Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arch Linux's Archinstall Preparing Better Btrfs Support, More Fixes

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

  • TemplarGR
    replied
    Personally, i don't care about the installer. I don't mind it existing as long as it does not take too many resources from the project or is made mandatory. But in my opinion it is better not to use it. People who are not comfortable with the command line shouldn't be using Arch. There is Manjaro for them or any other more mainstream distro. It is not like these days installing Arch is complicated or hard. It used to be much harder a decade ago. These days it is literally less than 10 commands from the bootable usb to a functional DE. If someone thinks this is too much, perhaps he shouldn't be using Arch.

    Also, using Arch is not a badge of honor. It is not a mark of being a 1337 h4xx0r or anything. As i said, installing it is trivial these days for anyone not afraid of the console and capable of following instructions. People who think installing Arch makes them superior are delusional. I didn't install Arch because i wanted a niche distro to pretend i am superior, i installed it because i wanted bleeding edge, KISS, vanilla packages and not to distro-upgrade every 6 months. I am a professional software engineer, things like installing a Linux distro are only impressive to computer illiterate grandmas (LOL).

    Leave a comment:


  • Mez'
    replied
    Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
    Manjaro serves me pretty well. Do they goof from time to time? Sure, but which distribution is absolutely perfect in every way?
    Serves me well, too. For now.
    I'll probably try Arch some day (and other distros) but if the attitude is too nerdy I might not stay too long.
    I despise Gnome devs attitude (not the Gnome DE itself) for that reason, I don't intend to lock myself up among another group of the sorts.
    But I have no negative (or positive) bias towards Arch experts at this point.


    Quackdoc Let's agree to disagree on that one.
    I just find annoying that there is no proper installer as the install process has no added value (once set up) to capitalize on as you only go through it for 30 minutes every 5-6 years. But I'm willing to dig into the doc to fix issues (I already do instinctively), as I believe this on the other hand has a real added value to managing your system on a day-2-day basis, and teach you actual things.
    I don't think these 2 points should be mixed up and it's why an installer doesn't serve any gate-keeping purpose in my opinion. Choosing an easy install process over "the real way" doesn't prefigure a subsequent "lazy" attitude.
    Last edited by Mez'; 04 January 2022, 06:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post

    The install myth around Arch feels more like a cult. If you can't or haven't installed Arch "the Arch way", you failed and won't rise to the hallowed status of a "real Linux user". Like you can't possibly manage a Linux system if you don't play a Linux install routine yourself.

    It serves the purpose of gatekeeping pretty well. It does keep the people who don't have time for superfluous BS out. I say let them. Enough Arch derivatives that have the niceties of Arch, but not the typical, repugnant Linux nerd attitude.

    Manjaro serves me pretty well. Do they goof from time to time? Sure, but which distribution is absolutely perfect in every way?
    Even Microsoft has the occasional goof. This one time in band camp I ran Windows Vista 8 ME.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Mez' View Post
    First, a proper GUI doesn't necessarily mean bypassing the learning aspects of setting up your system. It would just look less like the 1980's and have a bit more appeal than obscure screens.

    Then, an installer that simplifies the process is a very different thing. I wasn't talking about that, but let's imagine they offer one.
    In that case, it would not be a question of being lazy. The real question is the time you're willing to spend on nerd stuff in the few hours a day of free time we have in our lives.
    any installer greatly makes the process less effort, a GUI one makes it even more so. and the screens aren't obscure if you know what you are doing.

    In my case, I've never hesitated to get my hands dirty when it's absolutely necessary and I've almost always succeeded when doing so, because I know my way around (or find it). Which means I could handle Arch if I wanted to, but the wasted time compared to a more intuitive and user-friendly alternative (hence usually quicker) doing exactly the same thing is not worth it for me in my life balance.

    I'm not sure the archaic install process filters people too lazy too learn. I tend to believe that it rather snubs people who have already learned but have little time to spend on it.
    if you know how to install arch, it doesn't take a long time at all, in-fact it is often shorter than installing other operating systems. I can get an arch install up and running in only a few minutes. Arch isn't about knowledge, its about the time and effort you are willing to put in. it is gate-keeping. it filters out the people who aren't willing to read a manual and install arch. and personally the way I like it

    installing arch is a very simple process as long as you are willing to put the time and effort in. and you are right, some people don't have time to manage their own install, and don't have time to try and debug their problems their self. don't come to arch, there are plenty of other decent distros. for you that would better suit you, I personally recommend fedora. another perfectly competent distro.

    Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post

    The install myth around Arch feels more like a cult. If you can't or haven't installed Arch "the Arch way", you failed and won't rise to the hallowed status of a "real Linux user". Like you can't possibly manage a Linux system if you don't play a Linux install routine yourself.

    It serves the purpose of gatekeeping pretty well. It does keep the people who don't have time for superfluous BS out. I say let them. Enough Arch derivatives that have the niceties of Arch, but not the typical, repugnant Linux nerd attitude.

    Manjaro serves me pretty well. Do they goof from time to time? Sure, but which distribution is absolutely perfect in every way?
    good we don't want you near our forums anyways. if you manage to get the ire of arch users its 90% of the time because you were to lazy to try and fix your own problem, you could be half brain dead and as long as you show that you are trying to solve your problem you will get help. if thats "repugnant linux nerd attitude" then good. that precisely the people we want to stop seeing on the forums.

    and when your shitty derivative breaks aur for the umpteenth time, Ill leave you with the words of the ffmpeg-full maintainer

    Sorry, but Manjaro is not supported.

    Leave a comment:


  • r_a_trip
    replied
    Originally posted by Mez' View Post
    I'm not sure the archaic install process filters people too lazy too learn. I tend to believe that it rather snubs people who have already learned but have little time to spend on it.
    The install myth around Arch feels more like a cult. If you can't or haven't installed Arch "the Arch way", you failed and won't rise to the hallowed status of a "real Linux user". Like you can't possibly manage a Linux system if you don't play a Linux install routine yourself.

    It serves the purpose of gatekeeping pretty well. It does keep the people who don't have time for superfluous BS out. I say let them. Enough Arch derivatives that have the niceties of Arch, but not the typical, repugnant Linux nerd attitude.

    Manjaro serves me pretty well. Do they goof from time to time? Sure, but which distribution is absolutely perfect in every way?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mez'
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

    I don't want them too, as it is Im kinda 50/50 on the installer. a GUI would make arch a little too accessible for lazy people. and people who want a gui but are also okay with a little bit of work have anarchy
    First, a proper GUI doesn't necessarily mean bypassing the learning aspects of setting up your system. It would just look less like the 1980's and have a bit more appeal than obscure screens.

    Then, an installer that simplifies the process is a very different thing. I wasn't talking about that, but let's imagine they offer one.
    In that case, it would not be a question of being lazy. The real question is the time you're willing to spend on nerd stuff in the few hours a day of free time we have in our lives.

    In my case, I've never hesitated to get my hands dirty when it's absolutely necessary and I've almost always succeeded when doing so, because I know my way around (or find it). Which means I could handle Arch if I wanted to, but the wasted time compared to a more intuitive and user-friendly alternative (hence usually quicker) doing exactly the same thing is not worth it for me in my life balance.

    I'm not sure the archaic install process filters people too lazy too learn. I tend to believe that it rather snubs people who have already learned but have little time to spend on it.
    Last edited by Mez'; 04 January 2022, 08:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    Originally posted by Mario Junior View Post

    Is no more.
    Still is. Note that we're talking about the base of Chrome/Chromium OS, NOT the Crostini layer that allows Linux desktop apps to run that's based on Debian. The base itself is still based on Gentoo.

    https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/packages
    “We have many packages in the Chromium OS tree. While many come from upstream Gentoo (which can be browsed http://packages.gentoo.org/)”

    https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/packages/portage
    “We use Gentoo's portage (aka emerge) as the package manager in Chromium OS.”

    https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os...C-Introduction
    “But we still need some bootstrap starting point. For that, we turn to Gentoo. Their release process includes publishing what is called a stage3 tarball. It's a full (albeit basic) Gentoo chroot that is used for installing Gentoo. We use it for creating the Chromium OS SDK from scratch.”
    Last edited by Vistaus; 04 January 2022, 06:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    Wouldn't the better solution be, not using the installer and ignoring the newbies crying for help. Just let everyone else have their installer and go on with life.
    you ever seen what a forum of newbies looks like. there is a reason RTFM meme exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

    I don't want them too, as it is Im kinda 50/50 on the installer. a GUI would make arch a little too accessible for lazy people. and people who want a gui but are also okay with a little bit of work have anarchy
    Wouldn't the better solution be, not using the installer and ignoring the newbies crying for help. Just let everyone else have their installer and go on with life.

    Leave a comment:


  • MadCatX
    replied
    TBH, it already takes me about 5 minutes to do a fresh Arch install the "real men way", though I do have a lot of practice

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X