Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
2009/12/3 Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org: Allan McRae wrote: I personally think your mis-reading the Arch Way. So another person who mistakes the use of simplicity for minimalism. I thought we had been through that many, many times. Can we, independently of the technical details of dbus, agree all, that I and some other people have been interpreting the arch way wrong? If yes, can we please change the wiki to reflect that? i suggest removing the words minimalistic and unix like from http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way also possibly A freshly installed Arch Linux system contains only basic core components as the definition of basic is unclear. additionaly i propose that a conclusion to this whole thing is noted on the page, that says something like: Archlinux is optimized, to work well with all desktops, not just one, including that it will not sacrifice commonly available desktop software for the sake of simplicity. It's very fuzzy, as i try not to offend anyone again. maybe more concrete: As an example: there have been ongoing discussions to sacrifice feature X,Y for the advantage of commandline or antidesktop users, and to the disadvantage of desktop users. This is not what archlinux is about, as we want to provide a good user experience for the largest possible user base I prefer a clear this distro is not for you, go away over we share your mindset. maybe. or maybe not.. and this would have helped to avoid this situation alltogether. Thank you. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies Holy *beep*, why are you doing that?! Stop filling my inbox with useless crap! Why don't you make your own distribution? I'd be glad to annoy you all the day with pointless nitpicking. I wish I could filter your e-mails. Life would be so much easier than… Damn, it's so difficult to ignore trolls.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Arvid: Linux from scratch.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 23:23 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Allan McRae wrote: I personally think your mis-reading the Arch Way. So another person who mistakes the use of simplicity for minimalism. I thought we had been through that many, many times. Can we, independently of the technical details of dbus, agree all, that I and some other people have been interpreting the arch way wrong? I actually think the you've been over-focusing on a single part of the 'arch way', that its 'all about' minimalism. If yes, can we please change the wiki to reflect that? i suggest removing the words minimalistic and unix like from http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way also possibly A freshly installed Arch Linux system contains only basic core components as the definition of basic is unclear. additionaly i propose that a conclusion to this whole thing is noted on the page, that says something like: Archlinux is optimized, to work well with all desktops, not just one, including that it will not sacrifice commonly available desktop software for the sake of simplicity. It's very fuzzy, as i try not to offend anyone again. maybe more concrete: As an example: there have been ongoing discussions to sacrifice feature X,Y for the advantage of commandline or antidesktop users, and to the disadvantage of desktop users. This is not what archlinux is about, as we want to provide a good user experience for the largest possible user base Throughout this thread the vibe I've been getting for you is that you somehow feel disadvantaged and biased-against because dbus/hal exist and are selected as options in building general-purpose binaries. As an example, I'm a pulseaudio user, and I'm very happy with its features. Unfortunately (in my view) it is not integrated into our current gnome packages though it is upstream, nor are packages with pulse support provided in a binary form which can output to pulse (mpd for one). I understand, however, that most do not want/need/care about Pulseaudio, so I compile my own packages with pulse support. DISCLAIMER: JGC has stated that he will eventually include Pulseaudio in Gnome, but that its a lot of work, and I totally understand that. Its not an either/or for 'minimalist' and 'desktop' users, for an entire distro... I prefer a clear this distro is not for you, go away over we share your mindset. maybe. or maybe not.. and this would have helped to avoid this situation alltogether. Thank you. Why is Arch not for the minimalist user? Because dbus/hal are enabled in some packages in binary? Is Arch not for the standard desktop user who doesn't have a wifi card because wifi modules are compiled into the standard kernel26? For me, one of the primary benefits of Arch is that PKGBUILDs are simple to read and modify, allowing me to customize my system without having to compile outside the package manager (try doing that in Ubuntu). This allows ALL users the freedom to decide what their system should be like. Arch is what you make it.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Ng Oon-Ee wrote: I actually think the you've been over-focusing on a single part of the 'arch way', that its 'all about' minimalism. then i suggest we remove the statement that it is all about minimalism. Throughout this thread the vibe I've been getting for you is that you somehow feel disadvantaged and biased-against because dbus/hal exist and are selected as options in building general-purpose binaries. I feel in fact like wasting my time. I am a very simple person. I understand fuck you very well and can handle it, other things like blurry project goals make me act stupid. Why is Arch not for the minimalist user? Because it was officially stated by two arch devs that it is not. Because dbus/hal are enabled in some packages in binary? Because its philosophy does not match. That goes way deeper then arguing vim vs emacs. Please, can we stop beating it now, and just officialy tell minimalists to fuck off so everyone can stop wasting their time? -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 12:08:29AM +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Please, can we stop beating it now, and just officialy tell minimalists to fuck off so everyone can stop wasting their time? Bad spelling and foul language. I'd suggest to tell those who want a bloated system with lots of useless dependencies to move to Ubuntu or Fedora so everybody can stop wasting his/her time. Ciao, -- FA
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
