3 ms·

The "shallow mental model" most likely refers to fewer initialization files and locations. When starting out, most everything you need is in /etc/rc.conf . Also

The "shallow mental model" most likely refers to fewer initialization files and locations. When starting out, most everything you need is in /etc/rc.conf . Also, Arch and its package manager don't use /usr/local/, instead simply using /usr. "It really does take time" most likely refers to the fact that you are responsible for building up the OS yourself. So unlike in an OS like Ubuntu, where you do not have to know what a window manager is, or what an xorg xserver and client means, you'll have to learn it all along the way. Fortunately the wiki makes figuring everything out managable, and I found it an enjoyable to spend a couple days with different software[1] and a programmable tiling window manager[2]. The end result is a fast-booting custom tailored system. [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lightweight_Applications https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lightweight_Application... [2] http://awesome.naquadah.org/ http://awesome.naquadah.org/

pavpanchekha 15y ago
It may also be that figuring out the entire Ubuntu stack is near-impossible, whereas with Arch this is at least approachable.
graywh 15y ago
No package manager should use /usr/local/.
- fakeempire 15y ago
  would you elaborate? i guess i agree for historical reasons but for practical reasons i think package managers actually should use /usr/local/. basically everyone uses a package manager now (except lfs). where would you like package managers to install.
  - lvillani 15y ago
    From the FHS: "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten when the system software is updated." [1] And I believe that "system software" today means "installed by a package manager" (please correct me if I'm wrong). I personally (rarely) use /usr/local for manually-installed packages. This way there's no risk of a package manager accidentally overwriting stuff outside its control. [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY

pavpanchekha 15y ago

It may also be that figuring out the entire Ubuntu stack is near-impossible, whereas with Arch this is at least approachable.

graywh 15y ago

No package manager should use /usr/local/.

fakeempire 15y ago
would you elaborate? i guess i agree for historical reasons but for practical reasons i think package managers actually should use /usr/local/. basically everyone uses a package manager now (except lfs). where would you like package managers to install.
- lvillani 15y ago
  From the FHS: "The /usr/local hierarchy is for use by the system administrator when installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten when the system software is updated." [1] And I believe that "system software" today means "installed by a package manager" (please correct me if I'm wrong). I personally (rarely) use /usr/local for manually-installed packages. This way there's no risk of a package manager accidentally overwriting stuff outside its control. [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY