5 Likes
Not to upset anyone⌠but is it really all that surprising that Arch would make Arch more difficult to set up? Their wiki is purposely set up to not be easy to follow. This is just one more reason to use something like EndeavourOS or Manjaro. What I wonder is, how does this change affect the down stream derivatives? Does it change the amount of work required by those distributions?
Well, not to upset anyone, but since when Arch started to cater to the general public? If you go to the wiki, itâs not really in the fine print that you need to have experience and/or the willingness to learn if you want to use it. They have their niche they would like to be in, it doesnât really matter how big of a slice they get from the overall Linux user base.
I think if you donât think Arch is convenient enough for you to install, there are a thousand other distros to choose from. If you like what Arch has to offer, be prepared to read the wiki and the forums in your free time.
Not on BitChute yet.
Some of us are done with anything related with Google.
It will be whenever BitChuteâs API gets to it in the queue.
1 Like
How about JoshWHoTV? 
BitChute was chosen because they make the process easier to use vs the others so we arenât looking for any alternatives to BitChute.
1 Like
@CubicleNate & @TarsolyGer, we arenât really surprised by this happening, just disappointed. Arch Linux has a lot of people promoting it and even Valve started doing that some. They had the opportunity to make the distro more appealing but rather than doing that they made it even harder to setup making Manjaro, EndeavourOS, etc even more vital . . . itâs just disappointing to me, but yea, not surprising.
I do understand their approach to distro development which is why I always defended them when people said it was a âtoxicâ community which is not fair to say but at the same time it is very restrictive in who could use it the vanilla âArch Wayâ and if they want to make it that way then thatâs fine. I am just disappointed they didnât see the opportunity or maybe they did and decided to go the exact opposite away from it. I donât know. Itâs unfortunate.
3 Likes
In my opinion the Arch Linux change was good. Arch has its principles and as an user Iâm happy that it sticks to them. It makes Arch slightly harder to install, but you could have done better job covering the positives too. In my opinion they outweight the negatives. The change is explained well (and a bit late) here: [arch-dev-public] Information about the base meta-package
Iâm also surprised, that you even covered this change at all. It is pretty trivial to end users.
Their reasoning is a bit odd to me, like this for instance:
A simple example would be the systemd package, no matter
what use-case you have (like a tiny container) we assume you must
have systemd installed as its being relied on (sysusers, tmpdirs,
etc.).
And the linux kernel wouldnât be?
@Sar In a tiny container it probably wouldnât, because the host OS kernel would be used. (I know almost nothing about containers, but I think this is how it is. 
)
1 Like
the trick is that there are multiple kernel packages for Arch Linux you can use. There is linux, linux-lts, linux-zen, linux-hardened or maybe you want to compile your own custom kernel to use. In the past, you used base, with the linux package, and if you wanted an other, you had to specifically remove it and add the other one you wanted to use.
Now youâre forced/allowed to make the choice at the very beginning.
Well, that whole segment about archlinux replacing base group with base meta package was just sad to listen. Even harder to set up? Itâs literally just adding one or two package names to pacstrap command. Thatâs it. Thatâs the whole story for the users.
True, but then again anyone wishing to use a specific kernel will know how to install and use that kernel post-installation, so to me itâs a bit of a nonsense change that could result in newer arch users installing an unbootable system, if for example they use a YouTube or web-based guide.
If you use any other guide than the official Installation Guide, you should be looking for support there (official Arch position).
Sure, you can change the kernel any time in the future, but if you know exactly which one you want to use beforehand, why screw around with that? The command âpacstrap /mnt baseâ is not intended as an installer.
The detailed reason they give on the mailing list includes that they only want to include in base the packages that are mandatory, and every other package should treat as being existing on every Arch system, when it comes to dependency checks.
Now hear me 
I disagree with all DL team in their opinion about Arch Linux changes. Iâve created a Discourse account deliberately to communicate this! 
TL;DR:
Opinion that removing some packages from the base system gives nothing but the increasing difficulty of installation is way too exaggerated. Saying loud that this is a bad PR for that distribution is even more nonsense.
With all respect, it seems that you represent âonlyâ desktop users of Arch Linux.
So first thing to note (besides things that I think have not yet been mentioned by other advocates of the changes) is that Arch is not only desktop-oriented. It broadly supports many devices such as hardened servers and - whatâs more important in this discussion - embedded devices (check archlinuxarm.org). When developing such an operating system different circumstances occur, which may push comfort of installation down on priority list.
Secondly, Arch Linux is somewhat similar to Gentoo where user is pushed to have the most control over itâs system as possible thereby pushing itâs power user to the terminal/console and forced to make choices up to the core.
Thirdly, which is a consequence of the former, but not always happen - a learning curve. Obviously Linux is not only a âdesktop operating systemâ. Itâs main strength is everything BUT the desktop. New Linux users, who are brave enough to start with Arch will learn about Linux ecosystem much more than their Ubuntu friends. This what happened to me when I was struggling with Gentoo for many years. It is Gentooâs Wiki & Forums that I learned from the most and many of my *buntu friends still blindly copyânâpaste the snippets found around the Internet just to install something or change settings - i.e. they have never deep-dived INTO the Linux.
