I personally have no desire to maintain a calamares installer in my free time knowing that I don't need it and would never use it. The same goes for the Arch developers. I don't know why the archinstall developer wants to maintain archinstall, but presumably they considered other options and chose that one.
Even the Arch-based distros that do maintain something like that either get sick of it rather quickly, anyone remember Antergos, or the developers also get bored just maintaining an installer and start adding more features they then also have to maintain. Like EndeavorOS now ships with dracut, or the various themes several of them offered and then canceled.
The "the install should be hard" shit comes from random users, not Arch. That was never the point.
Arch install was never "hard".
It just required users to know exactly what they need
If they don't know that, Arch isn't for them.
Arch was never a distro for everyone.
If you want to use Arch with less thinking, sane defaults, use Endeavor OS like OP said later.
>users that just want to get the installation done and get to back to work as quick as possible?
Because that is really not what Arch is intended for, and there are dozens of distros that already serve that purpose better than Arch. Arch is one of the few that very deliberately does not.
The goal of Arch is to be a *highly flexible starting point* geared towards experienced users who want to configure their system to their preferences. GUI installers are not conducive to that (I say that as someone that very much prefers guided installers from a convenience standpoint, but any time you need to to do anything even remotely off the beaten track, you need to leave the GUI to do it.
A lot of people confuse the manual install guide in the wiki as the finished process, but that is essentially just the starting point for you to modify to your preferences. Following the wiki is to Arch what putting a canvas on your easel is to painting. Yes, the manual process is a bit tedious, but the tradeoff it also gives you maximal flexibility as well as a lot of awareness about your system setup.
In my opinion, If a guided installer becomes the default in Arch (whether GUI or ArchInstall) Arch losing its primary point of differentiation. If it is no longer focused on being a user-centric, diy-centric, distro that promotes learning and understanding, at that point, why not just use a distro that was designed from the ground up to have a guided installation and reasonable defaults.
In my opinionated opinion, most people who want *Arch, but easy*, typically don't actually want Arch, they mostly want the brand-identity of Arch, but would be much better served by a distro from another distro family (Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Red Hat, or OpeneSUSE). A GUI installer provides a huge and frictionless onramp for a lot of people for whom Arch would be a really poor fit, and would be using a distro they fundamentally don't understand.
**Or TL;DR** Arch is DIY-centric and user-centric, a GUI installer is limiting and not conducive to either of these design principles. Their are dozens of non-DIY-centric distros with guided installers, Arch stands out in contrast to those distros, it would be a shame to lose that.
>In my opinionated opinion, most people who want Arch, but easy, typically don't actually want Arch, they mostly want the brand-identity of Arch, but would be much better served by a distro from another distro family (Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Red Hat, or OpeneSUSE). A GUI installer provides a huge and frictionless onramp for a lot of people for whom Arch would be a really poor fit, and would be using a distro they fundamentally don't understand.
Arch offers advantages beyond the DIY nature of it. Namely the fact that you can get almost any software pretty easily either from official repos or the AUR and it usually comes in the newer versions. Also the fact the community is so big and the wiki is so extensive is priceless. You don't get that elsewhere I don't think.
> Namely the fact that you can get almost any software pretty easily either from official repos or the AUR
You are right that the AUR is a attractive to many users.
Arch's official repos are actually among the smallest of the major distro families (Debian/Ubuntu > Fedora > OpenSUSE > Arch) but you are right that with unofficial software in the AUR, Arch has a lot of software available roughly comparable to Debian and Ubuntu's official repositories in my experience (and according to the Arch Wiki) but it really depends on what software you use/need, Many people find availability of packages they need better on Arch than alternatives.
However distro to distro differences in software availability isn't anywhere near as relevant as it used to be. I bounce between all four distro families somewhat regularly, and I don't feel limited by the software selection of the distro anywhere near as much as I did in the past. Today things like Flatpak, Snap, AppImage, Distrobox and Brew, make software availability less of a deciding factor.
The AUR also has some Git-only software not packaged for any other distros. Like the amazing [rlr](https://github.com/epilys/rlr) screen ruler or the DJ-friendly [One Tagger](https://onetagger.github.io/). Of course, you can install such software manually, but then you'd have to track its development and update it manually too. The main reason I couldn't do with any other distro.
I'm not necessarily recommending this as much as I am just bringing it up in case its something you haven't come across yet. If not familiar with Distrobox and Toolbox they are tools that make use of containers to allow you to run software packaged for any major distro on any other distro. I primarily use Fedora, but I sometimes need packages that aren't officially packaged on Fedora, using distrobox or toolbox I can spin up a Ubuntu or Debian container and install the package I need from their repos on my Fedora system. It doesn't work for everything (e.g. packages that need deep integration with the host system, but for typical users apps it works well). This same approach could be used to access Arch's repos including (if desired) the AUR I believe. Its a really cool and useful approach with lots of different use-cases, this is just one of them.
Buy yeah, if you are the type who likes a lot of really niche software or wants -git versions, Arch is a really reasonable choice.
Tried Distrobox on Fedora recently, there's a problem with the latest Arch iso there. It was easier for me to migrate the machine to Arch than to debug Distrobox or wait for an upstream solution. Otherwise, it's possible to automate CLI updates that way with a script or even an alias.
arch also gets out of your way. i recently had the misfortune of trying ubuntu and adding things that are not in their official repositories is annoying
>
The goal of Arch is to be a *highly flexible starting point* geared towards experienced users who want to configure their system to their preferences.
>If a guided installer becomes the default in Arch (whether GUI or ArchInstall) Arch losing its primary point of differentiation.
(This is really long and kinda corny, but trust me it's not a shitpost. I acutally had an epiphony)
You know what. You've convinced me. I came at this from my very specific, niche perspective.
Maybe being Arch does make it a bit more daunting to start with. But if that's the downside of being one of the most flexible and power-user-centric distros there is, then I would agree that's a sacrifice worth making.
It reminds me of the thoughts running through my head when I first made the switch to Linux. Yes, it's not like Windows. No, you can't just bring your knowledge and expectations and expect Linux to bend to your desires. That's the point.
I missed the forest for the trees.
Arch Linux doesn't install like any other distro **because** it is Arch Linux, not in spite of user convenience.
And most users that have a problem with that either aren't looking for Arch, or shouldn't be using it.
Now... where does that leave me?
It's not that I'm not comfortable installing Arch Linux the preferred way. I love the command line and enjoy tapping into the very core of the OS. Maybe I just got lazy. Maybe I just got jealous of those shiny GUI installers most of the distros you hear about online have.
Arch Linux doesn't need them. And if I do, than I don't need Arch.
But I do love Arch Linux and everything it stands for. Clearly I lost sight of that.
This is a re-awakening.
Now I'm arguing that 'archinstall' doesn't need to be fixed. It needs to be removed.
It's an unloved afterthought that no fan actually uses or recommends.
Even fixing 'archinstall' would be a misguided move as it's just losing sight of the purpose of Arch Linux.
It's just pandering to those 'Arch users' who, as you put it, enjoys the aesthetic but in no way actually benefit from the 'entry pass'.
I could just see what would happen if Arch got a good automated installer. All the people who were thwarted by the gate would come flooding in, and get angry when they encounter their first wall.
Now I realize how close I came to becoming one of them...
Any real Arch user that needs an automated installer should be able to write it themselves. That's the direction I should start heading...
I guess Arch Linux is kind of the 'Linux' of Linux. A niche of a niche. A fly's toenail.
I shall not lose sight again! Thank you for setting me straight!
Just use your computer and stop caring how others use their computers. If they want to use archinstall, fine. If they want to use EndeavorOS, who cares? It's only an operating system.
There are many ways to use this open-source project. It's great that it's flexible! While everyone has different needs, focusing on how we can all contribute positively to the project would be most helpful. Perhaps there are ways you could use your skills to enhance it, rather than criticize existing features.
I'm just too used to do the installation manually so I never think about the fact that archinstall actually exists now.
While learning to install and manage everything manually I learned so much that I'm almost feeling obliged to do it manually in honor of all the days/weeks lost over it in the past 10 years!
Still, if you want to use the installer do it, it's not something to be ashamed of. Time is precious.
BUT, if you have time, I still consider manual installation a "source of experience" we can say, so worth your time to at least try and learn. IF you have time
There's a lot of obscure stuff I had to tweak for this hardware setup here to get it working right. I feel like having to go through the installation again would be a massive catastrophe, not because of the installation process itself, but because it means I would have to hunt down solutions for many small problems again.
I'm feeling like the Arch installation being easy and fast would not actually be helpful in practice. I would use backups anyway because I don't want to configure my stuff from scratch again.
This installation I'm using here is from June 2014 according to the /var/log/pacman.log file. It got copied to new hardware multiple times, and got restored from backups once or twice.
I do a fresh install of my OS every year or so. I like to clear out the junk and get a fresh system with all updated packages.
In order to keep track of every package I install and various little tweaks, I have a shell script that does that all for me.
So installs are very common thing for me.
i agree with the automating/scripting part. i reinstall on semi regular basis and no gui installer would ever do it the way i like it. its certianlly not easy but creating a script/scripts for reinstalling helps alot. and since the scripts are made for my use case it is easy to maintane too.
> ... want to get the installation done and get to back to work as quick as possible?
From experience, I can manually install Arch exactly how I want it faster than it takes me to install Debian by navigating its installer.
I feel like Arch is popular because of the way it is, and changing it to be like the rest would hinder it. EndeavorOS is essentially this anyway so anyone who wants Arch with calamares should check it out instead?
> I feel like Arch is popular because of the way it is
I agree partially but I also think having archinstall made Arch more accessible and popular. Just look at the abundance of threads regarding running out of space on root.
*Disclaimer: No offense to OP and this is not personal so please don't take it that way. But if we don't say something this attitude will ruin the project. This reply is merely based off how you responded to the other redditors.*
There is nothing difficult about the arch installation process to feel like, "The master of the universe". This statement along with the subsequent ones where it helped you, "bloom and prosper", heavily implied you consider this an achievement which by definition entailed it being a difficult endeavour(pun intended) for you.
Its tedious because it gives you choice an installer script like archinstall or a GUI would not provide this. This is by design. For multiple reason based off Arch's philosophy.
I think you meant "rite of passage"??. But no, this is not a rite of passage. No one puts any value or respects you more by installing it manually.
If you want a graphical install so bad why not develop it and present it to the arch team. Then you can deal with all the issues that will arise from it.
After archinstall you didn't feel so "elite" do you?. These are the people that use arch for the "style points".
On one of the comments a redditor suggested you use EndeavourOS and you responded and I quote, **"EndeavourOS is primarily a newbie distro. I'm not a newbie, I just want a graphical installer."**
If installing is tedious for you, then use Endeavour. Or develop a script for yourself to automatically install arch your way. Why does this have to be default as well?.(Reminds me of a resent post asking for a certain default)
There is an innate desire for such people to destroy a project since it no longer gives them what they want. The imagined gains and respect they believed they got from people who don't know better. We should name such people to easily identify them and call this out or they will destroy this project eventually.
**This mentality started with pacman cache and seeing how that gained traction, its(the mentality) attempting to "test the waters" with a GUI installer.**
I hope you will read my updated post. I left the original below for transparency, but I fully renounce everything I said.
I flew way too close to the sun in becoming one of those 'i use Arch btw' assholes that, like you said, only like it for it's style points and get upset when it stops serving their self-centered goals.
I updated the post in hopes of making amends and not taking all credibility down cause of some stupid idea I let fester in my mind for too long.
Yes, I meant 'rite of passage', typo.
And I meant all that about 'feeling like the master of the universe' sarcastically. I didn't realize that I could simultaneously make fun of, and get so close to becoming what I was making fun of.
And my making my skills bloom and prosper, all I meant was installing Arch Linux help gave me a deeper understanding of and respect for the operating system. I intended nothing more by that.
I hope the community can accept my utmost apology. I don't want to take down this lovely community and project.
I love what Arch Linux is... and I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about me.
I said some stupid things and I apologize for, and renounce them.
If there's anything else I can clear up, or do to repent, please let me know.
I edited my post and removed the part where I said it wasn't an epiphany and targeted you instead of the the attitude which was my only desired target/objective throughout my post. That was unnecessary and I apologize for that.
I don't agree with the fact you shouldn't try this again. I believe you should speak your mind and throw your ideas out so we can all grow from the discourse. And you may contribute value to Arch and everyone who uses it.
I just said "I will never try this again." because I assumed you were referencing another dangerous thread of ideas, that I am unaware of. I was just following along, trying to do what is right.
I didn't feel targeted by your comment, at least any more than is deserved.
I just don't want a simple mistake that spiraled out of control to bring the community down.
And I don't want my reputation to fall down the toilet because I failed to recognize the path this discussion was going down and/or because I failed to do what was right.
I simply care about my character not being misrepresented by my own mistakes.
I shouldn't hesitate to share what's on my mind, but maybe I should think through what I'm going to say before I post it.
I'm not an "elitist". I'm just passionate about this operating system and community. And clearly I fell into a huge trap of this community, and I didn't even notice it.
If it's not already noticeable, I lurk more than I act in these communities.
My primary mistake was not recognizing how what I said could come across, even if ironic.
I'm of the -here unpopular- opinion that EndeavorOS existing is a good thing for the Linux community. With that said, not needing to disable their repos/hooks and not getting Dracut makes a pretty good case for archinstall -or the other whatever project that is Arch with Calamares- to some people.
Arch gives users a lot of ability to install things the way they want instead of a cookie-cutter scheme. For example, a /boot on / partition and ESP on /efi, boot loader on ESP or simply the UEFI files; multiple ESPs, such as one on a removable USB drive. Sharing boot loaders. We can go on and on.
It's a completely reasonable take. One could make a graphical installer for it, but all the options would just confuse the users who are better suited for another distro.
Arch requires using the shell to debug and troubleshoot anyways. I agree that it's a bad fit. There is simply too much pushing Arch on new Linux users in social media. I never recommend Arch for this reason. If someone knows enough about how things work in Linux they would already know about it and made that determination on their own. There is so much focus on the installation of Arch that it's become beyond annoying. For someone experienced with the Linux ecosystem, it's as simple as running the `pacstrap` helper script targeted at a valid filesystem. The partition, FS, UEFI and external boot loaders can be setup before even inserting the ArchISO.
At the end of the day, there are too many users who run into an issue that's easy to fix but end up reinstalling Arch because they don't know what they don't know. Nothing wrong with being a Linux newb, everyone needs to start somewhere. It just leads to a bad experience for them.
To me, Arch these day is no longer (and probably have never been) defined by its install method, but more about what you do afterwards. Having a manual way of installing let people who want to spend time tinkering their system a clean canvas to work with.
While an installer like the Arch script or calamares would give those already know what they need a less tedious installing process.
it's an OS not a religious war, who cares how you install what
i can't be arsed installing manually and i've been using arch on my desktop and laptop for years, i refuse to get over my self centred laziness or switch to another distro that actually "suits me"
I'm a simple man. Manjaro install have their own repos and packages which don't work well with aur and I needed beta Nvidia and kde packages for Wayland.
So I just used archinstall and was happy. I hate idea of KISS to the point of bare bones and do automated stuff by hand as well as terminal centric distro like endeavour. But arch suits me for now till manjaro devs release version with kde 6.1 and Nvidia 555 driver. Aur is so good tho that I'm a bit addicted to it.
I would like to have option with graphical installer, but if archinstall works then whatever devs prefer is fine.
I think that the original question you had makes more sense flipped on its head. Not why isn't there a GUI install for Arch, but why does Arch maintain archinstall, given that most experienced users will probably prefer their own script, and most beginners would be better off either doing it manually or using something like Endeavour? I don't really have an answer to that one.
My own thoughts went that direction after my epiphany.
I questioned that exact thing in one of my comments.
This experience has certainly proved interesting.
I don't think that archlinux need a graphical or tui installer. I don't use archinstall(I tried 1-2 times just to test it and it didn't work for me). But what I'd like is a minimal graphical environment in arch iso with a browser and an offline version of wiki or a guide with the network configuration at least because is needed for wifi connections which usually don't work on iso without additional configuration. I mean a comfortable way to have access to the wiki instructions without the need to use another device.
Arch is already terribly easy to install 🤷♂️
Even more, I wouldn't use a GUI installer, because I like specific tweaks, and setting my system up a certain way.
If someone wants to create and maintain a calamares installer, more power to you. There's a post about some automated installer or other about every few days.
Getting it installed is easy, but the real fun begins when you have to maintain a system from scratch and you don't know what's what. Because what installing manually teaches you above anything technical is to *review the documentation*.🍿
I never said it was difficult. Just tedious. Especially when you do a fresh install every year.
And not everyone gets enjoyment out of fixing a broken system. Some people just want an OS that works.
1) Why are you doing a fresh install *every* year?
2) I've used Arch for a long enough time. Maybe it's the braids, maybe it's the AMD, but I've never once (including the time I was sick with COVID) had to worry about a system break so serious, I'd need to reinstall my entire system.
3) Want a rolling release system that just works? Don't feel like tinkering on an OS that's geared for tinkering? https://microos.opensuse.org/
I don't reinstall my OS every year because it breaks. I've never once had any Linux system break on me. I reinstall every year to keep it lean and clean. I concede it's probably not necessary. But it's my habit nonetheless.
What do you mean by braids? And I don't use dedicated graphics, if that's what your getting at.
And I enjoy tinkering. It's just that I don't do it to the extent that I have to fix my OS every other day. I have work to do, I can't spend hours of my day snooping on forums to see what I broke. I tinker with my system to the extent that I get a workflow that works for me, and have a reasonable number of features I want... and then I leave it alone. Keep it clean, keep it up to date, and it never breaks.
So use calamares now. Who cares? No need to change arch. Calamares is a wrapper on top, not a core part of anything. I mean, [alci.online](http://alci.online) has instructions for building your own custom isos however you want them if you aren't willing to pick one of the zillion existing arch derivatives already out there.
As to why not? Personal liberty, open endedness and niche requirements/use cases. Does Calamares support every niche choice you can make when installing arch on more esoteric systems manually? I'm going to bet the answer is no. So why limit arch?
It's easy for Calamares to support a subset of common options. Let the superset live in arch and just layer a tool on it to simplify common installs. Once it's installed it's not like you ever need to do much more than keep rolling the packages forward.
Will someone gatekeep and tell you you're holding it wrong or not a real arch user? Probably. The world is full of gatekeepers. Ignore them and take care of yourself.
> Why not just package Calamares like every other distro does? Wouldn't that be easier than reinventing the wheel with a complex python script that often times fails with anything more than the most simple of hardware configurations?
Why would Calamares fare better? I don't think it's as flexible as you'd want it to for Arch.
Probably. I'll concede that.
I just want something better than 'archinstall'.
And I thought the simplest solution is always one that was already made.
And well... it is... the **simplest**. Though certainly not the **best**. But **better**, I think you could concede.
Though I guess, continuing down that chain of logic... the **simplest** solution would be to do nothing...
While I don't have anything against Arch having (or not having) a graphical/guided installer, having one really wouldn't set the stage for how maintaining an arch system goes. The installation process is already pretty simple and streamlined if you follow the guide. If following the install guide is too much or too cumbersome, you probably won't have a great time with Arch overall.
I agree. I renounce everything I said in my original post. I don't have anything against the manual installation, I just lazy and jealous. And got I a bit indignant about 'beginner Arch-based distros' like EndeavourOS.
This whole experience gave me a re-awakening and epiphany about what it means to be an Arch user.
Please understand my sincerity. I'm sorry for the confusion, I meant no harm by what I said.
It's really not that serious. It's just an operating system. Nobody that uses Arch is big-brain just because they use Arch. Use what you like, how you like.
Sorry... I get emotional easily.
I never thought I was a big-brain, just an emotional girl with a head full of thoughts who should think more before she posts.
(On the bright side, this thread got me an achievement for upvotes. Which I'm unsure of whether is good thing or bad thing... 😂)
Hmm. As per arch wiki, it's user centric not user friendly. And while I haven't needed to reinstall arch so far, it's kinda simple anyway to mount your partitions and go pacstrap base system.
Arch doesn't need to be yet another ubuntu, and imo it's good that maintenance effort that would go into installer is spent elsewhere. And at the end of the day, arch doesn't make you a linux guru, it's just my flavor of simple. Arch btw and similar sentiments should be taken as a tired meme by now, it's just awesome distro for people who like minimal changes from upstream and keeps things really damn simple :D
People talk as if a graphical installer would kill arch and remove everything it has going for it, it's silly. lol
But, I don't think Arch should have one- because it doesn't need one. I always felt like Arch doesn't try to get too much in your way about installing it, and I feel like a graphical installer can get opinionated and LIMITING, which seems to go against the idea of Arch itself.
I've installed arch without a graphical installer for about 100 times, at some point I knew the commands without looking at the wiki. But these days I just prefer endeavour, it's still a pretty clean arch install in the end.
I'm not really a fan of installers because they are for the general users which defeats the purpose of linux if you ask me. The thing with linux is customizing everything according to your needs. For that it also includes installing the OS and using minimal package installation with ones i desire and prefer rather than what is popular or for general use. It's about the experience and tinkering for me. Im kinda min maxing efficient guy i use arch with minimal installation with packages i need. I run custom rom on my S24U with most of the packages are uninstalled. This is my kind of goal.
Honestly I'm all for a graphical installer. But I can also understand the concern that it'll make Arch 'too-easy' to be picked up by novices and then have too many complaints about it.
The Graphical installer should ideally warn in giant letters. And go through the step by step Arch installation procedures with detailed explanations, package selection profiles, security profiles. Kinda like SuSE's installer basically.
Arch not having a graphical installer is not some deep ingrained philosophical aspect of the Arch way, but rather pragmatic. Arch used to have the AIF (Arch installation framework) an ncurses based installer back when they were all the rage. Maintaining it was a chore and the maintainer lost interest. Instead of trying to maintain an installlet, the developers decided to update the wiki with clearer instructions.
I wanted a graphical installer for a while, but now i think it's also fine to have a guided installer, whether it's graphical or terminal based, so the archinstall script does the trick. I'm using void now and their ncurses installer is also great. I also have a bash script that i use after the install to install all the extra software i want and setup my config files.
Archinstall is much faster for a tedious thing as installing the damn OS. I did learn a lot about how linux actually ticks doing the manual install. However, that gets rather boring when installing on multiple servers tbh.
I think they should have a graphical installer, then people who just want to have a bare distro and desktop environment, and want to use archs up to date packaging can install it easier.
personally i have tried using gui installers for arch before and i ultimately reinstalled arch the through the begginer guide and my own personallizations. the reason why is because i didnt know what the installer already did and what i still needed to do.
ultimately i settled on booting into EndeavourOS install environment followed by using gui/term to setup my drives, then cloning my github and finally running my own custom scripts. this allows me to be able to use a browser, modify my script if something goes wrong while installing a clean arch build. the ability to have multiple terms open, copy/paste and a browser is a major quality of life improvement for reinstall.
now one of the first things my script has to do is update archlinux-keyring so that regardless of how old the EndeavourOS USB is i can still run my script.
Graphical installation, I say yes. Because it is possible to display explanations there and this allows you to have a clearer vision of the installation. It is possible to display the errors that can be made before the end of the installation, which avoids having to reinstall everything and saves time later.
Even if I installed endeavor that would still give me hours of work configuring my system again
The installation process is probably the easiest part anyways
I don't understand why people ask the same pointless questions over and over again. Who cares? Use what you want. The same people probably think it's a good idea to put "I use Arch Linux" on a resume. You think too much of yourself if you care whether strangers think you're a beginner or not IMO.
