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

[boxie]

because there are different pages for different bootloaders and there's no way to know which one to send the user to if they can't tell you which one they're using.

which begs the question, why is there this gap in the documentation?

[hotaru]

Let's flip this around. Why were the forum users not able to point to a page in the quite extensive Arch documentation that says "This is how you get your bootloader config" and have the user follow the bouncing ball?

because there are different pages for different bootloaders and there's no way to know which one to send the user to if they can't tell you which one they're using.

[boxie]

So you hate learning new things? This begs the question of why would you want to try Arch out in the first place. It's something new that you have to learn. Stick to your distro that you know so you don't have to learn anything more. If you want to try different things, you will have to learn different things. Makes sense right? So simple.

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.

[boxie]

There was a user at the Arch forums who had problems booting their system. When asked what bootloader they used, the user... didn't know. They didn't install Arch proper, but used either a derivative distro or a "simple installer script" they found somewhere.

Now, how do you help such a user, when they have no clue which bootloader they have, let alone how it is configured? The answer is, you can't. Had the user done a proper Arch install, with the required RTFM, they'd know exactly what bootloader they have and how they configured it, they'd be able to show said config and help would've been much easier.

That's why you're required to RTFM just to install. Because it's not just about getting the distro onto the disk, it's about picking up valuable knowledge along the way. Knowledge that then makes it much easier for others to help you when you need it, because you're able to provide a much better bug report.

Let's flip this around. Why were the forum users not able to point to a page in the quite extensive Arch documentation that says "This is how you get your bootloader config" and have the user follow the bouncing ball?

Valuable skills are still attained and the process is documented for all.

[Panda_Wrist]

I install an OS maybe once every other year.

Sinking time into learning *how* to do (and by that, knowing which commands to type in, when) it is wasted IMO.

The Cost/Reward balance is definitely not in its favour.

The only time it is worth investing time into learning these things is if you need to do it often. And if you have to install Arch that often, is it really worth doing? an OS should really get out of the way and let you do things, not be the thing that gets in the way.

So you hate learning new things? This begs the question of why would you want to try Arch out in the first place. It's something new that you have to learn. Stick to your distro that you know so you don't have to learn anything more. If you want to try different things, you will have to learn different things. Makes sense right? So simple.

[Gusar]

Why should we have to RTFM just to *install* it.

There was a user at the Arch forums who had problems booting their system. When asked what bootloader they used, the user... didn't know. They didn't install Arch proper, but used either a derivative distro or a "simple installer script" they found somewhere.

Now, how do you help such a user, when they have no clue which bootloader they have, let alone how it is configured? The answer is, you can't. Had the user done a proper Arch install, with the required RTFM, they'd know exactly what bootloader they have and how they configured it, they'd be able to show said config and help would've been much easier.

That's why you're required to RTFM just to install. Because it's not just about getting the distro onto the disk, it's about picking up valuable knowledge along the way. Knowledge that then makes it much easier for others to help you when you need it, because you're able to provide a much better bug report.

[boxie]

Oh for the love of Zod.

That's a clear design decision in a distro where you also have to configure everything manually, again by design.

Arch has not and has NEVER marketed itself as easy to use, it's about having more understanding and control over what the system does.

So there is no shit to get together.

It's hardly Linux from scratch though, is it - so you are not configuring everything. I am sure there are lots of defaults and lots of conveniences that make your life a lot easier.

I find the demarcation point here strange.

Serious questions: Are they just giving you the illusion of control? Are my assumptions wrong and you really do need to configure "All the things' with 0 defaults (as someone above has said they speedran an install in 10 minutes, I am assuming there is a healthy swath of sensible defaults that one can change).

[boxie]

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?

That's just it. Why should we have to RTFM just to *install* it. It seems counter-intuitive, especially when this is a many times over solved problem.

[boxie]

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

I install an OS maybe once every other year.

Sinking time into learning *how* to do (and by that, knowing which commands to type in, when) it is wasted IMO.

The Cost/Reward balance is definitely not in its favour.

The only time it is worth investing time into learning these things is if you need to do it often. And if you have to install Arch that often, is it really worth doing? an OS should really get out of the way and let you do things, not be the thing that gets in the way.

[rmoog]

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?