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

[angrypie]

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.

[juxuanu]

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.

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.

[Almindor]

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.

[leipero]

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).
Done.

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.

[creoflux]

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?

[Vistaus]

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

[evasb]

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.

[Markospox]

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...

[TemplarGR]

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.

[BwackNinja]

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.

This might be a point if Arch Linux was the only Linux distro. It's not even the most popular.

It's not a gate, it's a hurdle. Nobody is there to open it for you and say, "why yes, you're a real Arch user now and get to tell everyone." A distro shouldn't have to be for everyone. Arch Linux's problem is its popularity from giving people a smug sense of superiority and for being rolling-release. It filled a niche well enough (simple, vanilla, rolling-release, easily-configurable), that people outside the niche came, but that doesn't mean that those new people should be catered to. There are more than enough alternatives, and there are distros based on Arch.

If a family member isn't also going to be a maintainer, I don't think Arch Linux is a proper fit. Maintaining a system for someone who isn't going to become independent is already a burden. No need to make it worse on yourself.