Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Why is Artix not an Arch project, but a fork? (Read 2040 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Why is Artix not an Arch project, but a fork?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Hitman – on
Last time i screwed around Parabola i still had problems with propr. software even after removing your-freedom and booting another kernel, they must be doing something else library wise. Probably Steam with included libraries might start up, i need to check, but with my t400 only having opengl1.1 it might complain  :)  my ryzen machine won't boot parabola due to amdgpu.
But yeah their repos and linux-libre kernel are good for some stuff but the distro is completely weird.

not all blobs are the enemy after all
Cat Herders of Linux

Re: Why is Artix not an Arch project, but a fork?

Reply #17 –
 ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D
Cat Herders of Linux

Re: Why is Artix not an Arch project, but a fork?

Reply #18 –
Quote from: l3u – on
Yeah okay, that explains it. I'm pretty sure they could find a solution to that if they wanted (like creating Gentoo-like profiles, and having a repository containg the packages to be switched between init systems for each; and changing the profile activates the respective repo or whatever). But if they don't want, that won't happen.
Just consider that Arch start just now to offer installations-scripts and this....
only because people like Ermanno Ferrari (EF-linux on youtube, a fan of Arch) start to offer those scripts on his github account.

The reason is very simple, former CLI-installation was too much trouble for all if the user want to use btrfs, so! They were obliged to offer (in last three monthly installations) better and better scripts.

Surely, the quality of an OS increase when more people work on it, but, as usual, ideologies don't have a positive effect.
OSs all, even free, was "involved" in something very similar to, if not absolutely ideological, "emotional spiral".

Moreover, some people are so constraint in ideological things, that first ignore the problems, than camouflage them and finally, only when the user deserting... make some changes.

The biggest and oldest problem we have (p.e.) is/are the data-carrier (HDD, SSD, NVMe, etc.) with their partitioning and formatting. In this case, none piece of software, for all graphical, is able to partition and format properly 4K-drives (PBS/LBS).
Only one CLI-app is able to do it, and this is `sgdisk` for partitioning. For formatting such "drives"... you have to grab the most obscure tricks, today in 2022.

About ZFS... we don't talk about it, but only one: The new "Free-Nas/True-NAS" is Debian-based (with "SystemD" of course)  ;D

We here (with/by Artix) are glad to test and use a relatively new OS, the success in the ranking prove many things.
The most important evidence is that SystemD was not (diplomatically said) necessary.

Conclusion: In a software-world not caring about basic and primitively problems (like proper handling of data-carrier) is Artix taking care about the most dangerous... refuse  the use of SystemD.

The ideology of Arch with their inactivity obliged the arisen of Manjaro, Arco-Linux and many others arch-based OS that basically was not necessary.

Basically, if we want to remain honest... Arch is not an OS for server because cannot handle ZFS (Kernel newer than ZFS-packages) and until three months ago was only a desktop-OS for "experts". RIP (requiescat in pacem) Arch!


Re: Why is Artix not an Arch project, but a fork?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: tony26102 – on
Just consider ...

... former CLI-installation was too much trouble for all if the user want to use, ...

... when more people work on it, ...

Moreover, some people are so constraint in ideological things, ...

The biggest and oldest problem we have ..., you have to grab the most obscure tricks, ...

About ZFS...

The most important evidence ...

Conclusion: ...

The ideology of Arch ...

Basically, if we want to remain honest...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I08EpZU8z8M
"Wer alles kann, macht nichts richtig"

Artix USE="runit openrc slim openbox lxde gtk2 qt4 qt5 qt6 conky
-gtk3 -gtk4 -adwaita{cursors,themes,icons} -gnome3 -kde -plasma -wayland "

Re: Why is Artix not an Arch project, but a fork?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: ####### – on
Arch started developing a simplified GUI installer over a decade ago but most users weren't interested in it so it was abandoned:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=260360
Since the past cannot be changed by anyone, let's say diplomatically, it's all good.

With the so-called forks, of course, there is a lot of work on the wiki that needs to be adapted, see also Arco and Majaro for example.

The thing with the "Init system" does a lot of work and "SystemD" is in too many packages, it even has its own "bootloader".

I don't think that all the people who wrote the installation scripts or made other Arch-based OS with Calamares installation was boring.

Well, it seems that it is not so easy to remove "SystemD"...

Moreover, and especially now that Arch has an installation script... you should ask Arch why and whether Arch can be installed without "SystemD".

But, we already know this answer... a link on the wiki where it says that you can install any init system.

In general, it is easier for a Gentoo "user" to adapt Artix to their own needs than to remove "SystemD" from Arch.