chenxiaolong" to run X11 apps in the chroot, I crossed my fingers and ran "DISPLAY=:0.0 unity --replace". It failed with python 3 complaining about missing modules. That's okay, since the Unity launch script is written in python 2. I changed the shebang line in "/usr/bin/unity" to point to python 2 and ran "DISPLAY=:0.0 unity --replace". It didn't necessarily fail, but it didn't succeed either. It didn't print out any error messages. Weird... I thought I'd try enabling Unity from the compiz settings manager then. I ran "DISPLAY=:0.0 compiz --replace" and "DISPLAY=:0.0 ccsm" and enabled the Unity plugin. Unity runs! Although nothing shows on the screen, it runs! It shows up in the process list! Woohoo!
    And that's about how far I got. There were quite a few Vala errors during the compiling process (I forgot which package it was), which is probably why Unity won't appear. I'll try again later with the vala-devel or vala-git package and hopefully Unity will work then. Here are screenshots of what I've gotten working so far:
    http://i.imgur.com/7F1fm.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/zGNJc.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/3mCgd.jpg
    By then way, I love the simplicity of pacman and the AUR. I can't imagine how long this would have taken with other package managers.
    Moderator edit:  Do not place large images in line.  If you want, you may embed links to thumbnails inside url tags.
    Last edited by chenxiaolong (2014-04-15 17:11:04)

    City-busz: I'm getting a ton of Vala errors when I compile libunity (AUR version) with vala or vala-devel. libunity fails to compile with vala-git. I'll try your packages in a virtual machine and see how they work on 64 bit.
    In the meantime, Unity still fails to show up: http://i.imgur.com/btPwo.png I'll try out your PKGBUILDS and see how that works. I'm glad there are people who want to port Unity to Arch Linux
    EDIT: City-busz: Just to let you know, Unity will fail to compile at around 45% with GTK 3.0. Here's my source packaage for Ubuntu's GTK 3.1: http://ubuntuone.com/p/1EzX/ It contains all of the patches in the Ubuntu source package. I'm not sure if all the patches are needed, but GTK compiles fine with all of them.
    EDIT2: Right now, I'm trying to compile Vala 0.10.4, then version used in Ubuntu 11.10. Hopefully that will eliminate some of the Vala errors.
    EDIT3: Vala 0.10 is too old. 0.12 and 0.14 are also in the Ubuntu repository. Trying those...
    EDIT4: 0.14 is actually 0.13.1. Gah... Vala takes longer to compile under VirtualBox than GTK3...
    EDIT5: Okay...so VirtualBox "helpfully" became slow enough that I could read the error messages. The Vala error messages aren't actually error messages, but rather warnings about unused methods. I wonder what prevents Unity from running then...
    Last edited by chenxiaolong (2011-08-30 02:30:29)

  • Arch Linux deemed "best" distro of 2014 by Linux Voice

    Congrats everyone! http://www.linuxvoice.com/linux-distros/.
    We were looking for a distro that performs well in every area, and excellently in many, making it a good all-round distro. However this alone isn’t enough. It needs to have something that pushes it ahead of the competition – and the competition is getting better every year. It needs that certain X factor to make it stand out. It should be a distro people want to install; a distro that people get passionate about; a distro that makes you remember why you love Linux.
    Arch Linux does all this and more. The two things that make it stand out aren’t fancy bits of software, or slick user interfaces, but its philosophy and its community.
    Last edited by link (2014-10-09 05:31:52)