And lastly - Arch wiki is very helpfull. If somebody feels that itâs content is not up to date or easy enough, he should apply changes (it is what Wikis are made for). Criticizing is the easiest way and comes with the lowest contribution possible.
So if one wants to promote Arch Linux he should understand itâs differences from other distributions as it is itâs strength.
Thank you.
First of all, I appreciate the feedback but I do think there is a bit of a miscommunication here.
Arch is mostly used for desktop. I doubt anyone is doing mass deployment of Arch on servers as that would be a maintenance nightmare. ALARM aka Arch Linux ARM is not a part of the Arch Linux project, it is a separate project maintained by a completely different set of people so the decision Arch Linux made doesnât actually affected ALARM. ALARM could choose to adopt it as well but it doesnât have to since they are different projects.
Everything they removed from the previous structure could have already been swapped out during install including the kernel. It didnât change what could be done, it changed what was required to be done. The user already had the same level of control this implemented.
Linuxâs main strength isnât that. Linux is a fantastic desktop system and it is already the dominant system for every other form of computing so we should focus on the Desktop because Linux already dominates the rest.
In my opinion, they shouldnât have to dive deep into Linux. If someone wants to its great, but they shouldnât have to. I donât disagree that if someone chooses to start with Arch then they will be in a world of hurt and thats the point of it. I donât have a problem with that.
I am just saying this change didnât do anything special that couldnât already be done with the previous structure they had because you can still choose everything you can in this one . . . the difference is now you have to. Itâs odd and even some of the Arch Linux devs agree its odd and said so in the mailing list . . . it wasnt a unanimous decision.
We mentioned this in the show that I and Ryan have both contributed to the Arch Wiki and often times the Arch Wiki maintainers will change what you submit because it apparently isnât obscure enough. The last time I contributed was when I added info about how to do host-only networking with virtualbox inside of Arch. I explained exactly what was needed and how to do it . . . and then a day or 2 later it was changed to be ambiguous and essentially not explain anything. The Arch Wiki is sometimes great and sometimes not.
This is making a big assumption in that we dont contribute other than criticize. I have been using Linux for ever 20 years and I have contributed to basically every big project in some way or another. I contribute to Arch many years ago and I was a team member for Antergos (arch based distro) for many years as well. Criticizing isnât a bad thing in my opinion . . . it can be but criticism in itself is fine and in fact quite useful.
We do understand the differences and what are the pros and cons. Though to be clear, I donât promote Arch because I donât think most people should even know it exists. Ryan was talking about the marketing of Arch because he does like Arch and wants it to be more than it is. I donât use Arch nor have any desire to do so these days so this action doesnât bother me at all. I merely stated that making a drastic change like this with not much, if any, apparent value is a mistake. (since you already choose all of these things like I said) Plus, saying stuff was removed with a throwaway sentence of âsome other things you might expect have been removedâ, is also a mistake.
They want to be minimal and thats great . . . totally fine . . . but their announcement of removing packages from the base system that has been consistent for years might warrant at least a few sentences as to why they did it.
1 Like
My issue is about the fact that they didnt say what all the packages were that were removed. They just said âand other packages you might expectâ. Super helpful. With that said, it is making it harder for no apparent reason. I donât consider making something hard a bad thing, I donât care about that . . . it was the fact that they didnât offer a reason and the claims people give for âmore controlâ . . . everyone already had the same control with choosing whatever kernel, shell, and etc that they wanted. It is a change for the sake of change. But again, I donât care that they made this change. I just want them to be clear about what actually changed because the announcement on the homepage was sadly lacking.
1 Like
All of these changes make me more glad Iâm a Manjaro user. Itâs still Arch, but itâs not directly dependant on a set of devs who are hostile to the notion of people actually using their product. Hell even registering on the Arch forum is a trial for a new user.
Itâs like they deliberately want to gatekeep their distro to keep out users with less than a certain amount of knowledge, and when that required knowledge becomes more widespread they reset the bar to exclude newer users again.
Behaviour like that will only lead to Arch stagnating and withering as a result as Devs naturally drift off over time, which is a shame because I had great fun working it out and finishing my own Arch install.
Thank god for the Manjaro dev team who work as a filter for this sort of crap and give users an Arch-based distro thatâs functionally usable and a pleasure to use, particularly the Plasma spin.
And I prefer arch-based because debian/ubuntu based distros rely on PPAs, which I find a pain in the ass to keep updated, as itâs far too easy for an individual PPA to fall by the wayside and kill updating your system.
Archâs AUR is superior IMO, as itâs an open resource thatâs not dependant on any one individual maintaining a resource to keep and anyone can maintain packages, which while it can have obvious downsides, I feel is outweighed by resource availability over PPA availability.
There are no PPAs for Debian or at least you should not use them on a Debian system.
I know what you want to say but some users depend on PPAs not Ubuntu and nowadays we have better alternatives.
Personally I think PPAs and the AUR are actually very similar, both can be a risk and everybody can maintain either of them and as far as I remember even Manjaro warns you about using the AUR, not that you cannot.