101–110 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels like someone needs to make a generic Linux wiki then.
The arch wiki could expand to support distro switching, with each distro having its own domain, and all that could link back to a general linux wiki. It'd be beautiful.
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Data-at-rest_encryption
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The special instructions for other distros could be at risk for being deleted, as "something that will not work on Arch as-is is not something we will be hosting on our site".
Feels like someone needs to make a generic Linux wiki then.
The arch wiki describes the upstream package.
I say this because Arch tries to use the upstream software as-is, and describes requirements and helps make configuration choices.
Other distributions tend to make the choices for you, configuring and modifying upstream to fit the distribution.
With respect to a wiki, this would be another layer of documentation to add. Describe the package, describe the distro, and explain the configuration choices.
Instead of creating multiple wikis with probably 80% of duplicate information between them, it would be great to have a cross distribution wiki with separate sections for distribution-specific instructions where it makes sense. Gentoo had a fantastic wiki before they lost it to disk array failure (IIRC) around ten years ago, now pretty much everyone is going to the Arch wiki, why not try to turn it into a shared proj…
This doesn't work as well as you think.
We did this in one large OSS project for documenting operations just for installs/setup/build/etc.
The problem is:
1. The list of differences get large fast if you aren't within the same family of OS like Debian/Ubuntu/Mint
2. Information will get out of date for some distros over others. Unhelpful pricks start bitching and moaning and nobody wants to deal with it at that point.
3. Unhelpful pricks will also bitch and moan you delete the out of date sections
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You realize people do this for fun right? It’s fun to create your own distro (you should try it some time) and it’s fun to play with different ones as well. I do, and this is why FOSS cannot reach its political goals - it won't ensure user's freedom, for almost everyone involved today would rather chase their own satisfaction.
The "political goals" are pretty fringe, to most people that enjoy FOSS, the goal is to get something that works for themselves and if other people don't like it, that's fine. Most people aren't RMS style revolutionaries trying to convert the global population to FOSS users. I admire that man, but his goals aren't my goals. For that matter, if political victory were to be achieved in the way you've suggested, it woul…
He's a pdf file, there's not much to admire.
The Arch wiki is one of the best things the Linux community has produced. It's like a modern, improved and more complete version of TLDP. I haven't even used Arch on any of my machines but can't count how many times I've found their wiki useful for my workstations, servers and even custom Yocto-built systems. Arch supports many ways of doing a thing, so whatever tool I'm dealing with, Arch probably supports that and…
After using FreeBSD and OpenBSD, it is frankly shocking how bad Linux documentation is in comparison. On the BSDs every command, every program, every system call, and every configuration file are thoroughly documented in man pages and other guides. The FreeBSD Handbook in particular is a treasure. It more than makes up for some of the more difficult aspects of the OS by providing thorough and approachable documentati…
An interesting but gargantuan project would be a Linux distro that maintains patches for all of its packages that standardize directory structures, config file locations, CLI argument order, etc.