No announcement yet.

Arch BSD Is Still Around & Keeping It Simple

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Serge View Post
    The problem here is that you have a responsibility to make sure people interpret your words correctly. His assumption that you are mad comes from your failure to properly express yourself.
    i 100% disagree. Alex made an assumption and came to his own conclusions, instead of asking for clarification - it is ENTIRELY on him.

    I expressed myself just fine; (in the comment that Alex quoted) i ridiculed a couple of BOSS' opinions branding them as 'stupid' and i did a play on BOSS' own words; referring to him as "the worst cancer" in these forums. Oh yeah, that's real "anger and hate"... I'm sorry, if Alex jumped to the conclusion that i was mad, but that's his own issue of not asking a simple question, before making assumptions / drawing conclusions.

    No one can be *realistically* responsible for EVERYBODY on the interwebz (or even in these forums), interpreting their words correctly. (for ex: language barriers, varying education/intelligence, age, etc... Your assertion that all responisibility falls onto me (the person not making the assumption) is ridiculous. Alex is responsible for himself, I bare ZERO responibility over his own bogus conclusions/assumptions.


    • #32
      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
      As a developer I enjoy working on things that the clients (or potential clients) believe are important. If I want a feature that nobody wants (because I may also be my own client), first I make sure all the things that other clients want are given priority, and if there is enough time left I implement what I want to be in the final product. Of course, some things that clients believe are important might not get done because of lack of resources.

      The point is if I start a project I try to make it appealing to as many people as possible. I may start with a niche but then try to expand and add as many features as possible. What I don't understand in Linux (excepting Canonical and others as Canonical), is this idea that they try to fill a small niche and aren't interested in expanding at all. Seems rather limited and limiting. The normal way would be to add as many noob friendly features first and then the administrative geek friendly tools, because the noobs outnumber the pros by many times. Even if I wouldn't get any money out of it, I would find it more satisfying to know that my software runs on as many computers as possible.

      I also sometimes see this attitude that if you try to expand or please the noob crowd you've somehow sold out or something like that.
      First of all, I'm usually under the impression the very first thing you do when dealing with external clients is establish wtf they need => wtf want => and if you're on the ball enough, you can throw in some items that allow future-proofing your product for some 'hey, I got an idea, I can implement this feature. No fuss at all' and charge full price for said feature for a minimal time cost.

      Now, for the next bit about not understanding.

      It's called focus.

      The 'Unix way' is to build a tool to do one task, and do it really fucking well. Then you can move on and make another tool with the time you saved making the previous two, and make this new tool do its thing really fucking well. Now, we can build a whole host of tools that glue those two tools togethor to make them do something you used to do manually, automatically. Occassionally, those tools that do their job well require updating, usually for security reasons but also to streamline their functionality, optimise their sub-routines by rerouting through the dilythium crystals, et al. It snowballs and create s arich ecosystem or choice. Hence why linux of all flavours exist from the kernel right up to the high-level languages, UI's and games. Arch is a great example of a trade-off between Gentoo and Ubuntu. Modularity, but built the way you NEED. And WANT.


      How much easier is it to update and manage and trace output on one small programme that does one task in its part within the big gluey scheme than it is to filter through an entire do-it-all package? The ouptut from all those freely available, highly accessbile and moddable tools is incredible. Your custom solution that wraps it all up in to one bundle, if not prepared properly, CAN (not saying does in your case. Benefit of your doubt) make it difficult to support. If you do already build in decent tracing, logging, errory stuffs, kudo's to you. But the rest of the planet like to use tools that already exist, glue it togethor and make something awesome in minimal amount of time without having to go back to the fucking stone ages every time just to test out a theory. Then once theory/idea is proven/disproven, you can go back and create the spoke that's missing from the wheel. Time to market is FAST. At least, comparitively. And you as the dev get to apply all the user-friendly ickiness you want, yet still have the pro-guns uber shit underneath. Having dealt with IBM software on IBM equipment made in the 90's, the software had been in development for so long and had so many fucking stupid methods for input, it was overwhelmingly complex to use. It was simply a job entry system. My company had to employ one person just to train people to use it on top of the rest of the server. For an exercise I dmeonstrated using a shareable spreadsheet to do the same. I was promptly moved to another department (I mentioned previously I used Linux at home; they didn't think my jokes were funny thereafter)

      You dont have to do things like that. You seemingly don't based upon your commentry. You also don't have to act like a complete cunt. But you do based upon your posts.

      So. The Canonical way. The bit's that are pissing people off, is their want to reinvent everything from scratch their way in lieu of projects that already exist, and give nothing back to those that they do utilise. People are trying to contribute to Canonical because they want to work with Canonicals systems, but Canonical feel as if they can take your freely submitted contribution, and legally own it once it's cleared their checks. And when you sign their agreement, that really happens. Why in the hell would anyone want to give something to a company freely who does not freely give back? They give us an operating system is not an excuse. It's starting to look like the Road of Bones in Russia, or the Great Wall in China (both have their labourers buried in them). I call Bull shit. Now they're milking people and treating them like a cash-cow. You dont shoot the very people who want to work with your tools before you've even entered the market properly and expect their family and friends to hang around.
      Last edited by stiiixy; 10-26-2013, 07:08 AM.


      • #33
        Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
        All I ask for is a straight-up comparison between Arch BSD and the currently popular *BSD distros (FreeBSD, etc) :/

        EDIT: also, I wondered if Arch BSD is related to Arch Linux at all (Same devs or anything?).
        Arch BSD is mainly a one man project (as far as I know) -> Amzo.

        Here's the thread on Arch Linux forums which marks its beginning:

        I tried to ask the Arch community but the mods deleted my post for not being about Vanilla Arch *shrug*
        As ninez already said, Arch doesn't cater to any other distro/derivative at all. Be it Manjaro, Archbang, Arch Linux ARM etc. That is due to the differences in configurations, architectures etc, so such threads are closed.

        Also, ArchBSD has its own forum ->


        • #34
          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
          Yes they should change that Arch way to something that is actually useful: making Linux user friendly. People appreciate useful stuff not useless stuff, duh. Their Arch way is shit and must change. Or else they shouldn't wonder why they're stuck in the abyss and no one wants them. I am fundamentally challenging "Their Way".
          That sounds like you are someone who tried Arch, failed miserably and is now pissed because he wants it so bad but cant understand how it works


          • #35
            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            In the '57 Chevy case it doesn't hurt the world but certainly doesn't help it either. In the Arch example it hurts Linux because people see that resources are used to make it more geek friendly and not more noob friendly. So more and more people will avoid Linux. 90% of the Linux distros are geared towards advanced users. That certainly doesn't help to Linux's image.
            Wasn't this idiot banned already?

            Bozley, you have serious problems with the concept of "free software". Go back to windows, you miserable troll.


            • #36
              Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
              I wish I was Ballmer with all those billions of dollars.
              Wow... not sure about that one... Being Ballmer would really be hard, even for that amount of money... Have you seen that guy?




              • #37
                Originally posted by nightmarex View Post
                Wow... not sure about that one... Being Ballmer would really be hard, even for that amount of money... Have you seen that guy?


                "Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers..........
                Velopers, developers, developers, develop, deve, develo, deVElo, deVElo............ YES!"