User talk:Alad
pacaur
I suggest being friendlier with other users that contribute to Wiki pages right under your nose. I sincerely apologize that I did not scroll down to the table. As far as I can see Yaourt is still maintained but shows up as unmaintained in the comparison table. Dominik
- I've lost count on how often people added the "unmaintained" flag to pacaur even though better solutions were proposed. I had to lock the page at some point and consider doing it again.
- Yaourt is not maintained by the definition used in the table since it has never addressed outstanding issues with security or corrupting builds. -- Alad (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Mount efivarfs
I found your comment funny since it was you who flagged that section with Template:Out of date: Special:Diff/489445. -- nl6720 (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Identify damaged files
Your title is much better than mine was but in the future could you please leave more constructive edit comments? Thank you.Ksd (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't expect a comment on this ~3 years later... but yes I will, thank you. -- Alad (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Heh, yeah I just recently decided to come back and start updating that article again with some new info (my old user was User:MaBeef). I appreciate it and no hard feelings. -- Ksd (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Number of links in a section
It is often quite useful to convert text into links, such as "pacman" into pacman, however, I am uncertain as to how frequently this should occur. I didn't see a specific mention of link frequency in on the Help:Editing#Links or in Help:Style, only the styling based on the context and location of the link. In general, is it seen as useful to convert every possible bit of text that references an existing page on the wiki into a link, or should it be done in moderation? My rule of thumb so far has been to convert the text to a link if a term has been mentioned in that section for the first time. Would it be considered "best practices" to do it more or less than I am currently? -- Aeros167 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- See also Help:Style/Formatting_and_punctuation#First_instances. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oh I see, this rule clears it up "If the name is already introduced by the title of the article or by a section heading, its first relevant appearance in the body can only be used as a link anchor...". For clarification, could Help:Style/Formatting_and_punctuation#First_instances be linked to in the Help:Editing#Links section? I've noticed that a few rule sections link to other related rules to make it a bit easier to find them, the Help pages are quite extensive. -- Aeros167 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Archman Linux
We didn't think the os-release content would be a problem. We provided information about Archman in the lsb_release file. Now we have edited the os-release file. The latest changes will be effective after this date.
- https://gitlab.com/Archman-OS/ArchmanISO/tree/master/airootfs/etc If you look at this link, you can see that we have already edited our os-release file. We edited again the os-release file under usr/lib. When I looked at the other arch-based distributions on the list, I found that many of them worked like us. The os-release file only exists under the etc directory. I just don't understand why we've got your attention. Tulliana (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
We also did not think the #archlinux chat room would be a problem, we put it as a gesture. We removed the #archlinux room from our chat lists.
I would like to add Archman Linux to the list of distributions in 2017. We will be pleased if you make the necessary arrangements
Best regards
tulliana (Archman team leader)
- I am not authorized to edit the Arch-based distributions page. I could edit beforehand. I would appreciate it if you authorize for me Tulliana (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is not about lsb_release file, but statements that misrepresent derivative work to be same as original:
- Archman linux is a pre-built and configured Arch linux. You can continue to use Arch linux completely by changing the / etc / lsb-release and etc / os-release file contents to Arch Linux after installation. Archman linux is just Arch linux.
- We want opposite of that, for you to not equate your work with original. You can say "based on" and not claim you can somehow turn that installation into Arch Linux which you can't.
- Reason to do that is if you break something or introduce malicious code into your installation program, we want you to be clear on your website you are responsible for that and you should be contacted with any issues your users have, not Arch Linux. Because installing via your installer and official media is not the same thing, we can't and don't provide support for those, just like we don't consider those installation to be installations of Arch Linux.
- -- Svito (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- We just wanted to tell you that we didn't get too far away from base distribution when we said Arch Linux. We understood what you wanted to say and we didn't think we were wrong. From this point of view, I agree with you. We'll remove the phrases you're talking about right now, or change them to make no violation. We don't want to harm Arch linux in any way. Arch linux is our very valuable base distribution. We apply regulations immediately, please remove us from the list of negative examples. Best regards. Tulliana (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is not about lsb_release file, but statements that misrepresent derivative work to be same as original:
Mention third-party installers
You really should think about your discussion style. I made a point, installers are not distributions, and the only reaction is deletion.
Anyway as this topic might come up again, it might be clever anyway to keep it, so others can read the discussion first, to know about your "oppinion".