That's my first message to the mailing list, I've just been reading it since I started using archlinux as my distro in September 2007.
I just want to say that what made me move to arch was The Arch Way. I just fell in love with it the first time I read it in the wiki. Then came pacman. It's amazing to configure your system yourself, editing configure files and keeping track of every modification. Pacman output is great: if you read it. And I think everyone that WANTS to use arch should, and should accept The Arch Way as it is. I love it and I wouldn't like to see it go down in misery. Long live Arch's Way. Not for lazy ones. Thank you all, Guilherme ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:07:17 -0500 (EST) > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [arch-general] signoff kernel26-2.6.24.3-6 > To: <arch-general@archlinux.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > ONE comment inserted below; > > > > On Montag, 24. M?rz 2008 22:47 RedShift wrote: > > > > At first see this all only as the opionion of a normal user and i find > > it good that you challenge such things because this is even a good way > > to improve it. > > > > If this discussion is only for devs than please apologize this and copy > > the lines below to /dev/null.-) > > > >> Lots of software is patched nowadays, even for very stupid things most > >> of the old user base wouldn't have cared about. And when PKGBUILDs > >> starts to grow to the point they need scrolling and comments to be > >> clarified, that's just going the wrong way. (Hint, kernel26 PKGBUILD). > > > > I do not like patches too. And yes, i love it that archlinux is using in > > the most cases the sources as they comes from the upstream. But sorry to > > say, the kernel is a special case. > > > > If you find time take a look for the kernel source packages of another > > distributions and you will see that everyone is patching the kernel. > > Okay, what ist the reason for it? The kernel devs said in the past > > (sorry, i have no url) that getting the kernel stable is the job of the > > distributions teams. This is not fantastic and i don't like this > > situation too but this is the situation. > > > > That is why i find that tpowa is doing a great job and the kernel26 > > PKGBUILD is a good example because all patches been commented so if you > > don't like it you can create very easy your own kernel package. And more > > than the half of the PKGBUILD is copying files and the reaons for it is > > that other packages need this include files. > > > >> Notice the large influx of new users. The fact alone that a topic has > >> been started for a stable package repository *and people are willing > >> to contribute to this*, shows the kind of users we're getting: the > >> wrong ones. There has been an ongoing discussion on the bug tracker > >> whether or not post uninstall scripts should stop daemons upon > >> removal. These ideas come from users that are either inexperienced, or > >> trying to mold Arch in something its not. And what about dependencies > >> in initscripts... wtf? Any sane user can find them out for themselves > >> and put them in the right order in rc.conf. What if someone doesn't > >> want this behaviour? For example I don't want dbus and hal started, > >> but what if the kdm rc.d script will do this for me? It ends up with a > >> pretty big mess. Let alone the complexity that is added to the > >> initscripts. > > > > Smile, because i find that a kdm rc.d script is from my view unnecessary > > because you can handle it easy in the inittab file and this is the first > > time that i see that there is a kdm script.-) But i can understand that > > people who switch from another distribution will miss in the first > > moment some of this automatic things. Give them time and this "problem" > > will gone away but perhaps i see this too easy. > > Coddling the user by just such an addition achieves nothing of either > transient or of a lasting nature for a distro such as ours. > > i.e. *IF* this was the right way to go, then the other distros that are > starting kdm via such a script wouldn't have people leaving their fold and > switching to ArchLinux. > > Specifically, kdm, xdm, et al were ORIGINALLY started as part of the init > processing string and/or X startup and specifically not part of a rc.d > setup. The rc.d style of doing this for the various popular desktop > managers was a later invention that came from the beginner's based > distros. > > > As for the rest of this discussion, as a LONG TIME user of ArchLinux I am > finding it a good discussion to have at this point in time. Please keep > the comments coming. I am greatly encouraged by you all having this > discussion. > > Very best regards; > > Bob Finch > > ------------------------------ >