    From the same DistroWatch page karol quoted from:
    Before one can answer what is the best distro, they have to answer for what purpose! While Arch is a great linux distribution, it isn't the one I would want to install and support on a 100 workstations in a business or classroom environment, or even my mother's computer. I probably wouldn't use it for a mission critical server role and it's also not one I would use for embed systems work.
    There's a saying that learn Ubuntu and you learn Ubuntu, learn Arch and you learn Linux. Well, most users don't want or need to learn Linux (or Ubuntu).
    "Best Distro" declarations are worthless. Instead they need to be "Best Distro For..." declarations. Arch is an excellent distribution, but as most people will tell you, it's not for the feint of heart. For general use, particularly in a business setting, openSuse would seem to be a better choice. For general use as a home desktop, one might look at one of the *buntus. For development work, particularly in the US, fedora, RHEL or CENTOS seems a good choice.
    The reality is that from the user perspective, one can make any distro look and act like any other. The question as to what is best really comes down to how much work is involved to make it actually do that.
    Again, Arch is an excellent distro. But depending on your use case, it might not be the best distro.
    Fair points all (except for the "development work" bit), but since the whole article was a comparison of rolling-release operating systems, why single out Arch? Why bother even commenting? Using a rolling-release OS when you want a static setup is foolish, no matter what the distribution is.

  • Opinion: What you do NOT like in Arch Linux?

    Hello,
        I saw many topics about opinion of Linux and many like "why you have switched to Arch" but there was no topic about complaints. I know that most of Developers would not like to see topics like that but it is needed to improve this great distribution. If this is wrong section then please move it to "try this" but I was thinking that more people will look here. Let's write every thing, even that which cannot be just improved by Devs. Then let's begin:
    "What do I not like in Arch?"
    - I don't like that Firefox is not branded. I hate that blue globe.
    - I don't like that 'vlc' is not patched for embedded video so it is little annoying.
    - I would like to see [community] repository on main page with the same priority as [extra] because it sometimes happened that new kernel is going to extra and some packages are still not compiled for it. It would be nice if TU's could use [testing] to test their packages.
    - I hate that pulseaudio support is not included in Gnome, I know it is not very stable for many people but for me it is very usable.
    - I don't like that some icons of applications are in bad quality, I just hate that .
    - I don't like that I cannot even use virtualbox on x86_64.
    Now it is your turn to write what you do not like in Arch, guys. If you do not have complaints then you can go on to 'Arch is best' thread and write there how you love Arch but I think everybody will write something.

    Im going to put an end to this thread right here, because it is a waste of time, space, and bandwidth.
    If you want to help improve Arch, post bugs and/or feature requests in the bugtracker, including your proposed solution to the issue you have raised, and ideally a patch that implements that solution. All bug reports and feature requests are read and evaluated by at least one member of the dev team, and assigned to the most appropriate dev for resolution. This process is tracked, so that any progress that is made can be seen, and any required additional information can be requested. In contrast, forum threads such as this are usually not read by the devs, and therefore do not generate the intended action and results.
    The enthusiasm is appreciated - just use it more constructively.

  • Arch linux for SPARC, is there still any activity?

    Hello all,
    I just got my hands on some sparc servers and I'd love to put arch linux on there.
    I found a wiki-page about SPARCH, but the last real edit is over 2 years ago, and the repository is down.
    Is anyone still interested in this / working on this?
    Ward

