Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by boxie View Post

    which begs the question, why is there this gap in the documentation?
    There isn't. How can we help a user who knows nothing of his system? If he knows nothing of it, neither do we. There are many many variable for this question. 1. MRB or GPT? 2. BIOs or UEFI? 3. What Boot loader? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Boot_loader lists 8 different boot loaders. So how can we send that user to the correct page if we don't know what his problem is.

    Arch allows you to set up your machine exactly the way you want. So you shouldn't use their forums if you need help but can't give out required info. Use whatever you used forums for help. They will know better of your setup. Arch doesn't have a generic default install. You can't expect everyone to be using grub and even if they are using grub, you can't expect it to be the same as the generic install that most distros use. If a person needs help, they need to be able to give out the relevant info. If they say "I don't know. I just used an installer." How can we help them? But as we have learned reading your post, you don't like learning and expect things to be done for you.

    Comment


    • #42
      It's not a bug, it's a feature that Arch has no GUI installer. It encouraged you to actually RTFM at least once and that is a really good thing, especially as a beginner. You learn a lot and start to solve your problems by yourself. I think most of the people who have successfully installed and used Arch on a daily basis will agree.

      Furthermore, in a nutshell, it's straight forward: Boot into live cli, partition the target drive, install the base packages onto that drive, chroot into that new base system, build your desired environment.

      Comment


      • #43
        I'm really not trying to be trolling but I must confess I don't see the point of thus kind of distros. To me, Arch is all about customisability. It's the go-to OS if you need to build a firmware, an application-specific server, a container image tailored for specific purposes, etc. It's almost by design contrary to the idea of a ready OS that Just Works out of the box as a desktop or laptop system should. So in practical terms, what is the selling point of something like Endeavour OS versus the established desktop distros like Ubuntu and Fedora?

        Comment


        • #44
          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


          that's how i felt when i booted gentoo livecd for the very first time. been using that distro since.

          Comment


          • #45
            Isn't ArcoLinux already doing what EndeavorOS tries to do?

            Anyway I'm all for these installers because I'm lazy. I setup Arch via official ISO often enough to have my share of understanding, yet I don't want to do that multiple times a year. And yes, I use Arch often (for dev VMs, laptops, servers, etc.) so I happen to setup a new machine once in a while and then I'm happy that I can do that much quicker than by command line.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by jacob View Post
              I'm really not trying to be trolling but I must confess I don't see the point of thus kind of distros. To me, Arch is all about customisability. It's the go-to OS if you need to build a firmware, an application-specific server, a container image tailored for specific purposes, etc. It's almost by design contrary to the idea of a ready OS that Just Works out of the box as a desktop or laptop system should. So in practical terms, what is the selling point of something like Endeavour OS versus the established desktop distros like Ubuntu and Fedora?
              It is rolling release which means :
              1) I don't have to wait to get new software
              2) I don't have to upgrade my OS every 6 months avoiding the risk of breakage which comes with that

              Also, Canonical and Red Hat don't decide what's on my machine, and I achieved that without having to uninstall stuff and reinstall alternatives.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by boxie View Post

                Quite the opposite, I love learning new things. I like learning new things that help me well into the future.

                I object to the "having" to learn new things that do not really benefit me.

                I want to stand on the shoulders of giants, not learn about why this one time the giant got crabs from a one night stand 20 years ago.

                although, that was a nice attempt at a strawman.

                my objection can be boiled down to "There is a very steep onboarding process" and that that user experience can be refined.
                My experience here was "I was dumped at a CLI and not told what to do", that's just bad UX.

                If your argument is that this is a teaching tool, the tool needs work.
                Nope not arguing that Arch is a teaching tool. I'm just saying this is how Arch is. It is different from other distros. If you don't want to learn how to use it, then don't use it. Choosing to use Arch, is choosing to learn how to do things the Arch way. You are not being forced to learn new things, you are choosing to learn new things. I chose to learn how to use Arch a long time ago when I first switched to linux and got fed up with how other distro were setup and there package managers. At the time I knew very little about linux but I really didn't want to go back to Windows. So I decided to give this "very hard" distro a try. I had to learn lots of stuff. And man o man i am happy that I did. I really dislike using other distros now because I'm just so use to how easy things are for me on Arch and fuck windows. Arch lets you have full control over your system right at the very start (without having to compile everything). So needing to learn how to use it, is very important if you want to use it. So no, you are not forced to learn Arch, because you are not forced to use Arch. If you want to call that a strawman fine.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Michael stupid unapproved post

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    While I applaud the effort, personally, I'd rather just do it the Arch Way or go with Manjaro these days. And this is coming from someone who used Antergos as the Arch Easy Mode installer for many years.

                    I have to agree with a lot of posters. You should just do Arch the way Arch wants you to do it and if you don't want to do it that way, use a distribution that is more than an installer (like Antergos or ArchBang) so you can get real support. The forums are really where Manjaro shines -- it's like the Arch forums, only nice towards noobs. Just slip up and have an [Antergos] show up in a pacman log when asking a question at the Arch forums.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Panda_Wrist View Post
                      stupid unapproved post
                      lol. It gets me a lot between 7-9 am CST...your post was 7:18

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X