Talk:Arch Linux
2007 logo contest
Can we squeeze the logo contest somewhere in the history section? Or can you think of an even better place? The submissions are backed up at [1] and we might also link to [2]. — Lahwaacz (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think I've done it with Special:Diff/838347. Closing. -- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
GUI configuration utilities are not officially provided
What do you (we) mean by that? Not in "core"? Not in "extra"? (well, a lot of GUI tools are in extra…) Not in Arch ISO?.. I personally would prefer to just remove that sentence… -- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the page history, the introductory edit seems to mean "we don't promote graphical tools for system configuration", but I don't have a good suggestion to reword the existing sentence though.
- -- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I hope I've done it right, see Special:Diff/838336. Anyway, it's better than before:D Closing. -- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
What is the "minimal base system"?
How to linkify it properly (look at Intro)? Imagine, you are a newcomer—i.e. you don't know anything about Linux—and you see this phrase.
[The rule of thumb: if you're in trouble—ask @Erus Iluvatar:D]
-- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would link to Installation guide#Install essential packages I guess? Erus Iluvatar (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- As always—thank you! Closing. -- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Re: What is "Arch Linux Modernity" these days?
Note: this is a reply to an arch-dev-public message by User:Andrei Korshikov:
Hi, folks.
I don't like the second paragraph of [1]. All that stuff (systemd, udev, …) was modern 10+ years ago, but nowadays they all are kind of mainstream.
So, could you say what you think about modernity?
My very personal opinion [2]—that second paragraph should be just deleted. But I hope you will point me out.
--- Andrej Koršikov
The paragraph dates back to the earliest, 2005 version of the article, where it was “modern tools” and not “modernity.” A few years later the section was restructured and renamed, with emphasis on not keeping package versions back. It seems over the years nobody felt fine with removing that paragraph, giving us that two-headed “definition.”
Two separate concepts under a single title are a bit clumsy. However, other than that I don’t see any good reason to remove the paragraph. Certainly I don’t understand your rationale and find it contradicting.
You yourself say that “nowadays they all are kind of mainstream.” Systemd, btfs and ext4, lvm, udev, and initcpio are all currently used, widely deployed solutions. Which means they are modern.
I’m a native Polish speaker and your name suggests a Slavic language may also be your mother tongue. Perhaps the confusion comes from comparing English “modern” to words like: nowoczesny, moderni, суча́сний, совреме́нный. To my knowledge all of them are notoriously used in vernacular speech in a persuasive manner, borderline manipulative, yet devoid of a meaning: to trigger “good feeling” of something futuristic. AFAIK in English this kind of use is much less common. It simply means “current” with some stress on negating “ancient.” Which is also the proper meaning of all these Slavic words, when used in substantive, non-emotional discussions.
If anything, I would stick to the older version, whenre it was a continuous text. Not a list. IMO it conveys the message much better.
--Mpan (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Huge thank you! I did not know that "modern means current non ancient" and "modern does not mean futuristic". Once again, I've learned something new:) You've answered my question, so I close this topic.
- About "list vs not a list". I frequently say "opinionated" or "feel free to revert" in wiki edit comments—i.e. I do understand that styling is kind of art, and I almost never force my styling opinion.
- -- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not going to revert your edit. I may see the continuous one as nicer, but yours is not wrong either. Just sharing my opinion on that paragraph. :)
- As for the language thing, I wish to be perfectly clear here. It’s no straight, clean cut. In both English and Slavic languages both meanings are used. It is about the tone and balance.
- In Polish “nowoczesny” is almost universally used to convey that futuristic, progressive feeling. Each time I see “modern” in English, it’s usually on the more toned down “current, not ancient” side. But of course we can find examples from all across the scale, and it depends on whom you ask, where do they come from, and in which setting the word is used.
- --Mpan (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
What are "official packages"?
I agree with Special:Diff/838401 and see your intent.
But—as always, imagine a newcomer—in /* Versatility */ we have "official repositories". If "official package" is any package from "official repos", then our "official packages" have to be somehow renamed. If it is not—it should be explained. And, anyway, it should be linkified—because subj is very natural question.
cc:@Erus Iluvatar -- Andrei Korshikov (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Packages in the official repositories are indeed what I meant by "official packages", I don't see what you mean by «then our "official packages" have to be somehow renamed»: you would like the sentence to be "Arch Linux packages in the official repositories do not provide…"? If so go ahead, reading it feels weird to me, but it's probably less ambiguous.
- -- Erus Iluvatar (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)