Talk:Arch Linux/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Pacman (Arch Linux)

Is there really any reason this couldn't be part of this article and redirected? This article isn't too long and it would only mean adding a paragraph anyway. IMO it would be better here anyway. NicM 11:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

I think that it might be better to leave it as a seperate page. some other linux distros (frugalware) use pacman. -Arthur

I also think it's better as a separate page. There is now a pacman 3 development effort which restructures pacman as a library with a defined API. It's clear that pacman is being developed as a packaging tool independent of Arch GNU/Linux.--Kbk 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pacman is part of Arch Linux, but being developed as a seperate tool that other distributions can use. The consensus here is that it should remain a seperate article, so I will remove the notice. -- Michael

Recent revert

This edit needlessly reignites the GNU/Linux naming controversy on this article. It should be reverted; "distribution" is clear enough on its own given the context. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

~~For anyone interested, I have made an Arch Linux userbox here. --Anthony5429 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)~~

Please use the userbox below instead. It is nicer as it includes the Arch logo. --Anthony5429 (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another userbox template for Arch Linux with logo Template:User Arch Linux --KDesk (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This user contributes with Arch Linux.

Repositories

The section describing repositories needs a rewrite. There has been a reshuffle. I don't know enough yet to write it.

I have modified the repositories section, according to the http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Repositories Claudiu (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the latest pacman.conf, there is now a [community-testing] now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.239.16 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the "release" box.

I think it would be a good idea to remove the release box or at least rename it to "CD Image Build History" or something, because it is misleading. Valcumine (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, maybe call it Rolling Release CD Image History? 58.107.166.49 (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird sentence

Although comparison of distributions is repeated by Linux users, Arch Linux is often compared with Gentoo Linux among others.

Can anyone guess what this is trying to say? Henry ^Flower 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Henry ^Flower 06:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arch GUI

Anyone have a good screenshot of their Arch desktop?

Its default is no GUI. At least the version I downloaded. --Vellocet Malchickawick

There is no GUI by default but many of the users use at least one of the major window managers. I know of very few users who rely solely on the CLI (though there are a few).

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=9665&highlight=window+manager

If we were to showcase one it would probally have to be XFCE.

Here is one of my desktop... Desktop Screenshot

I use only CLI for my server. After all, no reason to slow it down with a GUI if your only purpose for your machine is to be a server. My desktop machine however runs fluxbox and i'm about to try out xgl+compiz. If I make a snazzy screenshot, I'll upload it. --Anthony5429 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A screenshot of my Arch desktop would be the same as just a screenshot of KDE. --134.58.253.130 23:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, that's a silly screenshot, it shows only the moon 'n a bit of kde nothing else (package system in the shell would be nice etc.)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.23.84 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the screenshot that's on the page right now, it has very little to do with Arch Linux. --78.70.152.241 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and done. I've added one of Archie in the Live section just so the article isn't totally picture devoid. But aparat from that I think a screenshot would just be misleading people into thinking that there is a 'default look', in other words be more disinformatie than informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chochem (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The added screenshots seem irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. I'm removing the one from the info box as it is misleading and the version on as it simply seems to have been inserted at random.

1) There is NO default look or desktop for Arch. People seeing these sceenshots will assume that there is one. Therefore: misleading. If you want pictures go get a grab of the framebuffer when you've started up the install media because that's the common denominator for all Arch installs.

2) This is not the place to show off your desktop. Go to the forum - there are hundreads of thread for exactly that purpose. chochem (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody please remove that ugly screenshot. Not just because of the quality, it's misleading.--06:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to add a screenshot of the basic screen you get after finishing the install ? like the bash prompt with username/hostname. It might give people a general idea what you get after the install.Arungkumar (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Canterbury Distribution: April' Fools? Anyway, it's worth the mention if being it...

Did you people read about the Canterbury Distribution/Project?

The Canterbury Distribution

We are pleased to announce the birth of the Canterbury distribution. Canterbury is a merge of the efforts of the community distributions formerly known as Debian, Gentoo, Grml, openSUSE and Arch Linux.

The target is to produce a really unified effort and be able to stand up in a combined effort against proprietary operating systems, to show off that the Free Software community is actually able to work together for a common goal instead of creating more diversity.