    Ok, so Dave replied.
    It's been a while since he worked with the SPARC version, and can't find the files anymore.
    However, he does have some very useful basic information regarding what the basic problems with the porting process were, the framework he used (Cross-LFS; http://trac.cross-lfs.org/) and so on. Dave also mentioned, it was far faster to do the compiling on his x86 desktop than the actual SPARC box.
    I'm highly motivated in getting something done about porting Arch to SPARC. Haven't done anything quite like this before, but that's not a problem. Lack of time might be though, which is why I'm hereby announcing I'm looking for volunteers to participate in a group effort to get the porting moving along and fully available to the public as soon as possible.
    What I can offer is this:
    - Server space from a fast x86_64 Sun Blade (running Arch) to host repositories and possibly do some compiling as well; 1 gbit uplink
    - A Sun Fire V240 with 2 CPUs (1.5 GHz if I remember right) and 4 GB RAM for compiling / testing
    - A plan, lots of ideas, an open mind and skills in areas such as design & co-operation
    I would love to get involved in the actual porting myself as well, but as things look at the moment, I will only have the chance to do so occasionally and for short periods of time.
    I can and very much wish to participate in designing the whole process though, and the first couple of people I feel the project needs would be designers / project leaders as well. Someone(s) with previous experience in porting any OS to any new architecture would be useful to say the least.
    I'm also seriously thinking about kind of combining OpenBSD and / or DragonFly BSD with some parts of Arch. Can't really say which would be the dominating "gene" but Pacman and the rolling release approach are one of the key points of the whole thing. I used OpenBSD for years and loved it for its security and stability, but keeping it up to date and clean (no old libraries around etc.) means you will have to re-install it once a year. I got so tired of that I could simply not go on, and after lots of research ended up with Arch - which I love, apart from the fact that some things keep changing so radically that it's easy to drop out of the smooth upgrade track and get your otherwise super-stable server messed up.
    So, this secondary plan of mine has to do with taking the best parts of OpenBSD, DragonFly and Arch, and putting it all together in a way that provides a super-stable, secure and KISS distribution heavily targeted at the server scene, possibly being available as 64-bit only. If it's based on Linux kernel then it will have things such as GRSecurity installed and on by default. Server software packages designed to be chrooted (or at least providing a chrooted version) whenever possible, and so on. Clear, unified way of how the system is configured and how the init works - this is where I'm thinking about the Arch way again. I am leaning towards using the OpenBSD kernel but importing lots of stuff from Arch / Linux.
    If anyone's interested in either of these little projects, please pm or e-mail me at jyri (ät) archlinux (punkt) fi

  • Arch Linux Documentation

    Is anyone in charge of developing Arch Linux documentation? From an interview that I came across on the net, I gather that there is. If so, could I ask what the programme is to improve documentation and what the target dates are?
    If there isn't anyone in charge, are there people who would be interested in working on documentation, maybe within the Arch community, but maybe outside on an independent site?

