No announcement yet.

EndeavourOS Is Hoping To Be The Successor To Antergos - Convenient To Use Arch Linux

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    EndeavourOS is a wasted endeavor because there already exists a convenient to use Arch Linux based distro, a little known project called Manjaro. It hasn't been around that long, and it's not that popular so it's likely these guys haven't heard of it, but if they look around they may find a reference to it somewhere and they may find that they do not have to reinvent the wheel, especially when the wheel they invent it invariably going to be made of inferior rubber.
    You clearly don't understand the goals of Manjaro and why people gravitate to projects like Antergos (or now Endeavour). Manjaro has its own repositories and has significant differences to Arch that make it akin to the difference between Debian and Ubuntu. Endeavour is following the same philosophy as its predecessor a pretty much vanilla Arch with an additional repo with minor UI facing elements that can be uninstalled to give a 100% Arch system.


    • #22
      Originally posted by DanL View Post

      Manjaro is a bit different in its goals, having stable repositories and such.
      lol stable.


      • #23
        If I want a rolling-release distro with an installer, openSUSE Tumbleweed is what I go to.

        Arch is ok, but doesn't really offer me anything, and makes (re)installs a total drag. Arch derivatives don't really offer me any benefit over openSUSE TW either. If anything though, Arch was a fun learning experience to install a few times.


        • #24
          Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post
          This completely misses the point. Arch is easy to instal as is, and it's as user friendly as distros can get. Documentation holds the user's hand through the process of installation and beyond. Any effort to make Arch more "accessible" is a waste of time and effort.
          As someone who has used Arch for years and is using it right now, I disagree. The experienced Linux user isn't going to have too much difficulty using Arch, but ease of use is relative. To say that it is "as user friendly as distros can get" is utter nonsense. The average person could take a new PC and install Ubuntu or Mint without any additional tools, hand-holding, or external references. That can't be said of Arch. Even if you gave the same person a flash drive with a bootable Arch installer with a link to the Arch Wiki, I assure you they will still struggle to figure out what to do. Tell the average Arch user to get a fully working environment from scratch without the Wiki and I'm sure they're going to struggle.
          Installing Arch is not at all user friendly, even to those who are well-acquainted with it. Experienced users like us might not struggle with it, but not struggling with something doesn't make it user friendly.

          Anyway, to the point of whether or not Arch should be made more accessible, I don't think it's necessary, but I also don't see the problem with it either. A wizard installer (even if CLI-based) would help get Arch installed quicker for those who like the distro but don't care about the minute level of control over what is installed and what services are run. Not that it matters anyway, Arch has slowly grown to add more and more unnecessary dependencies.
          Last edited by schmidtbag; 06-16-2019, 08:50 PM.


          • #25
            Arch is nice, but now with the Great work that void Linux is doing, Arch will lose some hype..


            • #26
              Just to let some people here know, who claim to be best acquainted with Arch's philosopy and all, Arch Linux had an installer from day 1. After some years, it wasn't properly maintained anymore and couldn't keep up with changes in the distro, so it had to be abandoned.

              It was never a design choice to not provide an installer with Arch.

              I've installed Arch Linux on countless systems, desktops, workstations, even servers, and it is not about how well you are versed in the system's architecture, it's plain and simple reading through the same shit in the wiki all over again. All this gatekeeping about "only the experienced user wants to/should/is able to use Arch" is just horseshit. Installation is not an entry exam.

              Antergos showed how well it actually works: Keep all the mundane setup away from me, but as soon as I want or actually need to get my hands dirty, I still have the KISS system that I love waiting for me.
              Last edited by ypnos; 06-17-2019, 04:21 AM.


              • #27
                Originally posted by boxie View Post

                the one time I thought "maybe I'll see what this arch stuff is about" I booted the install disk, got dropped to a cli and thought WTF is this shit? and proceeded to delete the VM.

                I don't want to work all that hard to get my OS installed. I really don't. We have not needed to do that for nearly 20 years now.

                get your shit together arch

                I once speedran (don't ask) an Arch setup in 10mn, including downloading and installation inside the livecd. Not that hard really..


                • #28
                  Originally posted by zanny View Post

                  The whole point of Arch is to not do things behind your back, an installer that does all the setup for you is antithetical to that.

                  In practice installing Arch is just setting up the partition and pacstrapping it. Its the same steps an installer like Calamares does except you run a CLI command or two for each step rather than press a next button.

                  The installation process, despite being straightforward, is a fantastic barrier to entry to keep those who would otherwise inundate the bug tracker / forums with easily solved issues via Google or the wiki on other distros.
                  Arch does everything behind your back, the whole install process is pretty much automated with packstrap and other BS. If you want a real OS that does nothing behind your back then use Gentoo. Arch does same amount of things behind your back as even Ubuntu (but its done in a way to make people installing it feel like epic hax0rs)


                  • #29
                    I have no opinion on the subject, but I do see arch doing great things on low end arm and ghetto intel/chromebook hardware. There is a place for it.

                    I have noticed that arch users make up about 75% of the support questions on reddit. With about half of that being related to X thing not working anymore. They seem to be able to get it installed, but seem to have no idea how the OS works, or that it's a rolling release- which is baffling.

                    As for antegeros, I think I know the source of 'not enough time' from everyone on Earth, but I'm going to keep it politically correct in here to stay on point.

                    Arch has it's place. But from what I've seen of the other half of the install base(not you guys), it attracts the type of people that install Kali and then ask how to configure a network card. Again, that's just what I see now. I don't interact with rolling releases beyond that.


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                      The only thing Arch needs is an easy to use point and click installer.

                      Other than the installation which is a bit of a drag there is nothing inconvenient about arch. TBH i honestly cant understand how they manage to have all the latest stuff and work with no issues.
                      People like you only need to RTFM.

                      Jesus Christ. What is this with the "easy to use Arch" meme? Is ArchLinux all of a sudden trending on YTMND?