Originally posted by Vistaus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Arch Linux's Install Media Adds "Archinstall" For Quick/Easy Installations
Collapse
X
-
The best thing about this installer is not needing a second PC to look at the wiki.
Have seen a video where this installer only created 2 partitions: EFI and / with btrfs.
So the question is, can I also create a swap, a /home partition with XFS and do the btrfs snapshots really work without subvolumes?Last edited by Firnefex; 05 April 2021, 07:47 AM.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mike Frett View Post
For now. This is all I heard when I used Windows. Don't like it? Keep using the current version. Sorry but it doesn't work that way in real life. Support ends and what you hate becomes the only option. You have no choice.
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Grouch View Post
I have not tried Arch yet, but you are saying the right things to make me think it is an option. With 'a bit' of finagling I set up my personal Lubuntu* system fully encrypted with a non-mainstream filesystems, but standard installers make this unnecessarily complicated, so if it is easier on Arch, I may well be persuaded to move to it.
*I used Debian from version 2.0 (Hamm), but got fed up setting up DEs, WMs etc, and went for the ease of a pre-packaged distribution that was 'minimal-enough' (LXDE). While I enjoy fiddling with stuff, being forced to audit config changes on upgrades gets rapidly irritating**, so I chose to let someone else do all the boring integration work for me. Hence Lubuntu, which has since 'jumped the shark', so I'm on the hunt for a grown-up distribution that 'just works' in a sane manner.
**I suspect Arch does just this, which is fine when you are learning, but gets really, really irritating when you are using your workstation as a tool for getting non-Linux things done.When you are in the middle of an update, and a breaking change in a config is presented as a diff with the option of using a cli/non-gui text editor to make fundamental changes, shorn of context, I get...irritated. It would be nice to have a dry-run/preprocessor that would detect if config changes were necessary and flag them up to allow me to research them beforehand. In principle, I just need to set an LVM checkpoint, run an upgrade and revert back if a breaking change occurs. Which is a bit of a faff - but maybe I'll start doing just that...
As an example, Arch does not forcefully present changes to conf files as a diff in the middle of an update. Instead it simply keeps the existing file (so everything keeps running in exactly the same way as before the update, even if you reboot) and saves the new file with a .pacnew extension (e.g. sshd.conf.pacnew) and then leaves it up to the user to go look for these new files and do whatever they want with them. No preprocessors. But here's the trick: it's actually really easy to write a so-called pacman hook, that will be called after each update and notify you about any new .pacnew files that have been created - and that's that. Or of course you could write yourself a cron task (or systemd-timer service) that does the same thing every X amount of time.
Can we do that in other Linux distros? Of course we can. But do we usually do it? No, because we're used to convoluted, fully automated packaging tools like apt that we really don't want to mess around with because we're afraid (and rightly so) that we'll probably break them.
Regarding simplicity, speaking for myself, I fell in love with Arch way back when because it showed me a simple truth: a complete Linux setup is as simple as partition disks, format disks, mount disks, install base packages, configure basic stuff like fstab/timezone/locales, configure network, optionally install GUI, enable services/init scripts, reboot, done*. Depending on your internet connection speed, you can literally have a brand new Arch system up and running in less than 10 minutes. And afterwards, it's a quick trip to the Arch Wiki (which let's not forget, it's the #1 go-to place for learning how to do stuff on any Linux system) to find out how to configure non-basic stuff like e.g. disk decryption on boot.
(*Terribly sorry if I'm forgetting a step or two, it's been ages since I last installed Arch).
- Likes 4
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by chromer View PostNo One is forced to use this tool, it's a command available in Arch Medium for anyone who like guided installation. Still manual , full customized installation is far better option for experienced users.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Old Grouch View Post
I have not tried Arch yet, but you are saying the right things to make me think it is an option. With 'a bit' of finagling I set up my personal Lubuntu* system fully encrypted with a non-mainstream filesystems, but standard installers make this unnecessarily complicated, so if it is easier on Arch, I may well be persuaded to move to it.
*I used Debian from version 2.0 (Hamm), but got fed up setting up DEs, WMs etc, and went for the ease of a pre-packaged distribution that was 'minimal-enough' (LXDE). While I enjoy fiddling with stuff, being forced to audit config changes on upgrades gets rapidly irritating**, so I chose to let someone else do all the boring integration work for me. Hence Lubuntu, which has since 'jumped the shark', so I'm on the hunt for a grown-up distribution that 'just works' in a sane manner.
**I suspect Arch does just this, which is fine when you are learning, but gets really, really irritating when you are using your workstation as a tool for getting non-Linux things done.When you are in the middle of an update, and a breaking change in a config is presented as a diff with the option of using a cli/non-gui text editor to make fundamental changes, shorn of context, I get...irritated. It would be nice to have a dry-run/preprocessor that would detect if config changes were necessary and flag them up to allow me to research them beforehand. In principle, I just need to set an LVM checkpoint, run an upgrade and revert back if a breaking change occurs. Which is a bit of a faff - but maybe I'll start doing just that...
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sandy8925 View Post
Yeah, setting up a proper encrypted system gets annoying. On the other hand, I've kind of got the hang of it, and you don't really need a separate /boot partition if you're using GRUB to unlock LUKS partitions.
*I used Debian from version 2.0 (Hamm), but got fed up setting up DEs, WMs etc, and went for the ease of a pre-packaged distribution that was 'minimal-enough' (LXDE). While I enjoy fiddling with stuff, being forced to audit config changes on upgrades gets rapidly irritating**, so I chose to let someone else do all the boring integration work for me. Hence Lubuntu, which has since 'jumped the shark', so I'm on the hunt for a grown-up distribution that 'just works' in a sane manner.
**I suspect Arch does just this, which is fine when you are learning, but gets really, really irritating when you are using your workstation as a tool for getting non-Linux things done.When you are in the middle of an update, and a breaking change in a config is presented as a diff with the option of using a cli/non-gui text editor to make fundamental changes, shorn of context, I get...irritated. It would be nice to have a dry-run/preprocessor that would detect if config changes were necessary and flag them up to allow me to research them beforehand. In principle, I just need to set an LVM checkpoint, run an upgrade and revert back if a breaking change occurs. Which is a bit of a faff - but maybe I'll start doing just that...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cl333r View Post
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.
Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
This is reverse elitism. You are hating the "elitists" and telling them to go LFS, because "only n00bs don't automate". Well, i am not a n00b, and i don't automate my Arch installations. Why would i? I am using it on my personal computers, i don't reinstall that often. Automating it would be a waste of time, when i can simply do it manually in the not frequent occasion i need a reinstall.
And honestly, i wouldn't use Arch for professional environments. I would use a stable distro for that, whether it was for servers or workstations. So again, i don't see the use case for using automation. I mean, you can do it, all the power to you, but automation has some downsides vs fully manual and there is no reason to do it for 1-2 computers only.
But that's why an official automation tool will be beneficial: it will always stay up to date with current installation standards without needing us to update any custom scripts that we may have written. And if it's customizable as someone previously mentioned (i.e. able to run custom scripts or install custom package lists or copy over configuration files) then IMHO it'll be just perfect for the job.Last edited by Nocifer; 05 April 2021, 07:12 AM.
- Likes 4
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kpedersen View PostThis 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.
At some point in time, in England, water closets, oil lamps, and refrigerators were 'modern'. So too were hooped skirts, silk stockings for men, and wigs (for all sexes). Some have stood the test of time, others have not. People arguing for change should describe both the benefits and the disadvantages of the new approach, and let people decide. Pushing things because they are 'modern' demonstrates a vacuity of thinking.
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: