On Elitism again
Antergos is based on a higly eliist system. Arch linux does not provide any installer, not even a text based one. So the Arch devolopers definetly do not have the normal user in mind, but are focussed on professionals, who need to have profound knowledge of the system fundamentals. That is why we have got into this discussion on elitism.
I appreciate a lot, that distros like Antergos and Archbang provide an easier way to get into Arch. Otherwise I would have never touched any Arch system this summer.
I like the idea to redesign Arch with the needs of us ordinary people in mind.
But how much simplification is possible without corrupting the underlying structure of Arch?
I think pamac is a step too far. The idea to provide a tool as simple and informative as Debian’s Synaptic is good. But Synaptic only works fine with fixed Debian. With rolling Debian it can cause the same problems as pamac.
With pamac we have a paradox situation. It looks like an easy tool for beginners, just like synaptic. But to use pamac correctly, you need profound knowledge of pacman and the stumbling blocks of a rolling system. So pamac can be useful, but only for those who know what they are doing and not for beginners.
The better solution would be a graphical tool that guides throug the choices of pacman commands and then opens the terminal to perform the desired operation. That could ease package handling without corrupting it. Such a tool would be educative as well and could create more competent users.
Thank you for the hint on pkgbrowser.
This is a great tool. Pkgbrowser is showing all you need to know about any available package. It is much more informative than tkpacman or pamac.
So my best choices of grafical package helpers now are pkgbrowser and kalu.
On point 5.): I am not pleading for an elitist attitude.
If pamac would tell, what it is doing (i.e: now performing ‘pacman -Syu’), people would get to know the system better just by using it. Also it would be easier then to detect the reasons of occuring problems.
I prefer GUIs over command line operations too. I just think, that they should not hide the operations, but help users to learn and understand their system better. I have noticed, that pamac causes me prolems. So now I have a sheet with the essential pacman commands on my desk. It is not more fun to use command lines, it simply is neccessary sometimes.
On point 3.) Gnucash and QGis are essential for certain tasks. Installing them should not mean to tweak the system. With ubuntu you get them from the repositories. Maybe Arch systems are not meant for serious work.
Installing a package xy from the AUR via terminal is so simple, that pamac is not worth the problems:
- create a folder, i.e. ‘aur’
- open aur.archlinux.org in your web-browser and search for xy
- download snapshot for package xy to ‘aur’ and extract it
- download the source file xy.tar.gz to ‘aur’
- run makepkg in ‘aur’ to create xy.pkg.tar
- install xy.pkg.tar with 'sudo pacman -U xy.pkg.tar
It is so simple, that I have not the slightest idea, which advantage I could get from yaourt or pacour.
Pamac somehow creates a mystery of doing complicated things for you, that in reality are much simpler than the problems you have to solve, if you use pamac.
To browse packages tkpacman is a much lighter alternative. For notifications kalu is much more informative.
Reading all these enthusiastic comments on the new pamac design I wonder, why no one issues the functional problems of pamac.
1.) Updating and upgrading takes forever (compared to pamac -Syu).
2.) On my system pamac has frozen several times during upgrades and has even broken my system.
3.) AUR support only works with small packages. I.e. it does not work with gnucash or qgis.
4.) Pamac can perform partial upgrades without any warning.
5.) Pamac hides what it is doing. It does not tell you, which pacman command it is going to perform.
I do agree, that beauty is important. But beauty with malfunctions is just conceited sham.
but was unable to add everything there due to the fact that I cannot install anything from the AUR on my ISO
I have not used anything from the AUR for the base system.
Needs to be a complete menu.xml or just have to be empty file
Of course you need a complete menu.xml. How should openbox create the menus, if there are no directions. After a fresh install of openbox you wil find the needed files in ‘/etc/xdg/openbox/’. Copy these files to ‘~/.config/openbox/’ in your home folder. Then you can edit menu.xml with obmenu, which is easy and intuitive to do. There is a good menu.xml in the antergos-openbox-setup’ package, which you can use to start with. (I would not install the whole package, because you do not need all its dependencies.)
You can create a pipe-menu (command: ‘openbox-menu lxde-applications-menu’),
create menus for programs to be run with sudo (command: ‘gksudo gparted’)
and even create menus for programs to be run in the terminal (commands: ‘lxterminal -e testdisk’ or ‘lxterminal -e sudo -H testdisk’).
I suppose, that the scripts to create the iso will ignore your personal settings. If this is the case copy your edited menu.xml back to ‘/etc/xdg/openbox/’, before you create the iso. Another option would be to copy them to ‘/root/.config/openbox/’. If the manual does not tell it is a matter of try and error.
(Don’t forget to backup your original files. As long as you are still testing only switch them off by adding ‘_orig’ to the file or folder name. Then you can return to them, if something goes wrong.)
