On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:12 AM, mike lojkovic via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
I'm in favor of the merge as well. For beginners there are plenty of Youtube videos that cover common desktop setups. That should be more than enough for users who are first learning how to setup a Linux distro.
Another reason for the merge is to solve a perception problem. The Beginner's Guide was one of the only wiki articles that consolidated all of its information in one place, rather than organizing things into separate articles and references to official documentation. This gave new users the impression that the Arch Wiki is a place for all-in-one hand-holding tutorials. Then they finish installing their system and are shocked and appalled at how "sadistic" and "inaccessible" the rest of the wiki is.
The installation guide isn't a ritualistic hazing, it's a "you must be this tall to ride" sign.
Max
On 09/22/2016 10:31 AM, Maxwell Anselm via arch-general wrote:
Another reason for the merge is to solve a perception problem. The Beginner's Guide was one of the only wiki articles that consolidated all of its information in one place, rather than organizing things into separate articles and references to official documentation. This gave new users the impression that the Arch Wiki is a place for all-in-one hand-holding tutorials. Then they finish installing their system and are shocked and appalled at how "sadistic" and "inaccessible" the rest of the wiki is.
The installation guide isn't a ritualistic hazing, it's a "you must be this tall to ride" sign.
Max
Max,
I've been here since '09, and I've never seen a complaint such as you describe. The reality is the Beginner's Guide was a very thorough and helpful collection of information for new users that was made more necessary by the removal of the arch installer several years back. The maintenance requirements were no greater or less than any of the constituent pages. changing "isn't" to "is" and "it's" to "it is not" in your final sentence, respectfully, is probably closer to the truth of the matter.
(as an attorney, my job is to recognize arguments that don't add up)
Regardless of what the true motivations for the current Arch devs are in removing the Beginner's Guide, I would recommend it be restored (even in the verbatim state it was in when it was deleted would be fine). The Beginner's Guide provided a valuable resource to arch users. I wonder how Allan would view the matter.
On 02/10/16 at 09:51am, David C. Rankin wrote:
The maintenance requirements were no greater or less than any of the constituent pages.
This is not true.
Regardless of what the true motivations for the current Arch devs are in removing the Beginner's Guide, I would recommend it be restored (even in the verbatim state it was in when it was deleted would be fine).
This isn't going to happen.
I wonder how Allan would view the matter.
He has already made it pretty clear what he thinks:
Anyone else who replies to this thread will be stuck in the moderation queue (which no-one checks).
The decision has been made. Move on.
/J
On 10/02/2016 10:51 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
I've been here since '09, and I've never seen a complaint such as you describe. The reality is the Beginner's Guide was a very thorough and helpful collection of information for new users that was made more necessary by the removal of the arch installer several years back. The maintenance requirements were no greater or less than any of the constituent pages. changing "isn't" to "is" and "it's" to "it is not" in your final sentence, respectfully, is probably closer to the truth of the matter.
Everyone who frequents the forums has certainly seen the numerous users who *somehow* installed Arch without really having a clue what they actually did. Some of them even followed the Beginner's Guide as opposed to thirdparty installers.
(as an attorney, my job is to recognize arguments that don't add up)
Regardless of what the true motivations for the current Arch devs are in removing the Beginner's Guide, I would recommend it be restored (even in the verbatim state it was in when it was deleted would be fine). The Beginner's Guide provided a valuable resource to arch users. I wonder how Allan would view the matter.
Why would you think he might disagree with the *consensus* of the Arch devs?
Has he indicated in some manner that he voted against it? Or do you just want to think someone agrees with you?
(He certainly expressed disgust with an offshoot of this original conversation, on general principle...)
...
What do you mean "true motivations" (scare quotes deliberate)? I think they were already quite clear in their *stated* motivations.
But regardless -- without taking into consideration their clearly-stated public motives -- it seems to me, although granted I am no attorney whose "job is to recognize arguments that don't add up" (all hail your exalted state)... that it is self evident that to restore the Beginner's Guide in any form would defeat the purpose of, well, *removing* it!
...
Thank you for performing necromancy on this email thread. I am sure the quality of Arch Linux is going to be dramatically improved as a result...
On 03/10/16 00:51, David C. Rankin wrote:
I wonder how Allan would view the matter.
The Beginner's Guide should never have existed.
A
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org