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

[leipero]

I dont think you're in any position to say that, even if you just want to protect users. If someone wants to use Manjaro, thats fine. The only problem that still exists is that Manjaro Users come to Arch support spots and ask for help with "Arch" = Manjaro. Thats not OK.

I am not in position to say that, I can't command to anyone. I said that as an advice really. You may disagree with my advice, but if I count in past experience with Manjaro, and some recent testing actually, I can't advise anyone to use it in a good faith.

[Etherman]

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?

If you have Manjaro and decide to switch to Arch just change the repos. That's what I've done and I didn't encounter any big problems. Just some config files in /etc needed fixing.
YMMV

[creoflux]

then you wonder why linux has the massive 1% of desktop market

According to NetMarketShare, Linux distribution have nearly 2% at the moment and has had reported peak market share of over 3.6% last June. Even if those figures are correct, does it matter? Desktop market share is not the only measure of success. Imagine telling a local folk band that they should just quit because folk music never charts in the top 100.

[eclecto]

This is great news. I have installed Arch Linux many time. Each time is a struggle, at some level. I get the idea, that it's a learning experience, but after doing it possibly 30 or more times, the process has become unproductive. So in a pinch, the last few times I've had to reinstall---sometimes, when I've rebooted before a long update has completed in the background, or so I suspect---I've taken the easy way out: Manjaro. Manjaro is expertly configured, but I always prefer to run the real Arch LInux. Wonderful news. Wonderful.

My son wanted to try Arch, but at his college, the wifi setup was confounded by campus policies. Somehow. He installed Manjaro with ease. Hopefully this will be good news.

[R41N3R]

I really welcome this step. Installing Arch one time manual is interesting, but not multiple times. Especially as a new user you want to get a system up and running in a short time and then learn all the details step by step. So this is a good development. Sure it is still Arch, but I think if this script is able to provide good defaults it could be even more Arch. A simple and lean installation is quite useful. I've used always my own script (as probably many other Arch Linux users) to automate my Arch installs and I like how simple and fast it is to setup a new system.

[Mez']

If you have Manjaro and decide to switch to Arch just change the repos. That's what I've done and I didn't encounter any big problems. Just some config files in /etc needed fixing.
YMMV

Wow, that's a thing? For real?

[Nocifer]

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.

The true merit of a "1337 Arch user" is their ability to maintain their system in the long term without borking it, not following instructions on a goddamn Wiki in order to install it. I for one have been keeping the same Arch system for close to 9 years now, and I know perfectly well how to maintain it and keep it in top form or reconfigure it in whatever way I may need, but I still do not have the install procedure memorized, and so I still would have to visit the Wiki on my phone if I ever wanted to install a new Arch system, and so I do very much welcome a simple Arch installer that will semi-automate that procedure for me, because indeed I do not have the time to bullshit around reading guides on a Wiki like a noob.

Does that make me a lazy whiny bitch in your eyes? I sure hope not. And I'm pretty certain that 9 out of 10 people in this thread alone who've commented positively about the new Arch installer are equally capable and not lazy whiny bitches as you presume.

And anyway, the true lazy whiny bitches will simply FUBAR their system within a week or two of installing it, and instead of trying to fix it they will silently go back to Windows or Ubuntu.

[cl333r]

The true merit of a "1337 Arch user" is their ability to maintain their system in the long term without borking it, not following instructions on a goddamn Wiki in order to install it. I for one have been keeping the same Arch system for close to 9 years now, and I know perfectly well how to maintain it and keep it in top form or reconfigure it in whatever way I may need, but I still do not have the install procedure memorized, and so I still would have to visit the Wiki on my phone if I ever wanted to install a new Arch system, and so I do very much welcome a simple Arch installer that will semi-automate that procedure for me, because indeed I do not have the time to bullshit around reading guides on a Wiki like a noob.

Does that make me a lazy whiny bitch in your eyes? I sure hope not. And I'm pretty certain that 9 out of 10 people in this thread alone who've commented positively about the new Arch installer are equally capable and not lazy whiny bitches as you presume.

And anyway, the true lazy whiny bitches will simply FUBAR their system within a week or two of installing it, and instead of trying to fix it they will silently go back to Windows or Ubuntu.

So you're implying that there are still assholes who think that if they run this or that Linux distro it makes them better, I hope they're all teenagers otherwise they're just morons.

[BwackNinja]

So you're implying that there are still assholes who think that if they run this or that Linux distro it makes them better, I hope they're all teenagers otherwise they're just morons.

Unironically, yes. I wouldn't hesitate to argue that the average Arch Linux user is more savvy than the average Ubuntu user, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. Ubuntu is made "for human beings" -- (used to be) their motto, even though it's still comfortable for more savvy users as well. Arch Linux has a larger barrier for entry, so people uncomfortable even installing it won't use it.

The problem with adding an installer isn't that more people will be able to say "I use Arch" and diminish the value of calling yourself an Arch Linux user. It's that they'll put more burden on the community if they aren't willing to do the work themselves to maintain their system and tarnish the name of Arch Linux as unfriendly when it was never intended for them to use it. Not everything has to be made for everyone.

It's only 4 steps:
1. Partition your drive
2. Install the base system
3. Set a root password
4. Setup the bootloader

Everything else you can do from within your installed system. Split up like that, I was able to install onto an HFS+ partition, integrate with the default bootloader on a Macbook Pro, and access all of my files from OSX.

It's fine for this installer to exist and even come by default on Arch Install images. I also think that nearly everyone adamant about it needing to exist don't use Arch Linux and probably aren't the target audience either. It's not a commercial Linux distro anyway, so more users who aren't contributing are just a burden anyway. I've long grown out of Linux evangelism. Just let people use the OS they want to use.

[X_m7]

This is great news. I have installed Arch Linux many time. Each time is a struggle, at some level. I get the idea, that it's a learning experience, but after doing it possibly 30 or more times, the process has become unproductive. So in a pinch, the last few times I've had to reinstall---sometimes, when I've rebooted before a long update has completed in the background, or so I suspect---I've taken the easy way out: Manjaro. Manjaro is expertly configured, but I always prefer to run the real Arch LInux. Wonderful news. Wonderful.

My son wanted to try Arch, but at his college, the wifi setup was confounded by campus policies. Somehow. He installed Manjaro with ease. Hopefully this will be good news.

I'm guessing said campus policy is that the network uses WPA2-Enterprise, which is a pain to do with no GUI tools. I had to go through that myself the first time I installed Arch, ended up writing out a wpa_supplicant config file manually and using that until I get to the point where the DE's NetworkManager frontend is available. Sadly this installer doesn't help with that, but it does make the setup a lot less tedious to the point where installing to an empty VM is a pinch.