Archinstall 2.3.1 Released With PipeWire App Profile Added, Btrfs Install Improvements

[Paradigm Shifter]

...but the option will always be there for those "true Arch users" and masochists alike

For the true masochists...

[dc740]

It may sound weird, but... I actually enjoyed having Gentoo on a ryzen 5800X. It compiles so fast that it's not annoying to do it for every update, AND yes, you can tell the difference since the binaries were compiled and optimized for that particular cpu.

of course this point is not really valid, since the 5800X is very good, and CPUs that would benefit the most from having a customized binaries are the ones you'd NEVER use Gentoo on, since it'd take ages to compile everything.

And I know it by experience, since I also used it on a 10 years old dual core, which had a good performance with the binaries compiled and optimized for it, but it took so long to compile that it made it impossible to use Gentoo as a daily driver.

[darkbasic]

They might possibly stop officially supporting and updating the guide for it but the option will always be there for those "true Arch users" and masochists alike

We're not masochists, we're simply opinionated and we like to do things the way **we** like and not the way someone else's like.
You may not believe it but we like easy and simple things as much as everybody else does, that's why a manual installation procedure without plenty of documentation makes no sense for us. Installing a distro manually allows you to thinks like zfs on root very easily, much more easily that in other distros.

[cmsigler]

They might possibly stop officially supporting and updating the guide for it but the option will always be there for those "true Arch users" and masochists alike

I never got why someone would choose Arch just to brag about successfully installing it. Maybe that's because a long time ago [humble brag] I switched from Gentoo to Arch [/humble brag] I mean, what if you install it then decide it's a disaster to operate and upgrade? Fortunately, that's not the case

The reasons to use Arch are: 1) Rolling distro, so cutting edge (when I was on Debian back in the 90's I got tired of trying to wedge packages with endless unmet dependencies from testing or Sid into my system when I wanted some package's newest features), and with latest bugfixes directly from upstream, yet with a degree of testing so breakage is infrequent, even rare; 2) KISS principle -- Simple configuration, operation, upgrades, which (presumably) leads to less misconfiguration and out-of-date-ness and related security issues -- "vanilla" is a feature, not a bug; 3) Not source-based for those who don't need optimization per-package, so faster/simpler upgrades.

I actually chose Arch for reason 3) and have never looked back. It is The One True Way(TM)

I'm a big supporter of the text-based installer. I recently did a new install for the first time in years and gave archinstall a whirl. It was very nice. I chose all the defaults because I knew if I didn't like it I could just start over and change the default choices. Why would anyone think badly of it???

[Charlie68]

Ora cavoli vostri...arriveranno gli utenti di Ubuntu e Mint a chiedere come installare facebook !

[Quackdoc]

I never got why someone would choose Arch just to brag about successfully installing it. Maybe that's because a long time ago [humble brag] I switched from Gentoo to Arch [/humble brag] I mean, what if you install it then decide it's a disaster to operate and upgrade? Fortunately, that's not the case

The reasons to use Arch are: 1) Rolling distro, so cutting edge (when I was on Debian back in the 90's I got tired of trying to wedge packages with endless unmet dependencies from testing or Sid into my system when I wanted some package's newest features), and with latest bugfixes directly from upstream, yet with a degree of testing so breakage is infrequent, even rare; 2) KISS principle -- Simple configuration, operation, upgrades, which (presumably) leads to less misconfiguration and out-of-date-ness and related security issues -- "vanilla" is a feature, not a bug; 3) Not source-based for those who don't need optimization per-package, so faster/simpler upgrades.

I actually chose Arch for reason 3) and have never looked back. It is The One True Way(TM)

I'm a big supporter of the text-based installer. I recently did a new install for the first time in years and gave archinstall a whirl. It was very nice. I chose all the defaults because I knew if I didn't like it I could just start over and change the default choices. Why would anyone think badly of it???

because of meme culture, go look at the circle jerk that is the arch reddit. for me, In the past, I wouldn't have liked the idea of archinstall, because it gives too many lazy people a way to install, and then they would flood the forums. now thankfully, all those kinds of people go to reddit to ask their RTFM questions, and gloat about installing, so it's not too bad.

[sinepgib]

I never got why someone would choose Arch just to brag about successfully installing it. Maybe that's because a long time ago [humble brag] I switched from Gentoo to Arch [/humble brag] I mean, what if you install it then decide it's a disaster to operate and upgrade? Fortunately, that's not the case

The reasons to use Arch are: 1) Rolling distro, so cutting edge (when I was on Debian back in the 90's I got tired of trying to wedge packages with endless unmet dependencies from testing or Sid into my system when I wanted some package's newest features), and with latest bugfixes directly from upstream, yet with a degree of testing so breakage is infrequent, even rare; 2) KISS principle -- Simple configuration, operation, upgrades, which (presumably) leads to less misconfiguration and out-of-date-ness and related security issues -- "vanilla" is a feature, not a bug; 3) Not source-based for those who don't need optimization per-package, so faster/simpler upgrades.

I actually chose Arch for reason 3) and have never looked back. It is The One True Way(TM)

I'm a big supporter of the text-based installer. I recently did a new install for the first time in years and gave archinstall a whirl. It was very nice. I chose all the defaults because I knew if I didn't like it I could just start over and change the default choices. Why would anyone think badly of it???

When I migrated to Arch it had already been migrated to systemd. The two main reasons I migrated (from Ubuntu based distros) were the excessive number of heavyweight services by default for my very basic use case and weak machines you found in my country and the whole ad-hoc stuff Debian and derivatives carry, such as ifup-ifdown and the half-assed, half-done systemd migration. For me, systemd is either all in or all out, doing it half ways is a recipe for a shitty system, it nullifies all of the advantages while making you learn new stuff anyway.

the option will always be there for those "true Arch users" and masochists alike

And the ones who didn't keep up with the fact a new installer was there. I found out about it one day after the last time I installed :'(
It would've saved me a lot of time, it's not something I do often enough to do it quickly. At this day that setup is still half done really.

[HighValueWarrior]

Delighted to see the Arch installer continue receiving love.
Thank you Dev !!

[Anux]

I was wondering, if the installer allows you to manually select the luks options (like argon 2id), if so it would be nice for an install on a laptop i need to do this weekend.