If you have to resort to browsing the web with a TUI every time you’re dropped into a tty then you really should think about using a different distro. When I was using it I didn’t take my laptop anywhere without having a live disk with a bunch of distros on me as well.
Also, Arch is very well known for requiring manual interventions in various scenarios and it’s really not for users who aren’t at least somewhat comfortable in a terminal. That’s not to gatekeep; it just genuinely doesn’t make much sense for someone like that compared to a more “on rails” distro. If they choose to use Arch then that’s their prerogative, but it’s not the distro’s responsibility to hold their hand when the express expectation is that users keep up with distro news and are capable of administrating their own system.
If you have to resort to browsing the web with a TUI every time you’re dropped into a tty then you really should think about using a different distro.
That’s a weird statement. Why? I browse the web frequently from terminals and the console. If you need a GUI so badly you have to boot from a live USB to answer questions, that’s you. I use live USBs on the rare occasion I screw up my boot loader, like when I swapped hard drives and didn’t catch all of the places device block IDs are referenced in the boot process.
Anyway, it’s weird to argue both that Arch Linux users should be expert shell users, but also that they should use a different distro if they’re capable of using Linux entirely without a GUI.
Several Arch-based distros are blurring the line between the self-rarified progenators of the “I use Arch, BTW” meme and non-technical users, by making it easier to install and maintain Arch. I absolutely agree that what these forks do is not the responsibility of core Arch, but I do expect a modicum of effort, the bare consideration to not intentionally making things harder for users than they need to be; to avoid actively breaking systems, where they can.
A release note is a sloppy answer when it’s almost trivial to avoid causing the breakage in the first place.
If you have to resort to browsing the web with a TUI every time you’re dropped into a tty then you really should think about using a different distro. When I was using it I didn’t take my laptop anywhere without having a live disk with a bunch of distros on me as well.
Also, Arch is very well known for requiring manual interventions in various scenarios and it’s really not for users who aren’t at least somewhat comfortable in a terminal. That’s not to gatekeep; it just genuinely doesn’t make much sense for someone like that compared to a more “on rails” distro. If they choose to use Arch then that’s their prerogative, but it’s not the distro’s responsibility to hold their hand when the express expectation is that users keep up with distro news and are capable of administrating their own system.
That’s a weird statement. Why? I browse the web frequently from terminals and the console. If you need a GUI so badly you have to boot from a live USB to answer questions, that’s you. I use live USBs on the rare occasion I screw up my boot loader, like when I swapped hard drives and didn’t catch all of the places device block IDs are referenced in the boot process.
Anyway, it’s weird to argue both that Arch Linux users should be expert shell users, but also that they should use a different distro if they’re capable of using Linux entirely without a GUI.
Several Arch-based distros are blurring the line between the self-rarified progenators of the “I use Arch, BTW” meme and non-technical users, by making it easier to install and maintain Arch. I absolutely agree that what these forks do is not the responsibility of core Arch, but I do expect a modicum of effort, the bare consideration to not intentionally making things harder for users than they need to be; to avoid actively breaking systems, where they can.
A release note is a sloppy answer when it’s almost trivial to avoid causing the breakage in the first place.