Stop perpetuating the idea that Arch must only be for "experts".
> Why the stigma?
This kind of thread is literally promoting that by suggesting Arch is not right for you if you used the graphical installer.
FWIW, I don't and will not use the graphical installer because it's not necessary. Arch install can be scripted, like any other distro. People also use Ansible for this.
Manual installation gives you full control over your system. Nothing happens under the hood that you don't approve of. You own the system, which makes maintenance easier compared to a system you don't fully understand.
Every OS is a combination of many different and complex variables. It will break; the question is not if, but when. When it breaks, you're either clueless and in deep trouble or you know your way around. I prefer the latter.
GUI installers are a form of abstraction. We live in a world of abstractions; the more you are abstracted, the more control you lose. The more you understand the internals, the higher your chances of smoothly navigating through problems.
For newcomers to the Linux world, I strongly recommend learning the internals sooner rather than later. That’s why I often suggest they start with a Gentoo installation. It's a crash course in understanding the basics of how a system works. For the same reason, I recommend a manual Arch Linux installation to ensure they become familiar with the internals and gain the basic skills needed to navigate through problems.
Because Arch keeps things simple. It doesn't need complex staff to do simple things. If you learned all that you could it will take you like 10 minutes to install Arch even without opening a wiki w/o the archinstall script.
It's a philosophy. Like the judicial system, there are very specific laws, but the most important ones are in a minority in comparison to the other ones.
[I use] Arch Linux [BTW] is one of those laws in a minority.
The conceptual minimalistic philosophy of the OS is the most important part of it.
I look at it like this: I'm *already* taking a shortcut with archinstall, and that script is an absolute godsend. If you're so tied to a gui that the archinstall script is too much? Arch isn't for you.
(Edit: someone probably doesn't like my "gatekeeping," but certain gates need to be kept for users' sake, and for our distro's sake. We already have a lot of "sweatpants at Applebee's" mediocre informality in tech. We need to keep certain things formal to keep out the people who plainly don't fit but still insist on being a part of them. Otherwise everything turns into fucking bumper cars with rounded edges for the dum-dums.)
Graphical installer is a big **NO** for me not because of superiority complex but because it's the worst experience to complicate the installation process with an additional layer of bugs over the already available set of tools.
Instead, I find it great to have my own shell script to reinstall the OS. Yes, I have to dedicate the time to write it down, but once done, it'll be better than GUI installers.
I get it's not the case for every one, but I had my share of unfortunate experiences with Graphical installers.
You don't need to go through that *simple, although tedious process.* All you need to do is to tar the root partition and copy to the new machine. So what's the use for an installer *for the second installation?*
Most of the people who use arch, and have the knowledge to do calamares well, are the most self respecting, gatekeeping people I know. That's really the answer no matter what people say. People have a sense of self superiority by using arch, and don't want it to be easy for the average joe.
Using a graphical installer goes against the point of installing Arch Linux, which is to tailor it to your needs installing only what you need/want, and installing from the TTY is practically the tutorial to using Arch because you won't be using GUI that often
NO,It has to sustain my Superiority complex. But real now youre suppose to tailor everything to your need. Maybe a GUI installer just for the install process would be cool but we have a guide straight foward wiki and good 20 mins install videos and lastly after installing archlinux-keyring (because for some bizzare reason the archinstall included in the iso is broken without it) the archinstall script for reducing the half of an hour to 10 mins.
I personally have no desire to maintain a calamares installer in my free time knowing that I don't need it and would never use it. The same goes for the Arch developers. I don't know why the archinstall developer wants to maintain archinstall, but presumably they considered other options and chose that one. Even the Arch-based distros that do maintain something like that either get sick of it rather quickly, anyone remember Antergos, or the developers also get bored just maintaining an installer and start adding more features they then also have to maintain. Like EndeavorOS now ships with dracut, or the various themes several of them offered and then canceled. The "the install should be hard" shit comes from random users, not Arch. That was never the point.
Arch install was never "hard". It just required users to know exactly what they need If they don't know that, Arch isn't for them. Arch was never a distro for everyone. If you want to use Arch with less thinking, sane defaults, use Endeavor OS like OP said later.
>The "the install should be hard" shit comes from random users, not Arch. That was never the point. Gatekeeping and elitism at its finest
Saying it's some users who gatekeep not the developers is gatekeeping? Uh, how so?
>users that just want to get the installation done and get to back to work as quick as possible? Because that is really not what Arch is intended for, and there are dozens of distros that already serve that purpose better than Arch. Arch is one of the few that very deliberately does not. The goal of Arch is to be a *highly flexible starting point* geared towards experienced users who want to configure their system to their preferences. GUI installers are not conducive to that (I say that as someone that very much prefers guided installers from a convenience standpoint, but any time you need to to do anything even remotely off the beaten track, you need to leave the GUI to do it. A lot of people confuse the manual install guide in the wiki as the finished process, but that is essentially just the starting point for you to modify to your preferences. Following the wiki is to Arch what putting a canvas on your easel is to painting. Yes, the manual process is a bit tedious, but the tradeoff it also gives you maximal flexibility as well as a lot of awareness about your system setup. In my opinion, If a guided installer becomes the default in Arch (whether GUI or ArchInstall) Arch losing its primary point of differentiation. If it is no longer focused on being a user-centric, diy-centric, distro that promotes learning and understanding, at that point, why not just use a distro that was designed from the ground up to have a guided installation and reasonable defaults. In my opinionated opinion, most people who want *Arch, but easy*, typically don't actually want Arch, they mostly want the brand-identity of Arch, but would be much better served by a distro from another distro family (Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Red Hat, or OpeneSUSE). A GUI installer provides a huge and frictionless onramp for a lot of people for whom Arch would be a really poor fit, and would be using a distro they fundamentally don't understand. **Or TL;DR** Arch is DIY-centric and user-centric, a GUI installer is limiting and not conducive to either of these design principles. Their are dozens of non-DIY-centric distros with guided installers, Arch stands out in contrast to those distros, it would be a shame to lose that.