    redge wrote:
    I get the sense that there are a lot of people involved in this distribution who like to pretend that deficiencies are strengths. I also think that the distribution is undermanned. Normally, if a project is undermanned, the idea is to bring people on-board. Trashing people who explore the possibility of getting on-board, and who in the process ask some hard questions, given that getting on-board involves a commitment of time and effort, is not necessarily a clever strategy.
    Anyway, having read through this thread, the question in my case is now academic. There is no way that I am going to dedicate 8-10 hours a week to documentation is if people think that spare documentation is a badge of honour. Besides, it is so much easier to write the occasional post.
    This is all fair enough; if you don't feel that your efforts would be useful, then by all means don't "waste" time on it (I say this from the point of view that I think you should feel fulfilled by your contributions to this kind of community, not "I didn't like what you said, so I don't want your help" kind of way ) . I think a lot of the feelings expressed in this thread are summed up by the last line of your post, but in a more positive way. That is to say, the Arch Forums are fantastic, and people are willing to answer questions that come up here. As a result, they are maybe unwilling to spend time adding stuff to the wiki that may be too general to cover specific questions anyway. I do think there are a lot of projects and common questions that can be summed up in informative wiki pages (and a lot of things *are* covered there). Perhaps naturally, the wikipages that *do* get written are ones that involve projects people are personally involved or interested in (I put in a wmii wiki page at one point when I got into ruby-wmii, but even that has fallen behind wmii releases at this point).
    There have obviously been documentation efforts, and plenty of people that stop by to say "Hey, I'd like to help". However, I think the stopping point for a lot of people is either a) What needs documenting and b) Gee, I don't know anything about the stuff that needs documenting! I actually think the best wikipages are born of arch forum threads; when a discussion has a lot of great tidbits, somebody usually chimes in and says "Hey, somebody make a wikipage", or better yet, "Hey, I already made a wikipage, check it out and add stuff if you want". This works, because obviously a lot of people reading the threads that end up creating the wikipages *know* about the subject. Also, people are immediately alerted in the thread that there's a new page, and may say "Hey, I can add to that", as opposed to a system where people are just going through adding pages and hoping other people notice and add stuff too.
    So, in summary, I guess I'd say that documentation is great, but due to the nature of Arch, our efforts work the best when the ball is already rolling in the forums. Which really is the best way for a "smaller" distro like Arch, IMO. Maybe to you this still seems like a "deficiency" that Arch users think is a strength; it seems to me to be more of a natural product of a really active user community (where instead of there being a group of people dictating what documentation is needed and such, those things that come up in community end up being codified in the wiki).
    Personally, for me, I think a good documentation effort would be to keep your eye on long or very active threads; if they look like they have juicy info in them, condense it into a wikipage and announce it in the thread. Of course, that's just one Archer's opinion, and not necessarily of one that knows what he's talking about . I do agree that there are steps that could be taken to make tackling documentation easier (and I am aware that Dusty has the "Wiki volunteers wanted" thread for this) for people that "want to lend a hand", and I'm certainly not saying the efforts that have gone on so far have been wasted. I just like the idea of the really active community in the forums being leveraged to help the "static" documentation in the wiki. See a thread that indicates the install guide is lacking info is confusing? Make the wiki edit! See a thread with great new info? Start a new wiki page! See a thread born of BAD INFORMATION in the wiki? DEFINITELY update the wikipage! Embrace the wikiness of the documentation; worry less about "who maintains this page", and more about "what are the actual issues users are having, and can I change something right now to help?". Coming from this angle really reduces the feeling of being overwhelmed when loading up the wiki to edit it with no particular agenda in mind... rather, you have particular pages in mind, and you know they will be immediately useful.
    Cripes, this was a long post. Sorry! Hopefully it will encourage people to contribute, even if it's just a small edit on a single page, without them worrying about becoming documentation maintainers. You don't have to be an expert at everything or anything, but being a part of a community is contributing what you can when you can. Oh, and yeah, this post probably looks funny coming out of the mouth of an "Occasional poster"; I'm actually on the forums daily, looking for spots where I can answer a question, and do so when I can.. my lack of posts is simply an indication of my not knowing enough .
    Oh, and as to the response to Dusty's response... I feel like we see these kind of responses a lot on the forums, and I kind of wish people wouldn't take such umbrage at these comments. These comments are a result of people *knowing* the community. It doesn't mean that they think your idea is stupid, it just means that they're telling you what has been true in the past, and why certain things maybe don't work out. It doesn't mean you shouldn't feel like you can contribute how you want; it's open, go for it. Get the ball rolling; the community may embrace it gladly. If it didn't, well, you contributed out of love of the community, and that will certainly still be appreciated.

  • Translating Arch Linux website to Dutch

    Hello everybody,
    I love Arch and I want to show it. Therefore, I want to translate the Arch Linux website (and maybe Pacman messages too, becuase not all Pacman messages are translated to Dutch and that looks bad) to Dutch. At school I have teachers for German French and I know somebody who can speak Frisian. I can ask them too if they would help me. To who can I send translated texts?
    Kind regards,
    Megameneer
    Last edited by Megameneer (2014-05-31 19:53:55)

    It might be a stupid question, but why translate the main website to Dutch? I think most dutch users will have no problem at all with the english language. As for Frisian, I think that there would be no benefit in translating to Frisian. I mean, there is only a small minority in the Netherlands (and the world for that matter) that speaks it and they are perfectly able to read and speak Dutch as well.
    I personally think that translating the wiki is more useful than translating the main website, as people get more information from the wiki than the main website. If you really want to translate the website, you'll have to set up and host a dutch website yourself. The sources for the main website should be available. You can look at the french and german communities for ideas.
    Translating pacman to Dutch wouldn't be a bad idea, but you should make that in a separate thread so more people can see it and can point you in the right direction (I wouldn't know where to start).

Maybe you are looking for