Difference between revisions of "Talk:General recommendations"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Two mirrors status pages)
(Mirror Status: Response)
Line 36: Line 36:
[[User:Karol|Karol]] 16:38, 28 September 2010 (EDT)
[[User:Karol|Karol]] 16:38, 28 September 2010 (EDT)
:I vote for both.  Always let the user have more information.  That helps them make a better decision, or in this case, understand things a little better in finer detail. - [[User:KitchM|KitchM]] 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)
== Comments ==
== Comments ==

Revision as of 02:09, 29 September 2010

This page was constructed from information previously available in Post Installation Tips and Beginners' Guide Appendix. See Talk:Post Installation Tips#Duplication of effort (merge?) for details.

The intended style is that of an "index" of popular or otherwise frequently-sought information. This page should contain no real "content", but rather short introductions/descriptions of a problem/application followed by a suitable wiki link for interested parties.

That said, please keep headings alphabetical.

-- pointone 20:03, 11 January 2010 (EST)


HAL redundancy

Restored from old inline talk Dres 22:19, 15 January 2010 (EST)
And which should take precedence; this or #Hardware auto-recognition? pwd 05:11, 26 December 2009 (EST)

I don't see why they can't both peacefully co-exist. -- pointone 20:55, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Short History

One of the problems that exist is for the user to know what is current, as was mentioned below. However, it is also a great idea to have a short explanation by way of a textual timeline explanation.

It appears to me that it would be good to maintain the main articles with up-to-date information by substituting the currently preferred methods and components as they apply within the text.

But it would also be correct to help answer the question of "What happened?" by simple statements of explanation. I'm sure we've all been faced with this question and understand the significance of the situation. Again, a historical perspective, such as stating that "first came x, but it was replaced by the new and improved y, and now we use z because of whatever and the current version is such and such", and thereby keeping people up to date to what's going on. This contributes to the ArchWay and KISS, and it helps reduce questions and misunderstandings.

These condensed simple explanations would go on the appropriate page of the given subject and may not apply to the general notes-type pages. - KitchM 15:34, 24 January 2010 (EST)

Not to say that my disagreement is based on this only, but what would be adequate for articles like these if it's not 'condensed simple explanations'? And explanations regarding why is this used over that fit better in their main articles, since that isn't within the scope of fast overviews, or at least shouldn't be. I'd point out how the whole page simply explains what a given tool or setting does and goes on to throw a link, but you've already noticed this and deemed it misplaced. Dres 19:23, 24 January 2010 (EST)
Edit: Unless by 'simple explanations' you meant the timeline in the first place, in which case you can disregard this since I agree with you.
Yes to your Edit: part. - KitchM 15:47, 3 February 2010 (EST)

Mirror Status

List both or just one? Are there any other similar pages?

Karol 16:38, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

I vote for both. Always let the user have more information. That helps them make a better decision, or in this case, understand things a little better in finer detail. - KitchM 22:09, 28 September 2010 (EDT)


Doing layout first is a nice idea... good thinking.

--Gen2ly 14:16, 19 December 2009 (EST)

Hardware auto recognition/udev

pointone, good call on updating this to today's reality. hwdetect and its kin really aren't noteworthy any more. pwd 13:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Completing the merge

Why does Beginners' Guide Appendix still remain? Since the merge is completed -- and part of its purpose was consolidating content between two articles -- shouldn't Appendix be superseded already? Dres 03:20, 23 January 2010 (EST)

Sorry, I hadn't yet stepped through the appendix to ensure everything of value was merged. As it turns out, the boot process section provided more detail than Arch Boot Process (which I've now merged).
Beginners' Guide Appendix now redirects to General Recommendations.
-- pointone 12:58, 23 January 2010 (EST)