On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 09:24:42 -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
Arch is the *opposite* of a user-centric freedom.
I disagree.
it is not simple, not minimalist, and not user-centric.
Certainly not minimalist, but those other two claims are questionable.
I agree. Reasoning: With everything Arch provides regarding it's policy, it's following the KISS principle. Since software from upstream usually is not split into tons of packages, it might be not minimalist, but even this could be handled, since pacman.conf provides the NoExtract option. Assumed a package comes with an unneeded dependency, it's easy to provide an empty dummy package to resolve this unneeded dependency. There's no need to compile it from ABS with special configure options, assumed the dependency is really unneeded. The user centric-freedom still is, that we users could make our individual installs, the way we like it, without much pain, by e.g. providing outdated libs and resolving unneeded dependencies. I'm not in favour of systemd, but for me the drawbacks caused by systemd are still big nothing compared to the advantages provided by Arch Linux, IOW I like the KISS principle policy and the user-centric policy. The fight against systemd was lost a long time ago. We can live with systemd or use another distro, period. If we are using Arch with systemd and run into issues, we are free to send requests to this list or a forum. IMO we shouldn't continue another Arch systemd policy thread, since we finished this discussion a long, long time ago. Regards, Ralf