Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#14729 - Violation of the arch way
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by 6hxbghwy (innh4t2w) - Saturday, 16 May 2009, 13:41 GMT
Last edited by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Saturday, 16 May 2009, 19:16 GMT
Opened by 6hxbghwy (innh4t2w) - Saturday, 16 May 2009, 13:41 GMT
Last edited by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Saturday, 16 May 2009, 19:16 GMT
|
DetailsI think the arch linux logo that shows by default during boot with a framebuffer is a violation of the arch way, as it is an unnecessary addition.
"Arch Linux defines simplicity as a lightweight base structure without unnecessary additions, modifications, or complications, that allows an individual user to shape the system according to their own needs. In short; an elegant, minimalist approach." http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way |
This task depends upon
Closed by Jan de Groot (JGC)
Saturday, 16 May 2009, 19:16 GMT
Reason for closing: Deferred
Additional comments about closing: This bug is going nowhere.
Saturday, 16 May 2009, 19:16 GMT
Reason for closing: Deferred
Additional comments about closing: This bug is going nowhere.
The "arch way" is not a law, but a guide line. And I don't think it's worth the time to debate about a boot logo. Using the Arch logo instead of tux does not break anything, it does not introduce any complication or disatvantage. So I would say this is up to the maintainer.
Since the logo is not even shown to users without a frame buffer how can it be necessary?
>The "arch way" is not a law, but a guide line.
Surely that means we should follow the "arch way" as closely as possible unless there is a good reason not to, I do not see what good reason there is for replacing the tux logo with an arch logo.
>Using the Arch logo instead of tux does not break anything, it does not introduce any complication or disatvantage.
It introduces the complication that the kernel has been modified further from the default, so that if a user re-compiles it they are less sure what else has been changed, and the disadvantage that some people might prefer the tux logo to the arch logo.
replacement = modification; also against the arch way.
Following that reasoning, why not just remove the original logo then, it's not neccesary either.
I don't see this modification a violation of the "arch way". This modification brands the kernel with archlinux artwork, just like the name (2.6.29-ARCH) and the configuration and patches applied to it.
Because that is upstream.
>This modification brands the kernel with archlinux artwork, just like the name (2.6.29-ARCH) and the configuration and patches applied to it.
From http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_vs_Others#Arch_vs_Slackware
"Slackware is famous for its lack of branding and completely vanilla packages, from the kernel up. Arch typically applies patching only to avoid severe breakage and preserve functionality, if absolutely necessary."
How is branding the kernel absolutely necessary to avoid severe breakage and preserve functionality?
How is Slackware vanilla?
Notice the typically in "Arch typically applies patching..". Typicall != Always
I think this gripe report is totally unfair. The ONLY thing that Arch brands is the logo.
Thus it is the only thing I have made a gripe report about :)
The tux logo represents the linux kernel, which runs in the cpu, so it makes sense because you can imagine a penguin sitting inside all the cpus, but the arch logo represents arch linux which is an operating system, so it doesn't really make sense, because an OS resides on the harddrive.