Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Archinstall 2.3 Released For Easily Installing Arch Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Tbh i don't really see much of a point to this project, the arch installation is already very easy to do and you need to be capable of doing everything it takes to install arch normally to be able to use arch (e.g. follow simple instructions on a wiki), if you can't, you're probably gonna break your installation and not know how to fix it at some point (not that that can't happen even when you can tho).

    If you want arch that's easy to install, just use manjaro, it's a lot more merciful towards new users, in more ways than just a simpler installation process, if you need something like archinstall, odds are pretty high that arch linux just isn't for you.

    I do agree with some of the above commenters about weird elitism among arch users, I'm a former arch user and one of the bigger reason why I'm not still an arch user is because their community was just... I believe the most polite term is 'unforgiving'. The distro itself is amazing tho, in spite of it's relatively few (but nontheless sometimes severe) flaws, but I stand by what I said, if the arch installation process scares you off from using arch, just use an arch based distro that's more noob friendly instead.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by alex19EP View Post

      if GUI installer could be implemented as a plugin to archinstall IMO that would be nice and welcome thing.
      I don't think dragging in an Xorg or Wayland graphics stack could ever be implemented as a "plugin" to archinstall.

      Just to make a graphical window appear the software will already need to be hundreds of times larger than archinstall itself. This is pretty much exactly why GUI installers are not suitable for every use-case.

      The closest thing would be a TUI. The interesting thing about TUIs is you start to question yourself if it indeed is actually easier than a standard command line installer. Then you realize that GUIs aren't necessarily "easier". Just look at FreeBSD's installer vs OpenBSD; I would honestly say that the latter is more likely to be usable by a 5 year old.

      TLDR: I suspect that wanting a GUI installer is actually an irrational compulsion for many. They don't know why they want it; they just do!
      kpedersen
      Senior Member
      Last edited by kpedersen; 25 November 2021, 11:18 AM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by simonsaysthis View Post
        Looking forward to Arch users arguing that Arch installed with Archinstall isn't Arch.
        Ermm, usually that kind of zealot users are found on the Debian camp not the Arch camp. As evidence see how much noise Debian users did with the switch to systemd (even forking to devuan) and they still keep bashing and complaining on pubic forums, meanwhile Arch switched to systemd years before and most of its userbase accepted it as an advancement or unified assortment of tools that reduced the need of manually installing a bunch of other tools.

        Other distro users are more resistance to change (eg: x11 vs wayland) while Archlinux users usually balance the benefits vs cons instead of taking a political stance against every piece of new software. Basically Arch users are early adopters as long as it makes sense. So what you say doesn't makes sense for the majority of Arch community which moves on a rolling release distro and rarely has the need to run the installer for already running users so too little to complain, on the contrary, new users will apreciate the tool while old users may never use it or embrace it for what it is, a tool and option.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by simonsaysthis View Post
          Looking forward to Arch users arguing that Arch installed with Archinstall isn't Arch.
          Arch is Arch because it's up to date and offers customization-free packages. The customization-free part is important, because you can use the official documentation (no surprises like renamed folders, arcane policies enabled by default).
          Installing Arch "the hard way" will teach you a thing or two, but, since I'm not eager to go through the process again, I welcome archinstall.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

            I don't think dragging in an Xorg or Wayland graphics stack could ever be implemented as a "plugin" to archinstall.
            The plan was to have the graphical installer webbased. Archinstall just spawns a webserver where you can connect from another device, or via custom archiso on a local browser. This was already working prior official release via "archinstall_gui", but was dropped to focus on archinstall first. If this still is a planned thing is something I don't know. A hardcoded installer GUI as we have on Ubuntu is no option, I'm with you on that.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by mirmirmir View Post

              Back then, i used one line to insall everything, from bootloader, desktop, to browser. Arch installation can be very short, simple and straightforward if you know what to do. I even skipped many steps on common guide because i use GUI before and after the installation. And yet, despite everything. I was proud to tell people on Internet that i use arch btw.

              Now i use different distro, i no longer see the appeal of archlinux beside for learning. I wouldn't use arch/based distro for daily driver...
              If Arch is so bad as a daily driver, then why does Valve use it as a base for SteamOS?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by rabcor View Post
                Tbh i don't really see much of a point to this project, the arch installation is already very easy to do and you need to be capable of doing everything it takes to install arch normally to be able to use arch (e.g. follow simple instructions on a wiki), if you can't, you're probably gonna break your installation and not know how to fix it at some point (not that that can't happen even when you can tho).

                If you want arch that's easy to install, just use manjaro, it's a lot more merciful towards new users, in more ways than just a simpler installation process, if you need something like archinstall, odds are pretty high that arch linux just isn't for you.
                Manjaro is probably the worst distro I've ever tried. On multiple PC s, it was always trouble, trouble and trouble. And most of the times even broken after installing their so-called stable (!) updates after a new install. And I have a couple of years of Linux experience behind me (though I'm no specialist or something). I wouldn't want any new user, in whatever sense of the word, even thinking about using Manjaro.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

                  If Arch is so bad as a daily driver, then why does Valve use it as a base for SteamOS?
                  I don't say arch is bad. I'm also not Valve. Why do you ask me?

                  Also, right before i open this forum, i watched linus clips about steamOS. He said from developers event, they formalized, steamOS would be standalone linux distro.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

                    If Arch is so bad as a daily driver, then why does Valve use it as a base for SteamOS?
                    I doubt it will use the same arch repo, it will become something like manjaro with packages out of date

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Seems like Arch is for normies now. I am using Gentoo GNU/Linux, btw.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X