Talk:Arch Linux

Logo Change

Official artwork and logo - [1]

I would like to propose for the logo to be changed to this variant: https://archlinux.org/static/logos/archlinux-logo-dark-scalable.518881f04ca9.svg. The one with the white "arch" doesn't mesh too well with the light Wikipedia background. - 187.39.28.74 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

So I have changed this to File:Archlinux-logo-standard-version.png (as apposed to File:Archlinux-logo-inverted-version.png).

unfortunately, according to Wikipedia:SVG help#Background colors, Wikipedia's background is apparently not always white/light; I have no idea how to make this work with all background colours. Doerakpoes (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

So on Wikidata there's the logo property, which can have a "for color scheme", which you can use to indicate "dark-on-light color scheme" or "light-on-dark color scheme"; unfortunately, I don't know how to use this to dynamically change the picture depending on the background light-/dark-ness of the user's infobox. Doerakpoes (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure if saying Archlinux is written in Python is correct

since only some tools such as archinstall is written in Python, I personally wouldn't consider an installer to be a part of the distro FallingPineapple (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The installer archinstall is a default package included in the iso. Being included as a default part of the distro makes it part of the distro.[2][3] - Aoidh (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If something being delivered on the iso then many many more languages could be included, would you consider arch to be written in shell? FallingPineapple (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What matters more is are there reliable sources that consider it such. Reliable sources describe the installer as part of the release, and the installer is a critical part of the iso. When a source says Arch Linux releases starting this month will include a guided installer it's hard to argue that it's not "part of the distro". - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that in the Archlinux repo you can find 5 languages which don't come with the iso however are part of the archlinux repo FallingPineapple (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

and how reliable are dade2.net and techradar? FallingPineapple (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

there is no issue with the reliability of TechRadar, and the problem with that argument is that in the Archlinux repo you can find 5 languages which don't come with the iso is an apples to oranges comparison which means the comparison doesn't highlight any issue, especially since what you're questioning is backed by reliable sources, which is what we use to guide the content. - Aoidh (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to bring back this discussion. First of all, the "written_in" part of the Template:Infobox OS should be "Programming languages this operating system is written in.". But the software found in a modern linux distribution is built with more than just Python and C.

But it's fair to interpret this as "languages the distribution is built with", meaning all the tools and sourcecode used to build the distribution specifically. But in this case C shouldn't be mentioned anymore. It is true that a lot of tools used by ArchLinux are written in Python. But makepkg which is used to build all packages for ArchLinux is written in shell, and so are all build instructions for all 1200 official packages. The package repositories and method they're built and delivered in is definitely what defines a distribution in my eyes, and the makepkg system is at the heart of ArchLinux. User:Aoidh, you argue the installer is a critical part of the iso (and written in python), but the tool used to built the iso is written in shell too. For reference, this is all ArchLinux sourcecode: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux.

There's a reason the infobox for most other distributions doesn't have this part filled in. I'd say the best candidate would be C as that's what the kernel is written in.

The solution I propose is to remove this minor detail all together. It is confusing at best. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the programming languages from the infobox. If anyone intends to undo this, I suggest the field should list Shell and Python citing the new GitLab repository: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be there. FallingPineapple (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Userland "busybox can be installed if the user desires"

I think it's weird to specify that BusyBox can be installed in the userland part of the OS template. ArchLinux does not work without the GNU coreutils and most distributions allow busybox to be installed. But we don't have "BusyBox can be installed if the user desires" added to the Debian Page. Besides, the userland is much more than just the coreutils. LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point, I removed it. Dexxor (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced "rating" claim

The article currently states "As of 2023, Arch also enjoys the highest average rating of any Linux distribution on DistroWatch with a rating of 9.34.". From the wording "rating" I expect a user rating. But when I click through, apparently what is being referred to is the "Page Hit Ranking". That's not a rating, no conscious user decision involved here, so I consider the statement misleading and think this sentence simply doesn't deserve its place. Also, of course clicks change quickly over time and today Arch is on place 4, not at the top. 159.100.249.232 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

apparently what is being referred to is the "Page Hit Ranking" It looks like you're (understandably) mixing up two separate things on Distrowatch. The page hit ranking is not the 9.34 number (which is not current) and indeed cannot be anything except a whole number since it's a placement ranking (you can't be 9.34th place, and according to Arch Linux's Distrowatch entry the page hit ranking is currently 60th based on the last 12 months). That ranking is not the same as the visitor rating that the Wikipedia article's text is referring to. The "Average visitor rating" is indeed a conscious user decision and is a rating based on user reviews. However, you're correct that Arch has dropped to number 4 overall since it went from 9.34 to (as of writing) 9.19. So there is an issue that the statement is out of date, but it's not otherwise misleading and does refer to user ratings, not the page hit metrics (which are a separate thing). - Aoidh (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we be trusting distrowatch ratings in the first place? I'm only asking because popularity on distrowatch is really easy to artificially manipulate from time to time. PinkBunnyBun (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)