No announcement yet.

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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HighValueWarrior
    Good Move !

    There is a difference between keep it simple and keeping it retarded.
    I have run Arch for 12 years and this has been sorely needed. Even veteran users who go years without issues dread a reinstall.
    Guided is Good.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mez'
    Are there big fundamental differences between Arch and Manjaro or EndeavourOS once the system has been installed?
    On a day-to-day basis, regarding pacman and pacman-mirrors, pamac, yay, the AUR, etc...
    Let's say I decide to switch from Manjaro and I'm already familiar with these. Would I really see a big difference in maintaining the distro once it's set up?
    And before that, could you give me some benefits that would be killer enough for me to switch (and keep using the same tools as they work very well for me)? In other words, what makes Arch worth using beside its tailored installer?

    Leave a comment:

  • kpedersen
    This might keep some "user-friendly fanatics" happy for a bit. But it won't be long until they want a fancy X11/Wayland GUI installer.

    They will cite the words "modern" like they do in OpenBSD communities.

    Leave a comment:

  • zoomblab
    And that is considered progress. I remember my first PC with MS DOS 5 and it had way better installer in 1990. Also remeber amiga in 1985 having 100% GUI OS with multi tasking.

    Leave a comment:

  • ElectricPrism
    Originally posted by Almindor View Post
    This is how Arch used to be actually. [...] for people who don't have the time to bullshit around.
    If people "don't have time to bullshit around" then they simply can't afford to be an Arch user, and that my friend is infact a feature.

    Arch has always been about Rewarding The Determined -- this way the community was able to keep free of the self-entitled LAZY whiney little bitches that plague other distros.

    Soon there will be noobagedon where noobs complain about "Why doesn't the installer look like my shiny iCrap OS" because they have been conditioned into believing that "The Popular Way" is somehow "The Right Way" -- and it's not. "Ew why do you use that DOS screen to do stuff", etc...

    From what I've seen the last half decade Arch has been like lifting weights -- if you want the gains you do the work -- simple, tried & true. Keep it simple -- let the noobs install via EndevourOS or a unofficial installer IMO. Anyone who can't use CLI is unworthy.

    Leave a comment:

  • fahrenheit
    Originally posted by Markospox View Post
    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...
    Artix has an GUI installer, this besides the grub boot options, plus the wiki info for manual setup.

    Like several people said, installing by following the wiki is very straight forward. Artix with its 3 init systems is around 10 steps.
    What desktop live cds do right is giving users a way to follow the wiki without needing to get out their phones.

    Leave a comment:

  • BwackNinja
    Originally posted by leipero View Post
    BwackNinja That would be all fine if your assumption is correct, see, the issue is, there's really no distribution alternative to Arch, it's main advantages over ohter distributions:
    1. have simple and quick package manager and it's very flexible.
    2. Use "vanilla" packages whenever it's possible.
    3. Use simple and straight forward way for configuring the system.
    4. It's rolling release, once you have it installed it's done for years even decades in some cases.

    Other Arch based spins have some shared advantages, but it often happens that people who do those spins add their own choices in it, and that really goes against philosophy of Arch. Needlesly memorizing every single command is not something useful (unless you do only installations every single day) one can have from such distribution.
    I love pacman, but I also love the packaging format even more because it's so easy to create a package that integrates with the system -- just one straightforward text file. That's not what less technically inclined users are going to do or need. I don't think that the kind of user who would have enough difficulty with installing Arch Linux manually would care much about the packaging system beyond what packages are available. "pacman -S $packagename" is slightly less intuitive than "apt-get install $packagename".

    Unopinionated packaging is coming more and more with the likes of flatpak and snap, and those also negate a lot of the advantages that being a rolling release distro has while retaining a minimally changing core. You have to update/upgrade regardless -- at least for security updates, and if you don't update anything you won't get any benefits of being rolling release anyway. I'd also argue that Arch being rolling release is only incidental; it's so vanilla that there's never a logical point to make a new release.

    Ease of configuration again comes from being vanilla. There aren't custom layers on top, no alternatives system to deal with, so that might make it less friendly for a lot of users. Those commands to install are the same commands you'd use for maintaining your system. It doesn't do much of anything special in that regard.

    As an aside, I wrote a simple Arch Linux installer ~9 years ago with pygtk, so I'm familiar with what it takes to do a simple streamlined installer. I'm also biased towards learning more about my system because I ran a Linux From Scratch system (with some changes to the base, like systemd for init) from 2011 to 2017. I'm working to get back to that soon.

    Leave a comment:

  • Bluesm@n
    Well, thats a nice addition. For those unaware, ArchLinux had an installer in the first place. The ArchLinux Installation Framework (AIF), which was in use until 2012 and was similar to the FreeBSD installer.

    Leave a comment:

  • ermo
    Recently installed EndeavourOS w/the default offline option (which installs Xfce 4.16) because I needed a zero fuss install experience w/sane defaults that happened to offer glibc-2.33 and certain development tools ootb in its repos.

    So far, I have to say that it has been a very pleasant experience with a useful and simple way to keep the system updated w/a nice little GUI app that helps abstract away the implementation details for doing the most common post-install stuff like setting up mirrors, updating the system w/a nice AUR helper (yay!), applying new config settings etc.

    It almost feels like I don't necessarily need to care about the fact that it's Arch underneath the hood per se, but all the power and configurability is there if I *do* end up needing it.

    I simply cannot overstate the benefits of having an Arch-based system that just works ootb and does what I expect of it without impeding me unnecessarily, as I feel that I've done enough Arch installs both pre- and post-systemd that I really don't care to waste another minute doing so.

    To each their own I guess.
    Last edited by ermo; 04 April 2021, 02:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • muncrief
    Aaahh! I never thought I'd see the day Arch including an installer? That's awesome!

    Arch is my primary OS and I love it, but I always thought the low level install process was unnecessary and counterproductive to greater adoption of Arch. It still looks pretty low level as far as modern installers go, but nothing as bad as pacstrap, and hopefully something a regular user can navigate.

    Anyway I'm going to fire up a VM and give it try.

    Leave a comment: