I know this is a meme /c, but for real, I bought this exact same product a while back. If this is your photo, just be careful about what you put on it. Mine lasted 2 months with a grape vine on it before it collapsed.
Source: Arch user
I can’t think of a more appropriate time for
You had one job…
When a grape trellis collapses due to the weight of… checks notes grapes.
Mine lasted a year with grape vine before catastrophic structural collapse.
I’m really not sure how much of this thread is a joke. Wouldn’t you just use solid slats of wood?
Lol. The wife wanted something decorative and liked how it looked. Caveat Emptor, and all that I suppose. I knew I was buying from a less-than-quality source
Too many points of failure too. A solid arch or a lattice would’ve worked better.
Oh for sure. I wanted to make sure OP didn’t repeat my mistake
One definitely should use solid structures, metal or wooden. The damned thing cost ~10$ and I didn’t have time to build a proper support structure at the moment. I meant to use it only as a temporary solution, which I forgot when everything was fine.
The design of the arch itself wasn’t the problem. The interconnecting pipes were only 1-2mm thick, so there was no way it could possibly support the weight of a flourishing grape vine.
It was marketed as a “rose arch”. I guess it could’ve handled this purpose without any problems.
Buy wrong stuff, suffer the consequences.
Just wanted to say we have one in our yard that has been there for almost 20-years. Previous owner left it to rot. I moved it close to some wild hops and they are covering it completely after two years. Still standing!
Ha, great tip. I’ll keep an eye on it
deleted by creator
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
It doesn’t look straight at all, there is a large bend.
It is straight. There’s just a big ol mass somewhere between the paper and us causing some gravitational lensing.
Should be piss easy if you followed the instructions, but people will just start connecting parts because “how hard can it be”. Then they’ll complain about how it’s broken and how the instructions were bad lol.
Exactly, so why are some people complaining Arch is hard?
There’s a pill for that.
I was thinking the same thing and assumed it was a serious post until I looked at the community name.
Idk what the issue is:
- Unpack
- Install
- ?
- It just works
Hopefully this simplified manual will end all complaints that Arch is too complicated.
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Arch is in fact GNU Arch.
Most likely this is Aluminum+Arch
I use arch-0.0.17b-x86-amd64-noarch.rpm from the snap store.
amd64-noarch
ಠ_ಠ
There sure is a lot of screwing involved in Arch …
From my memories of the Arch linux labs in college, no there isn’t…
It’s all there, just RTFM!
Well, you see, the internet is a series of tubes…
Why? Tubes! The internet is tubes! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Makes sense to me.
My only concern is that pipe c is shown as having two different shapes: straight and slightly curved.
Based on the fact that the design requires that a and b be different, there would undoubtedly be the same situation for the four slightly curved c pipes. That is, there would need to be two “c2” pipes and two “c3” pipes in the set rather than just four more of the same c pipe.
That makes me think the diagram at the bottom was made before a decision to cut costs and/or simplify. Four regular c pipes will undoubtedly be cheaper and logistically simpler to manage for both shipping and user construction than having those two extra pipe types.
It was, of course, relabelled to match the supplied parts, but the hints of the original design still remain.
Wow you are too hardcore Linux user for me to grasp what you mean. I suppose pipe is the new sound system though. But why the need for so many?
I wasn’t even aware that level of abstraction was possible when talking about Linux, not even Arch.Pipewire? It’s very new to me and can’t say I know much about it, not that I knew much about its predecessors either.
...
(But putting the silliness hat on…)
The pipes in the diagram are obviously named pipes, but they’re not Linux pipes. There seems to be not only multiple types (which is disturbingly Microsoft), but often multiple by the same name (which would confuse most sane OSes, if not the insane ones too.)
It’s almost like they’re instances of a subroutine object all running in parallel…
Four of them
cparts lookin’ a lil too curved…I bet the counts of 8 and 12 for c and d are swapped by mistake…
They’re not. A is the starting piece on both sides. B is the end piece. C and D are the pieces between a and B.
The order for each side would be acccddddcccb.
E is the 11 bars that hold the two sides together.
The drawing does say that… It’s just that the curvature on those top Cs makes them look very much like Ds to me.
i assemble arch, btw
Just read the Wiki!
Not the Wiki I expected. ;)
Wait, which Wiki did you expect?
For people that complain, remember that its still more sturdy and easier than assembling windows.
Read’s instructions: “Doesn’t seem that bad, what’s the issue?”
Sees: ‘Arch User Manual’
Notices community…
D’Oh!
I’m not especially interested in Arch, but I’d like to know where the metal garden is 🤘
Scott Wieland enters the chat
If you have extra parts when you’re done that’s a compiler error, check your module dependencies.
If you’re missing parts, check the forums, but this looks like a new system; that wifi chipset might be unsupported.
Metric? Somebody set the region settings wrong!
Metric? Somebody set the region settings wrong!
That’s a weird way to spell “correctly”
I’m a metric user btw
Here in 'Merica we use the Imperial system because FREEDOM (obvious sarcasm is obvious)