2009/12/3 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com: Arch is what you make it. I think you nailed it. I always thought the Arch Way as a principle, not a rule. We're not a religion, neither a nation. The few rules we have are for the well of the community, so that it can go forward without losing time with nitpicking. The Arch Way should not be used as a stick to bash other people on the head. This is a problem inherent to any positive principle. People are more easily led by a list of negative commandments (don't do this, don't do that) than broad positive principles, as the Arch Way, in which each one can extract a different truth. Oh, the people... -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? --- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto ---
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
f...@kokkinizita.net wrote: On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 12:08:29AM +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Please, can we stop beating it now, and just officialy tell minimalists to fuck off so everyone can stop wasting their time? Bad spelling and foul language. Yeah once again i fail at not offending anyone... suggest better wording please. this honestly not feeling offensive for me, and i'm incapable of doing it your way. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Please, stop filling my inbox with useless junk.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Sébastien Leblanc wrote: Please, stop filling my inbox with useless junk. Please use the kill thread option of your MUA. Messages like this aren't helping anyone, and are especcialy not helping to minimize the thread length. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote: I'd suggest to tell those who want a bloated system with lots of useless dependencies to move to Ubuntu or Fedora so everybody can stop wasting his/her time. I wouldn't go that far. That kind of attitude is what derails the conversation. Again, simplicity is not mensurable. Maybe the Arch Way does more harm than good talking in terms of things we can't measure. Or maybe people should stop reading it as a gospel. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? --- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto ---
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Heiko Baums wrote: Show me a more minimalist distribution than Arch and Gentoo. I guess you won't find one. And if you did I suggest you switching to this distro. This is the entire reason i want arch to officialy state that these users are not welcome. I want to move on, so we can split up the user bases. Ultimately so both sides can continue their life without the constant (and i'm meaning constant. this isnt the first time this discussion exploded) need to reevaluate if arch should do this or that. If Arch doesn't fit your needs then choose another distro or build one by yourself. It's done. All i want is to settle this in a useful way. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
2009/12/3 Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org: Ng Oon-Ee wrote: I actually think the you've been over-focusing on a single part of the 'arch way', that its 'all about' minimalism. then i suggest we remove the statement that it is all about minimalism. Throughout this thread the vibe I've been getting for you is that you somehow feel disadvantaged and biased-against because dbus/hal exist and are selected as options in building general-purpose binaries. I feel in fact like wasting my time. I am a very simple person. I understand fuck you very well and can handle it, other things like blurry project goals make me act stupid. Why is Arch not for the minimalist user? Because it was officially stated by two arch devs that it is not. Because dbus/hal are enabled in some packages in binary? Because its philosophy does not match. That goes way deeper then arguing vim vs emacs. Please, can we stop beating it now, and just officialy tell minimalists to fuck off so everyone can stop wasting their time? -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies It all just depends on the degree of minimalism one is after. I went from Gentoo to Ubuntu to Arch Linux (With a whole lot of other distros before and in between, including Crux, Slackware, and the BSDs). For me, Arch is far more minimal than Gentoo and Ubuntu. (More minimal than Gentoo because package building is minimized, and more minimal than Ubuntu as far as package dependencies/complexities and also configuration/runlevels/etc). For me Arch is the best balance of minimalism and overall functionality that I've found in any Linux distro. Yes, compared to slackware, Arch Linux might not be minimal, but compared to the desktop distros Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva, OpenSUSE, and the likes, ArchLinux is very lightweight and minimal. Arch can't be the ideal distro for everybody. Like others have said, it is what you make it, and being able to easily add your own packages and repositories makes Arch far flexible than the non minimal desktop distros. Yeah, maybe I should not add to this discussion. It has gone on long enough. Dwight
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 00:49 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Heiko Baums wrote: Show me a more minimalist distribution than Arch and Gentoo. I guess you won't find one. And if you did I suggest you switching to this distro. This is the entire reason i want arch to officialy state that these users are not welcome. I want to move on, so we can split up the user bases. Ultimately so both sides can continue their life without the constant (and i'm meaning constant. this isnt the first time this discussion exploded) need to reevaluate if arch should do this or that. If Arch doesn't fit your needs then choose another distro or build one by yourself. It's done. All i want is to settle this in a useful way. I think that's about all that can be said then. Arch Linux, and its devs/community, does not dislike (or fail to welcome) minimalist users. The only users Arch does not welcome are those who don't want to do their homework, as far as I can see (obviously not you). All users are welcome to make THEIR Arch install what they want.