No pue­do res­pon­der ahí por­que:

• Hay que lo­­­guea­r­­se.

• No en­­cuen­­tro ado­n­­de pe­­dir una cuen­­ta.

• Tie­­ne freaking google ads po­­­pups

En­ton­ces res­pon­do acá por­que:

• Es mi blog y ha­­go lo que se me can­­ta.

Acá es­tá el co­men­ta­rio de huss­am con mi res­pues­ta (que lo ad­mi­to, es un ran­t) en in­glés por­que no pien­so tra­du­cir a otro, a ver si no le ha­go jus­ti­cia a su pa­va­da:

I'­ve been using Ar­ch­Li­nux as my on­ly dis­tri­bu­tio­n/o­pe­ra­ting sys­tem sin­ce ear­ly 2006. It is rea­lly a good dis­tri­bu­tion but la­te­ly the­re ha­ve been a lot of rea­lly bad choi­ces whi­ch I ca­ll bad com­pro­mi­ses:

1. Too many Ar­ch­Li­nux users thi­nk gno­me/k­de are bloat and ins­tead ins­ta­ll so­me half de­ve­lo­ped win­dow ma­na­ger and so­me ter­mi­nal emu­la­tor and ca­ll it a "mi­ni­ma­lis­t" desk­to­p.

Why is that any of your bu­si­ness? And what "com­pro­mi­se" is the­re?

2. Op­tio­nal de­pen­den­cies are the worst idea eve­r. If a pa­cka­ge is li­nked against lib­so­me­thin­g.­so then lib­so­me­thing should be a de­pen­den­cy not an op­tio­nal de­pen­den­c­y. Making lib­so­me­thing an op­tio­nal de­pen­den­cy just be­cau­se "mi­ni­ma­lis­t" users do­n't want to ins­ta­ll de­pen­den­cies is plain stu­pi­d.

Tha­t's not what op­tio­nal de­pen­den­cies are fo­r. For exam­ple, con­si­der the exam­ple I men­tio­ne­d, rs­t2­pdf. It can use py­thon­ma­gi­ck. It can al­so not use it. You wi­ll lo­se one sma­ll fea­tu­re that AFAIK on­ly one per­son ever us­e­d. If you need that fea­tu­re, the ma­nual te­lls you what to do: ins­ta­ll py­thon­ma­gi­ck.

Ma­y­be the­re should be a pa­c­man op­tion "ins­ta­ll op­tde­pen­d­s" whi­ch turns op­tio­nal de­pen­den­cies in­to re­gu­lar ones. That would make you ha­ppy and keep others ha­ppy too.

3. Bad lea­dershi­p. Aa­ron is fan­tas­tic guy but I know at least two Ar­ch­Li­nux de­ve­lo­pers who can do a mu­ch be­tter jo­b.

Tha­t's just stu­pid and mean.

4. Too many Ar­ch­Li­nux users now like bad­ly au­to­ma­tion scrip­ts like yaourt or whate­ver it is ca­lle­d.

Par­se erro­r. And then agai­n: yaourt is grea­t. You do­n't like it? Act as if it does­n't exist and be ha­pp­y. You seem to ha­ve a big pro­blem ig­no­ring peo­ple who di­sa­gree wi­th you. Tha­t's a rea­ll­y, rea­lly se­rious per­so­nal flaw. I su­ggest you grow up.

5. Too many noobs who do dumb things like peo­ple adding their users to ha­l, disk and dbus group­s.

Su­re, they should add the­msel­ves to op­ti­cal and sto­ra­ge. So wha­t? It's a sim­ple pro­blem and it has a sim­ple so­lu­tio­n.

Then agai­n, the addu­ser scrip­ts pro­ba­bly should do that for re­gu­lar user ac­coun­ts. After all, who wan­ts to crea­te a re­gu­lar user that can't use re­mo­va­ble sto­ra­ge? And if said use ca­se exis­ts, that should be doa­ble by re­mo­ving the use­r, and not vi­ce­ver­sa!

On the other han­d, I do­n't gi­ve a dam­n, be­cau­se I can fix it tri­via­ll­y.

The main rea­son why I do­n't thi­nk I wi­ll swi­tch to ano­ther dis­tri­bu­tion soon is that crea­ting Ar­ch­li­nux pa­cka­ges from scra­tch is ve­ry ea­sy and the ini­ts­cript sys­tem is rea­lly fan­tas­ti­c.

All in all, Ar­ch­Li­nux is a rea­lly strong dis­tri­bu­tion now and it's cons­tan­tly gro­win­g.

I ex­pect you, like most eli­tist po­seur­s, wi­ll run away when you feel Ar­ch is too po­pu­lar and ac­ce­s­si­ble to "too many noobs" or so­me si­mi­lar non­sen­se.

Whi­ch, like the ti­tle sa­ys, is why you are a big part of wha­t's wrong wi­th Li­nux user­s.