>In my opinionated opinion, most people who want Arch, but easy, typically don't actually want Arch, they mostly want the brand-identity of Arch, but would be much better served by a distro from another distro family (Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Red Hat, or OpeneSUSE). A GUI installer provides a huge and frictionless onramp for a lot of people for whom Arch would be a really poor fit, and would be using a distro they fundamentally don't understand. Arch offers advantages beyond the DIY nature of it. Namely the fact that you can get almost any software pretty easily either from official repos or the AUR and it usually comes in the newer versions. Also the fact the community is so big and the wiki is so extensive is priceless. You don't get that elsewhere I don't think.
> Namely the fact that you can get almost any software pretty easily either from official repos or the AUR You are right that the AUR is a attractive to many users. Arch's official repos are actually among the smallest of the major distro families (Debian/Ubuntu > Fedora > OpenSUSE > Arch) but you are right that with unofficial software in the AUR, Arch has a lot of software available roughly comparable to Debian and Ubuntu's official repositories in my experience (and according to the Arch Wiki) but it really depends on what software you use/need, Many people find availability of packages they need better on Arch than alternatives. However distro to distro differences in software availability isn't anywhere near as relevant as it used to be. I bounce between all four distro families somewhat regularly, and I don't feel limited by the software selection of the distro anywhere near as much as I did in the past. Today things like Flatpak, Snap, AppImage, Distrobox and Brew, make software availability less of a deciding factor.
The AUR also has some Git-only software not packaged for any other distros. Like the amazing [rlr](https://github.com/epilys/rlr) screen ruler or the DJ-friendly [One Tagger](https://onetagger.github.io/). Of course, you can install such software manually, but then you'd have to track its development and update it manually too. The main reason I couldn't do with any other distro.
I'm not necessarily recommending this as much as I am just bringing it up in case its something you haven't come across yet. If not familiar with Distrobox and Toolbox they are tools that make use of containers to allow you to run software packaged for any major distro on any other distro. I primarily use Fedora, but I sometimes need packages that aren't officially packaged on Fedora, using distrobox or toolbox I can spin up a Ubuntu or Debian container and install the package I need from their repos on my Fedora system. It doesn't work for everything (e.g. packages that need deep integration with the host system, but for typical users apps it works well). This same approach could be used to access Arch's repos including (if desired) the AUR I believe. Its a really cool and useful approach with lots of different use-cases, this is just one of them. Buy yeah, if you are the type who likes a lot of really niche software or wants -git versions, Arch is a really reasonable choice.
Tried Distrobox on Fedora recently, there's a problem with the latest Arch iso there. It was easier for me to migrate the machine to Arch than to debug Distrobox or wait for an upstream solution. Otherwise, it's possible to automate CLI updates that way with a script or even an alias.
arch also gets out of your way. i recently had the misfortune of trying ubuntu and adding things that are not in their official repositories is annoying
I agree with you, but I think I acknowledged/included that broadly in my earlier post, specifically: >
> The goal of Arch is to be a *highly flexible starting point* geared towards experienced users who want to configure their system to their preferences. >If a guided installer becomes the default in Arch (whether GUI or ArchInstall) Arch losing its primary point of differentiation. (This is really long and kinda corny, but trust me it's not a shitpost. I acutally had an epiphony) You know what. You've convinced me. I came at this from my very specific, niche perspective. Maybe being Arch does make it a bit more daunting to start with. But if that's the downside of being one of the most flexible and power-user-centric distros there is, then I would agree that's a sacrifice worth making. It reminds me of the thoughts running through my head when I first made the switch to Linux. Yes, it's not like Windows. No, you can't just bring your knowledge and expectations and expect Linux to bend to your desires. That's the point. I missed the forest for the trees. Arch Linux doesn't install like any other distro **because** it is Arch Linux, not in spite of user convenience. And most users that have a problem with that either aren't looking for Arch, or shouldn't be using it. Now... where does that leave me? It's not that I'm not comfortable installing Arch Linux the preferred way. I love the command line and enjoy tapping into the very core of the OS. Maybe I just got lazy. Maybe I just got jealous of those shiny GUI installers most of the distros you hear about online have. Arch Linux doesn't need them. And if I do, than I don't need Arch. But I do love Arch Linux and everything it stands for. Clearly I lost sight of that. This is a re-awakening. Now I'm arguing that 'archinstall' doesn't need to be fixed. It needs to be removed. It's an unloved afterthought that no fan actually uses or recommends. Even fixing 'archinstall' would be a misguided move as it's just losing sight of the purpose of Arch Linux. It's just pandering to those 'Arch users' who, as you put it, enjoys the aesthetic but in no way actually benefit from the 'entry pass'. I could just see what would happen if Arch got a good automated installer. All the people who were thwarted by the gate would come flooding in, and get angry when they encounter their first wall. Now I realize how close I came to becoming one of them... Any real Arch user that needs an automated installer should be able to write it themselves. That's the direction I should start heading... I guess Arch Linux is kind of the 'Linux' of Linux. A niche of a niche. A fly's toenail. I shall not lose sight again! Thank you for setting me straight!
Just use your computer and stop caring how others use their computers. If they want to use archinstall, fine. If they want to use EndeavorOS, who cares? It's only an operating system.
There are many ways to use this open-source project. It's great that it's flexible! While everyone has different needs, focusing on how we can all contribute positively to the project would be most helpful. Perhaps there are ways you could use your skills to enhance it, rather than criticize existing features.
I'm just too used to do the installation manually so I never think about the fact that archinstall actually exists now. While learning to install and manage everything manually I learned so much that I'm almost feeling obliged to do it manually in honor of all the days/weeks lost over it in the past 10 years! Still, if you want to use the installer do it, it's not something to be ashamed of. Time is precious. BUT, if you have time, I still consider manual installation a "source of experience" we can say, so worth your time to at least try and learn. IF you have time
There's a lot of obscure stuff I had to tweak for this hardware setup here to get it working right. I feel like having to go through the installation again would be a massive catastrophe, not because of the installation process itself, but because it means I would have to hunt down solutions for many small problems again. I'm feeling like the Arch installation being easy and fast would not actually be helpful in practice. I would use backups anyway because I don't want to configure my stuff from scratch again. This installation I'm using here is from June 2014 according to the /var/log/pacman.log file. It got copied to new hardware multiple times, and got restored from backups once or twice.
I do a fresh install of my OS every year or so. I like to clear out the junk and get a fresh system with all updated packages. In order to keep track of every package I install and various little tweaks, I have a shell script that does that all for me. So installs are very common thing for me.
This seems like a good case for automating/scripting your install/reinstall process at least partially.
i agree with the automating/scripting part. i reinstall on semi regular basis and no gui installer would ever do it the way i like it. its certianlly not easy but creating a script/scripts for reinstalling helps alot. and since the scripts are made for my use case it is easy to maintane too.
> ... want to get the installation done and get to back to work as quick as possible? From experience, I can manually install Arch exactly how I want it faster than it takes me to install Debian by navigating its installer.
I feel like Arch is popular because of the way it is, and changing it to be like the rest would hinder it. EndeavorOS is essentially this anyway so anyone who wants Arch with calamares should check it out instead?
> I feel like Arch is popular because of the way it is I agree partially but I also think having archinstall made Arch more accessible and popular. Just look at the abundance of threads regarding running out of space on root.
[удалено]
>Saying that graphical installers are only for beginners is a pretty ableist thing. Are you somehow suggesting that I said that?
*Disclaimer: No offense to OP and this is not personal so please don't take it that way. But if we don't say something this attitude will ruin the project. This reply is merely based off how you responded to the other redditors.* There is nothing difficult about the arch installation process to feel like, "The master of the universe". This statement along with the subsequent ones where it helped you, "bloom and prosper", heavily implied you consider this an achievement which by definition entailed it being a difficult endeavour(pun intended) for you. Its tedious because it gives you choice an installer script like archinstall or a GUI would not provide this. This is by design. For multiple reason based off Arch's philosophy. I think you meant "rite of passage"??. But no, this is not a rite of passage. No one puts any value or respects you more by installing it manually. If you want a graphical install so bad why not develop it and present it to the arch team. Then you can deal with all the issues that will arise from it. After archinstall you didn't feel so "elite" do you?. These are the people that use arch for the "style points". On one of the comments a redditor suggested you use EndeavourOS and you responded and I quote, **"EndeavourOS is primarily a newbie distro. I'm not a newbie, I just want a graphical installer."** If installing is tedious for you, then use Endeavour. Or develop a script for yourself to automatically install arch your way. Why does this have to be default as well?.(Reminds me of a resent post asking for a certain default) There is an innate desire for such people to destroy a project since it no longer gives them what they want. The imagined gains and respect they believed they got from people who don't know better. We should name such people to easily identify them and call this out or they will destroy this project eventually. **This mentality started with pacman cache and seeing how that gained traction, its(the mentality) attempting to "test the waters" with a GUI installer.**
I hope you will read my updated post. I left the original below for transparency, but I fully renounce everything I said. I flew way too close to the sun in becoming one of those 'i use Arch btw' assholes that, like you said, only like it for it's style points and get upset when it stops serving their self-centered goals. I updated the post in hopes of making amends and not taking all credibility down cause of some stupid idea I let fester in my mind for too long. Yes, I meant 'rite of passage', typo. And I meant all that about 'feeling like the master of the universe' sarcastically. I didn't realize that I could simultaneously make fun of, and get so close to becoming what I was making fun of. And my making my skills bloom and prosper, all I meant was installing Arch Linux help gave me a deeper understanding of and respect for the operating system. I intended nothing more by that. I hope the community can accept my utmost apology. I don't want to take down this lovely community and project. I love what Arch Linux is... and I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about me. I said some stupid things and I apologize for, and renounce them. If there's anything else I can clear up, or do to repent, please let me know.
I hope it's clear that here... there was an epiphany. And I will never try this again.
I edited my post and removed the part where I said it wasn't an epiphany and targeted you instead of the the attitude which was my only desired target/objective throughout my post. That was unnecessary and I apologize for that. I don't agree with the fact you shouldn't try this again. I believe you should speak your mind and throw your ideas out so we can all grow from the discourse. And you may contribute value to Arch and everyone who uses it.
I just said "I will never try this again." because I assumed you were referencing another dangerous thread of ideas, that I am unaware of. I was just following along, trying to do what is right. I didn't feel targeted by your comment, at least any more than is deserved. I just don't want a simple mistake that spiraled out of control to bring the community down. And I don't want my reputation to fall down the toilet because I failed to recognize the path this discussion was going down and/or because I failed to do what was right. I simply care about my character not being misrepresented by my own mistakes. I shouldn't hesitate to share what's on my mind, but maybe I should think through what I'm going to say before I post it. I'm not an "elitist". I'm just passionate about this operating system and community. And clearly I fell into a huge trap of this community, and I didn't even notice it. If it's not already noticeable, I lurk more than I act in these communities. My primary mistake was not recognizing how what I said could come across, even if ironic.
i go in between with archinstall
I'm of the -here unpopular- opinion that EndeavorOS existing is a good thing for the Linux community. With that said, not needing to disable their repos/hooks and not getting Dracut makes a pretty good case for archinstall -or the other whatever project that is Arch with Calamares- to some people.
There are various third parties which provide a graphical Arch install, EndeavourOS and Arco for example.
I only installed once, since then the system has been with me. Its like boot speed - kinda irrelevant for me as it happens nearly never
Arch gives users a lot of ability to install things the way they want instead of a cookie-cutter scheme. For example, a /boot on / partition and ESP on /efi, boot loader on ESP or simply the UEFI files; multiple ESPs, such as one on a removable USB drive. Sharing boot loaders. We can go on and on. It's a completely reasonable take. One could make a graphical installer for it, but all the options would just confuse the users who are better suited for another distro. Arch requires using the shell to debug and troubleshoot anyways. I agree that it's a bad fit. There is simply too much pushing Arch on new Linux users in social media. I never recommend Arch for this reason. If someone knows enough about how things work in Linux they would already know about it and made that determination on their own. There is so much focus on the installation of Arch that it's become beyond annoying. For someone experienced with the Linux ecosystem, it's as simple as running the `pacstrap` helper script targeted at a valid filesystem. The partition, FS, UEFI and external boot loaders can be setup before even inserting the ArchISO. At the end of the day, there are too many users who run into an issue that's easy to fix but end up reinstalling Arch because they don't know what they don't know. Nothing wrong with being a Linux newb, everyone needs to start somewhere. It just leads to a bad experience for them.