All address point to the same site, you can access each original pages from each Distro by clicking on each color from the up section.

http://www.debian.org http://www.opensuse.org/ http://www.archlinux.org/ http://www.gentoo.org http://grml.org https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=911489 --79.144.146.26 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Arch HURD

Is it worth mentioning that Arch is being ported onto the HURD? --Faillord adam (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I added in a link in the see also page to Arch Hurd, that's probably all it really deserves on the page (the Arch Hurd article is very small). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Pacman and Signed Packages

Maybe it's worth mentioning the controversy about unsigned packages and the recent development in this respect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.194.98 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Malfunctioning redirect?

It seems that usually when I search through through to the Arch linux redirect, I get an older revision of the page. The redirect page itself looks to be formatted correctly. It's not consistently reproducible so I can't make sense of it and I haven't been able to find much info on this. Has anyone heard of this happening before?| Je mir (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirects don't rewrite the URL so I guess the page is cached separately in your browser. Clearing your cache might fix the problem. strcat (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I cleared my cache, and it seemed to fix it. Then it happened again. Then it happened while I was on a liveUSB, then another computer. Now it seems to have stopped. I'm utterly confused as to the cause, but if it's fixed, it's fixed. If it wasn't a Wikipedia issue, sorry for the spam. | Je mir (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize for trying to improve Wikipedia, even if it turned out to be nothing. - Sudo Ghost 02:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Arch Linux ARM

It's a bit strange that there's neither a sub-section on this page, nor a dedicated page of its own, to Arch Linux ARM - especially as it's one of the more mature Linux distributions for ARM, and is already running well on machines like the SheevaPlug and Raspberry Pi. What do people think - add it to this page, or set up a dedicated Arch/ARM page... or neither? -- Tawalker72 13:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

what sort of sources do you have? Remember that for something to have its own article it should be notable, check WP:N for the requirements. To have a section on this page it should have due weight, see more about due weight here: WP:DUE. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arch Linux ARM is not part of Arch Linux, it is a separate project (source: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/42787). Hence I will remove ARM from the list of platforms supported by Arch Linux , apparently it confuses some people. catwell2 —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy?

While the current contents is a good model of what should be provided to the technician, I would also like to see something about the development philosophy, such as if the Unix philosophy is just an informal culture or if it is formalized. Also, what is the communication and development model? Taking a fresh example, Gnome seems to be meeting heavy criticism based on a long term Cathedralian behavior, Linux the Kernel seems to still be Bazaar, BSD is still Elder-Listener-organized, Debian is likewise but also Concordance democratic within the Elder-sphere. Does it have a wiki, and what is discussed there? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm considering contributing here, but then I need to at least make a test installation. The philosophies are pretty formal and written here: The Arch Way and The Arch Way v2.0. The development and user culture is losely regulated by trusted moderators exercising a Forum Etiquette removing unproductive and inflamed posts which is irrelevant for the development and usage of Arch Linux. As far as I can see the etiquette set is pretty extensive, but there are no sanctions mentioned, meaning that it is a guide line, rather than a law. Anyone tempted to start writing about it before I have time is welcome. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdated and mistakes

The article mention many thinks that now aren not true or are outdated "one unique centrar rc.con" False, now are 5 /etc/hotname,vconsole.conf,modules-load./modules.conf,timezone,rc.conf) "A Intall using dialogs" False, now is a no-gui-neither-dialog install ala gentoo or ala arch-10-years-in-the-past "User Centric" False, Allan and other devel say in the forum many thimes that Arch is only for Arch Devels and if a user want hear need to vecome a Arch Devel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.233.209 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You are completely right; I am currently working on a full revision. hajat vrc @ 23:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mention the vanilla feature

The mostly un-patched nature of Arch packages is worth mentioning. The about page talks about this just after the rolling-release model:

Arch strives to keep its packages as close to the original upstream software as possible... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.211.152.246 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Some sources and a to-do

To-do:

Note current installation method (and change from ncurses) – i.e., pacstrap, etc.
Note that official init system is systemd
Note repositories
Note makepkg, ABS, AUR
Note pacman 4.*
Note signed packages
Note Arch-based distros briefly (e.g., Manjaro, Antergos, and Chakra)
Note rolling-release
Note the Arch Way

Sources:

Cloudchased (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Arch Linux supports ARM unofficially

Indeed Arch Linux does not officially support ARM, however Arch Linux ARM is a very advanced distrubution of arch which does exactly that. Therefore I suggest that one should add ARM to the supported platforms in form of a table, similiar to this:

This style was not invented by me but moreover is used on other wiki entries as well. This would clear any misconceptions and give the page viewer a good impression. It is highly misleading if we would keep not mentining ARM in the infobox. --G.Edenhofer (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Any chances, please, for an insight in which articles have you seen such platform support lists? See, for example, how the Slackware article handles it; with that in mind, this infobox layout would be more reasonable and act as some kind of a compromise. Hope you agree. Moreover, specifying "IA-32" instead of "i686" is much better as "i686" is a pretty much unofficial designation. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I was refering to the german article about Ubuntu [1]. But I am absolataly fine with how it is stated now.

Concerning the IA-32 declaration I have some doubts because referring to the official ArchWiki [2] i686 is stated as supported platform. The IA-32 definition contains all x86 versions that support 32-bit computing, though on the other hand i686 only refers to the sixth generation of Intels x86. Therefore your changes are in conflict with the (write protected) ArchWiki article. -- G.Edenhofer (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know how Linux distributions usually refer to various microarchitecture variants of the IA-32 architecture. As we know, P6 (also known as i686) is actually a microarchitecture, just like NetBurst or Haswell, for example, while IA-32 is the actual architecture. However, nearly all existing IA-32 builds of modern Linux distributions are compiled for P6/i686, so mentioning that specifically should be rather redundant. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your definition might be more precise but it is less understood by users. I would bare that in mind whenever to be that specific. Especially because even the official ArchWiki page states i686, I would stick to this naming schema and am in favor of reverting those changes. -- G.Edenhofer (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that specifying i686 as an architecture is technically incorrect. How about adding a footnote next to "IA-32", which would describe that the minimum requirement is P6/i686 microarchitecture? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

i686 is a subgroup of IA-32. But only i686 is supported by Arch Linux not the whole "Intel Architecture 32-Bit“. The problem is that the wikipedia entry now states that all 32-bit enabled systems could power arch. Though only the 6th generation is supported. This is highly misleading! -- G.Edenhofer (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote above? P6/i686 is an IA-32 microarchitecture, one of its implementations. Furthermore, all later microarchitectures are backward compatible to P6/i686, including the x86-64 variants; thus, it is not that "only i686 is supported by Arch Linux", it is that P6/i686 is the minimal requirement for IA-32-based Intel hardware. That's why I've proposed the addition of a footnote. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My bad! I forgot about the backwards compatibility. Though I still think using i686 would be better understood, despite being incorrect. I am ok with a plainly footnote. -- G.Edenhofer (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. On Wikipedia, we shouldn't follow slightly incorrect designations no matter how much widespread they are; IMHO, oversimplification isn't the way for achieving progress. Went ahead and added a footnote, which should make it clear. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to add Architect installer

Guys, don't forget Architect installer which automates Arch Linux installation ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.94 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arch Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/212/104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

i686 being phased out!

Just a heads up, Arch Linux developers have announced that the i686 microprocessor is being phased out effective immediately as announced here may be its worth mentioning this in the main article. Stewart Little (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done![3] Feel free to expand on it. Lonaowna (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Good old i686. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Arch Linux 32

Hi, I took the liberty of creating the Arch Linux 32 page. Noticed this wasn't yet created so I did it as best as I can. Feel Free to add more information to it. Regards QuantumHunter // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

SystemD and Quote by Aaron Griffin

"If you try to hide the complexity of the system, you'll end up with a more complex system". Layers of abstraction that serve to hide internals are never a good thing. Instead, the internals should be designed in a way such that they NEED no hiding. - Aaron Griffin"

So how does he explain the complexity of systemd and it making things more obscure rather than simpler? Including binary logs. There is something not quite right with the quote on the one hand, and the decision by him to adopt systemd on the other hand. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

These queries belong on an Arch Linux forum or IRC channel. Wikipedia merely reports on information, does not justify why the developers think or say certain things. By-the-way the title of this section is incorrect, systemd is spelled systemd, no capitals in it even when it is the heading of a section. fusion809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 10:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The adoption of systemd in 2012 has been a serious infringement of the KISS principle. It should, of course, be related in the history of Archlinux. Since then, this decision has led to numerous forks with openrc or s6 and even a systemd-free mouvement. Google: systemd 4890000 results, systemd-free 3810000 results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.219.154.18 (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

