[arch-general] signoff kernel26-220.127.116.11-6
Guilherme M. Nogueira
g.maionogueira at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 20:21:45 EDT 2008
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,
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:07:17 -0500 (EST)
> From: <w9ya at qrparci.net>
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] signoff kernel26-18.104.22.168-6
> To: <arch-general at archlinux.org>
> Message-ID: <60622.214.171.124.110.1206475637.squirrel at gateway>
> 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
> 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
> Very best regards;
> Bob Finch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the arch-general