Now I have got a working sample of your rescue iso.
It does not seem to be ready yet. There are no menus at all.
Lxterminal is working. I could open PCManFM and some of the programs. They seem to work too. So the iso could be used already for its purpose.
I have noticed, that some stuff is missing (i.e. an editor) and that there are programs on the iso which you do not use (i.e. 2 different panels, linux-headers, virtualbox-guest-utils). I wonder why you have chosen lxpanel instead of tint2? As result you have got a quite heavy iso (1.1 GB) with only light functionality.
I only know how to make puppy-isos but have no experience with arch-isos. So I cannot help with that.
But I can help to set up openbox. Please have a look at my tutorial in this forum at ‘Developement’. The packages I suggest are all you need for a fully working openbox environment. More is not neccessary. If you add the rescue tools to that setup you will get a much lighter rescue-iso. And you will get a desktop that does not feel and look limited at all:
p.s.: The pipe menu in my setup does not work anymore since yesterday’s upgrades. Use the command ‘openbox-menu lxde-applications.menu’ instead.
Congratulations on your first rescue iso!
I could not check it yet. This night I have downloaded the iso, but it seems to be too small and does not work. I have very slow internet and shall try a new download next night again.
I tried to add it (obmenu I think?) bbut it did not show up anywhere when I tested the ISO. This was the one issue I have with it right now.
Obmenu is a gui-editor for ‘~/.config/openbox/menu.xml’. Could it be, that mkarchiso only includes the settings of the root folder? Then you should either copy the edited ‘~/.config/openbox/menu.xml’ to ‘/root/.config/openbox/’ or tell mkarchiso in some other way to include your personal settings.
I might consider using clonezilla myself then.
I have been using clonezilla for years now on linux and windows partitions. It has never failed and saved my systems several times. If you want to use it efficiently you should have ‘/home/’ on a seperate partition to keep the images small. To back up your settings and data I recommend ‘Back in Time’, which uses hardlinks.
Thank you for your friendly compliments. You higly overestimate my skills and knowledge. I have hardly any experience with OpenRC. Five weeks ago I did not even know, that an init system exists and what it does.
I do not share your passion for Computers. For me PCs are only an ineluctable tool of our times. Like any craftsman I want tobe able to control the tools, which I use, and not vice versa. That is why I like Openbox. It is simple enough to be controled by me, but sophisticated enough to provide the features I need.
I have started this Artix-Openbox-Antergos thing, because I had partly lost control over my workstation. So I became aware, that Linux is heading for an unsane direction and searched for a solution. I am satisfied with the result of my efforts. I think it is really good. But I do not enjoy this kind of work. Computers weeken me. They suck away my mental and emotional energy.
Therefore I am not the right person for an ‘Antergos OpenRC Rescue & Installer iso’ project. I have checked what has to be done and realized my lack of knowledge. I do not see how gaining this knowledge would enrich my life.
So my answer is no. Such a project would be a burden for me. But I am always happy to share my ideas and insights, like I did with my tutorial on Antergos-OpenRC.
p.s.: Do you have any idea, how to switch off these stupid black boxes in my tutorial post? It is a typical example on how machines take control over the results of our work.
We have no need to hurry at all. There are good rescue tools around and if you are consequently backuping your system with Clonezilla live’ and ‘Back in Time’ you will rarely ever need rescue tools. So let us stay relaxed.
Those who like Antergos and want an OpenRC system can follow my directions. As an aside they learn how to set up their own system and so become independent of certain distributions.
For myself this was my way to get to know and like Arch and OpenRC. Before July I have never looked into any Arch like system. I had weird boot problems on my machine and therefore was looking for a different operating system. Among others I have tried Antergos Openbox. I instantly liked the refreshing simplicity of this Openbox setup. It is lighter than LXDE but has better features and is easier to handle. It does not get in the way of the work to be done.
Then I realized, that my specific boots problems were caused by systemd and that there are security issues with systemd. Therefore I defnitely want to get rid of it. But Antergos uses systemd and unfortunately is no serious choice anymore.
With the idea of an ‘Antergos OpenRC Rescue & Installer iso’ I have intended to plant a seed to make Antergos better. Now I lean back and watch, if I have chosen the right milieu for the seed to grow. If not it might have been either the wrong seed, the wrong time or that Antergos is the wrong ecosystem for it.
Too bad, that you have discarded OpenRC from your priority list. As committed as you are I can understand that you feel a little overworked.
Maybe I can change your mind. I have just posted here my tutorial for a slim OpenRC Openbox system.
Please have a look at it. I think it would be a good base for your Rescue edition. This system is small, fast, stable and free of unnecessary software. Add the rescue software, a system installer and DeadBeef (for soundcard tests) and you will have Rescue edition and OpenRC editon on one iso as well.