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Am Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:49:14 +0100 schrieb Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org: This is the entire reason i want arch to officialy state that these users are not welcome. I want to move on, so we can split up the user bases. Ultimately so both sides can continue their life without the constant (and i'm meaning constant. this isnt the first time this discussion exploded) need to reevaluate if arch should do this or that. You still don't understand or don't want to understand it. Arch is for both sides. Arch as it is can be used by the so called power users who only want to use the keyboard and the console. And Arch as it is can also be used by the average user who just want a nice desktop and just want to read and write his e-mails, surf through the web and write some letters with an office suite. Both user bases can choose what they want to install on Arch as it is now. That's minimalism. It's done. All i want is to settle this in a useful way. So why do you continue ranting about Arch? Write your own website and build your own mirrors and writer there why you are forking Arch and what's the difference between Arch and your distro. But again I doubt that you can keep such a minimalism as you like especially if you'll get a bigger user base. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Heiko Baums wrote: So why do you continue ranting about Arch? I tried not to. All i wanted is a clear cut, but i think i'm alone with that wish, so i'll stop beating it. You're the ones who'll have to deal with this procedure over and over again (not with me. no worries) -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
On 03/12/09 23:49, Arvid Picciani wrote: Heiko Baums wrote: Show me a more minimalist distribution than Arch and Gentoo. I guess you won't find one. And if you did I suggest you switching to this distro. This is the entire reason i want arch to officialy state that these users are not welcome. I want to move on, so we can split up the user bases. Ultimately so both sides can continue their life without the constant (and i'm meaning constant. this isnt the first time this discussion exploded) need to reevaluate if arch should do this or that. If Arch doesn't fit your needs then choose another distro or build one by yourself. It's done. All i want is to settle this in a useful way. I originally identified you as a poisonous person and you just keep confirming my theory.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
Arvid Picciani wrote: It's done. All i want is to settle this in a useful way. Nathan Wayde wrote: I originally identified you as a poisonous person and you just keep confirming my theory. a I found a problem b I made aware of the problem c I have provided patches d I have provided packages e I have expressed the wish to find a way that suits both sides f You accuse me of being poisonous. I'm a strong person, but there are things i am not capable of just letting go. Calling someone who drives the very foundation You spit on poisonous is a very sad new addition to the foss world. Usually I'd take such insult with a grain of salt and swallow it, but seeing that You are backed by a very large amount of people, it might be wise to just accept that I'm not welcome anymore, in a world I once helped creating. Maybe I'm like a father who can't let his kids go, and i am indeed poisonous in a way that i deny the kids to make their own mistakes. For the time being, good luck on your journey. Just remember that the cake is a lie. /s/ Arvid
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 04:36 +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: Arvid Picciani wrote: It's done. All i want is to settle this in a useful way. Nathan Wayde wrote: I originally identified you as a poisonous person and you just keep confirming my theory. a I found a problem b I made aware of the problem c I have provided patches d I have provided packages e I have expressed the wish to find a way that suits both sides f You accuse me of being poisonous. I'm a strong person, but there are things i am not capable of just letting go. Calling someone who drives the very foundation You spit on poisonous is a very sad new addition to the foss world. I'm unsure what foundation you're driving. Perhaps you code and package? Well done to you then, such work is always appreciated. But it doesn't come with the right to look down on and insult those who don't share your vision on Linux, or Arch. Usually I'd take such insult with a grain of salt and swallow it, but seeing that You are backed by a very large amount of people, it might be wise to just accept that I'm not welcome anymore, in a world I once helped creating. Maybe I'm like a father who can't let his kids go, and i am indeed poisonous in a way that i deny the kids to make their own mistakes. For the time being, good luck on your journey. Just remember that the cake is a lie. /s/ Arvid /me thinks Arvid is perhaps Judd in disguise? 'deny the kids to make their own mistakes', such as using software and DEs which you don't agree with and think are fundamentally broken (but surprisingly 'just work' (tm) for others). I keep wanting to ignore these threads... somehow the absurdities keep getting worse though.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
For a thread with subject peaceful this has really gone downhill. Anyway, I doubt anybody that matters in terms of making decisions around here is still reading this. I only read the last couple of emails out of some sort of morbid curiosity... Allan
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 14:00 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: For a thread with subject peaceful this has really gone downhill. Anyway, I doubt anybody that matters in terms of making decisions around here is still reading this. I only read the last couple of emails out of some sort of morbid curiosity... Allan I get the hint. Thanks Allan. Signing off this thread.
Re: [arch-general] peaceful suggestion to clarify the arch way to avoid this to happen AGAIN
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:08:29 +0100, Arvid Picciani a...@exys.org wrote: Please, can we stop beating it now, and just officialy tell minimalists to fuck off so everyone can stop wasting their time? I've been following this thread off an on. Great to see you having an opinion and standing up for it, the same for everyone else. As I understand from above part, you just would be happy with a fuck off, right? Well, Fuck off if you think about minimalism in a way like you do. It is obviously not the same as the most in the Arch community understands it. Now you've got a fuck off and you can stop wasting your time. The Arch way in the wiki are just words, you have to become part of the community to really understand it. -- Jeroen Op 't Eynde jer...@xprsyrslf.be http://xprsyrslf.be How to set up a cheap professional website @ XprsYrslf.be