List inclusion of derivatives

I have trimmed the excessive collection of derivatives with no evidence of significance. Wikipedia is not a database or directory. Entries should have an existing article, or atleast some plausible evidence that the entry is noteworthy and an article may be written later (i.e. some detailed coverage in an independent non-promotional source). An example to highlight this recurring problem with large lists: the removed entry for "MagpieOS" was based on an empty private blog. There is no way that such entries have any encyclopedic significance. Aside from erroneous good-faith additions, lists without strict inclusion criteria are also routinely misused by COI editors to promote their own products. GermanJoe (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion re OS family

A discussion related to this article is in progress at Template talk:infobox OS#OS family. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Removal of "listed sources may not be reliable" Template

Looking over the sources for this article, they all seem pretty reasonable and to be reliable sources of information on the Arch Linux project. I understand the templates inclusion as many of the sources draw upon the project's official wiki or website but considering this is a comparatively niche Linux distribution, most of the reliable information comes from the project's own sites. Is this notice really necessary? -Euphoria42 (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Euphoria42: This is the nature of the beast. Multiple independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject are what is required so as to demonstrate the value of the information in the article / the notability of the subject. This is in order precisely to prevent info or subjects that are too niche. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the problem isn't information coming from Arch, the problem is the wiki, it isn't WP:RS because it is user submitted content. We have no way to verify the accuracy of the information posted on the Arch Wiki and it is very much in the same vain as Wikipedia, hence should not be used as a citation. I have no problem citing the Arch Linux website itself, or content therefore within so long as it is being published by the Arch maintainers as they have authority on the subject. Though neutral sources are of course preferred. ShimonChai (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: i am trying to get the arch wiki links out where there is other sources. just as a note, arch wiki has admins and they will not let you change e.g. the arch principles. and if they let, it is the real principles then. but i agree, most pages can be edited like wikipedia. noticing the difference without trying to change them is a challenge. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have tried several times to find alternative citations for these instances but could never find good replacements when I checked. At this point it may end up just needing to be fine to leave them in there just because the content doesn't seem to be factually incorrect, and I am not certain that removing the content just because the citation is technically a Wiki would actually improve the article. ShimonChai (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Would the recent talk from Arch Conf 2020 help with removing a few of the Arch wiki sources? https://media.ccc.de/v/arch-conf-online-2020-6379-arch-linux-past-present-and-future Foxboron (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Arch Linux logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Dedicated Arch Wiki page/section

The Arch Wiki functions as a wiki for many components that are common to multiple distros, and is widely accepted by users (and press) as a Linux wiki, not just for Arch.

There are many FOSS articles recommending its usage as a general purpose resource. Perhaps that merits its own page, or at the very least its own section? 2804:1530:104:A793:5C78:F849:343C:7 (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure if saying Archlinux is written in Python is correct

since only some tools such as archinstall is written in Python, I personally wouldn't consider an installer to be a part of the distro FallingPineapple (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The installer archinstall is a default package included in the iso. Being included as a default part of the distro makes it part of the distro.[4][5] - Aoidh (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If something being delivered on the iso then many many more languages could be included, would you consider arch to be written in shell? FallingPineapple (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What matters more is are there reliable sources that consider it such. Reliable sources describe the installer as part of the release, and the installer is a critical part of the iso. When a source says Arch Linux releases starting this month will include a guided installer it's hard to argue that it's not "part of the distro". - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that in the Archlinux repo you can find 5 languages which don't come with the iso however are part of the archlinux repo FallingPineapple (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

and how reliable are dade2.net and techradar? FallingPineapple (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

there is no issue with the reliability of TechRadar, and the problem with that argument is that in the Archlinux repo you can find 5 languages which don't come with the iso is an apples to oranges comparison which means the comparison doesn't highlight any issue, especially since what you're questioning is backed by reliable sources, which is what we use to guide the content. - Aoidh (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"writerperfect"

It isn't clear what a "writerperfect package" is.

--Mortense (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Reproducible builds

The reproducible builds effort (https://reproducible.archlinux.org/) should probably be mentioned somewhere, perhaps under the package management or history section. Per the Arch wiki (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Reproducible_builds) the project appears to have been started sometime in 2020.

206.12.166.40 (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a paragraph dedicated to reproducible builds in the package management section. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)