No announcement yet.

Arch Linux's Install Media Adds "Archinstall" For Quick/Easy Installations

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Sethox View Post

    Talk about gatekeeping users, forgetting the fact that there are different kind of scenarios where not all users are maintainers, example: family member.
    Unofficial or not, making it easier for people PLUS an alternative is still better than nothing, best of both worlds even.
    Presumably that non-maintainer family member would have their Arch system installed and set up by a maintainer such as yourself.

    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

    This is not true. These days Arch manual installation is so simple even a chimpantzee with dementia can do it. Seriously. If for some reason people can't do it, there is no reason for them to use Arch, period.
    On the other hand, if it is already that simple to install Arch manually via the Wiki (and it really is, I agree) then there is no real reason not to have a helpful "installer" that in essence semi-automates the Wiki standard install process. The noobs will be scared off by the white text on a black screen (aka the dreaded "terminal") anyway.

    Originally posted by BwackNinja View Post

    That's the exact opposite concern. The normal Arch installation process introduces you to the wiki and the fact that you'll be explicitly making decisions yourself along with what it takes to do that. It's nice because it's not actively unfriendly and encourages understanding of your own system. It pushes forward an idea of empowering self-reliance with the tools to make that seem reasonable.

    Being forced to install manually encourages you to be in that mindset. The fear is that the introduction of this tool will cause a greater influx of people who then have a working Arch Linux system without the self-reliance and comfort with finding information to handle common situations themselves.
    I'd normally agree, but a quick visit to the forums will show you that there's already a whole bunch of people with a more or less working Arch system but without the self-reliance and comfort (and skill) with finding information to handle common situations themselves.

    Originally posted by ThoreauHD View Post
    If you look at the purpose of a distribution, this makes more sense than not. Not fond of the days of picking every package on Patrick Volkerding's hard drive manually. This will help Arch gain some traction with normies aka people that just want their shit to work.
    I agree. Sometimes all that a person really needs to push past the noob level is the assurance that there is an already working GUI they can fall back to should things go wrong. Semi-automating the installation so they can get that working GUI relatively easily, and then letting them figure out how to maintain their system, can prove very beneficial in the long term.

    Also, sending them off to Manjaro is not (and should not) be a valid option for "normies" looking to get into Arch.


    • #22
      Originally posted by Caffarius View Post
      We just have to wait until some of the selected defaults require manual update intervention. They'll be back on Ubuntu in no time.
      Does Pacman still bork your configuration files after an update?

      Arch has always been very amateurish anyway. It took them years to have proper multilib support.


      • #23
        Originally posted by angrypie View Post

        Does Pacman still bork your configuration files after an update?

        Arch has always been very amateurish anyway. It took them years to have proper multilib support.
        Pacman creates a .pacnew file with the new default configuration had you edited the previous before. Since it's a user-centric distribution, you are encouraged to promptly deal with it.

        Originally posted by 240Hz

        Installing arch is just copy and pasting commands from a guide. Any idiot can do it, even you for example.
        You missed the webpage. This is Phoronix, Reddit is the next door. I don't think insulting someone is allowed here.

        You can't install it yourself means you can't maintain it.


        • #24
          This is how Arch used to be actually. They had a nice simple installer in the early days before switching off to the "let's educate our users" BS. I'm a long time arch user but this was a bit "you'll do things our way" push I never understood. So good to get a "working man's installer" for people who don't have the time to bullshit around.


          • #25
            I don't think this is bad idea, saves some time, have to try it tho.

            Considering the fact that Arch follows KISS principle, I don't think there's a reason for any concern over "users not knowing what's going on", besides, in large majority of cases, Arch uses configuration defaults from the upstream (as long as it's possible ofc.), not only to be aligned with KISS, but also because that's the most "user friendly" approach IMO.
            I really don't understand the idea behind "Arch is/should be complicated/hard", AFAIK that wasn't and isn't the idea behind it, the procedure is relatively simple:
            1. Prepare hardware for the OS = create and format partitions.
            2. Install base packages required for basic functionality provided by Arch repositories.
            3. Configure important things such as partitioning information/mounting, bootloader configuration, network configuration, users and groups.
            4. Configure non-important (but relevant) stuff such as timezones, locales etc.
            5. Install what you need (software such as DE, display manager if needed).

            You don't even need a Wiki in order to do so for basic configuration, since most/all commands are universal across distributions. And as far as I understand, this "archinstall" alows all of that flexibility while saving you from memorizing irrelevant commands that you may or may not need in the future. You still need to know how partitioning works (otherwise, why are you even installing any OS?), whar are the relevant packages etc.

            So thumbs up for it, it wouldn't harm anything IMO, and it would save time for advanced users as well.


            • #26
              Time to fork Arch to "Cinquefoil Arch" and remove the script, that way we can still know who the elites are in the community. Am I right?


              • #27
                Ouch, the Arch diehards aren't going to like this as they believe that Arch shouldn't be quick and easy to install.


                • #28
                  I install my Arch manually but not having an option to have an official guided installation was ridiculous IMO. They had a simpler installation before but after systemd they did this more manual way to install to maintain their reputation as a hardcore distro.

                  Recently Artix was (and still is) gaining traction with the hardcore audience even being easier to install, and maybe this came to Arch team's attention.
                  Last edited by evasb; 04 April 2021, 12:31 PM.


                  • #29
                    It would be cool if Artix had an installer, more GUI wouldn't be bad, one with easier zfs setup thought of. I also wonder if Artix is as fully developed as Manjaro...


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
                      This is quite a disturbance in the force. How will poseurs feel important, now that every joe, Dick and Harry can say "I use Arch, btw."
                      This is not true. It is not about "posing". I am a software engineer and while i have been using Arch for many, many years now, i don't consider it an "achievement" in any way, shape, or form. In fact, i most of the time suggest Ubuntu to people, or Windows 10 if they are gamers. The simple fact is most people don't know or don't care to configure their system, and if they can't understand how to install it, they won't be able to maintain it. We are just doing them a favor by letting them know this fact.