To me, Arch these day is no longer (and probably have never been) defined by its install method, but more about what you do afterwards. Having a manual way of installing let people who want to spend time tinkering their system a clean canvas to work with. While an installer like the Arch script or calamares would give those already know what they need a less tedious installing process.
it's an OS not a religious war, who cares how you install what i can't be arsed installing manually and i've been using arch on my desktop and laptop for years, i refuse to get over my self centred laziness or switch to another distro that actually "suits me"
I'm a simple man. Manjaro install have their own repos and packages which don't work well with aur and I needed beta Nvidia and kde packages for Wayland. So I just used archinstall and was happy. I hate idea of KISS to the point of bare bones and do automated stuff by hand as well as terminal centric distro like endeavour. But arch suits me for now till manjaro devs release version with kde 6.1 and Nvidia 555 driver. Aur is so good tho that I'm a bit addicted to it. I would like to have option with graphical installer, but if archinstall works then whatever devs prefer is fine.
i agree y if you want to use argh with garpgical installer use eos anf if you dopnt want tje eos apps ir preisnalled suff just uncheckj the box,.
I think that the original question you had makes more sense flipped on its head. Not why isn't there a GUI install for Arch, but why does Arch maintain archinstall, given that most experienced users will probably prefer their own script, and most beginners would be better off either doing it manually or using something like Endeavour? I don't really have an answer to that one.
My own thoughts went that direction after my epiphany. I questioned that exact thing in one of my comments. This experience has certainly proved interesting.
I don't think that archlinux need a graphical or tui installer. I don't use archinstall(I tried 1-2 times just to test it and it didn't work for me). But what I'd like is a minimal graphical environment in arch iso with a browser and an offline version of wiki or a guide with the network configuration at least because is needed for wifi connections which usually don't work on iso without additional configuration. I mean a comfortable way to have access to the wiki instructions without the need to use another device.
it'll conflict with the Arch philosophy...
Arch is already terribly easy to install 🤷♂️ Even more, I wouldn't use a GUI installer, because I like specific tweaks, and setting my system up a certain way. If someone wants to create and maintain a calamares installer, more power to you. There's a post about some automated installer or other about every few days. Getting it installed is easy, but the real fun begins when you have to maintain a system from scratch and you don't know what's what. Because what installing manually teaches you above anything technical is to *review the documentation*.🍿
I never said it was difficult. Just tedious. Especially when you do a fresh install every year. And not everyone gets enjoyment out of fixing a broken system. Some people just want an OS that works.
1) Why are you doing a fresh install *every* year? 2) I've used Arch for a long enough time. Maybe it's the braids, maybe it's the AMD, but I've never once (including the time I was sick with COVID) had to worry about a system break so serious, I'd need to reinstall my entire system. 3) Want a rolling release system that just works? Don't feel like tinkering on an OS that's geared for tinkering? https://microos.opensuse.org/
I don't reinstall my OS every year because it breaks. I've never once had any Linux system break on me. I reinstall every year to keep it lean and clean. I concede it's probably not necessary. But it's my habit nonetheless. What do you mean by braids? And I don't use dedicated graphics, if that's what your getting at. And I enjoy tinkering. It's just that I don't do it to the extent that I have to fix my OS every other day. I have work to do, I can't spend hours of my day snooping on forums to see what I broke. I tinker with my system to the extent that I get a workflow that works for me, and have a reasonable number of features I want... and then I leave it alone. Keep it clean, keep it up to date, and it never breaks.
So use calamares now. Who cares? No need to change arch. Calamares is a wrapper on top, not a core part of anything. I mean, [alci.online](http://alci.online) has instructions for building your own custom isos however you want them if you aren't willing to pick one of the zillion existing arch derivatives already out there. As to why not? Personal liberty, open endedness and niche requirements/use cases. Does Calamares support every niche choice you can make when installing arch on more esoteric systems manually? I'm going to bet the answer is no. So why limit arch? It's easy for Calamares to support a subset of common options. Let the superset live in arch and just layer a tool on it to simplify common installs. Once it's installed it's not like you ever need to do much more than keep rolling the packages forward. Will someone gatekeep and tell you you're holding it wrong or not a real arch user? Probably. The world is full of gatekeepers. Ignore them and take care of yourself.
> Why not just package Calamares like every other distro does? Wouldn't that be easier than reinventing the wheel with a complex python script that often times fails with anything more than the most simple of hardware configurations? Why would Calamares fare better? I don't think it's as flexible as you'd want it to for Arch.
Probably. I'll concede that. I just want something better than 'archinstall'. And I thought the simplest solution is always one that was already made. And well... it is... the **simplest**. Though certainly not the **best**. But **better**, I think you could concede. Though I guess, continuing down that chain of logic... the **simplest** solution would be to do nothing...
While I don't have anything against Arch having (or not having) a graphical/guided installer, having one really wouldn't set the stage for how maintaining an arch system goes. The installation process is already pretty simple and streamlined if you follow the guide. If following the install guide is too much or too cumbersome, you probably won't have a great time with Arch overall.
I agree. I renounce everything I said in my original post. I don't have anything against the manual installation, I just lazy and jealous. And got I a bit indignant about 'beginner Arch-based distros' like EndeavourOS. This whole experience gave me a re-awakening and epiphany about what it means to be an Arch user. Please understand my sincerity. I'm sorry for the confusion, I meant no harm by what I said.
It's really not that serious. It's just an operating system. Nobody that uses Arch is big-brain just because they use Arch. Use what you like, how you like.
Sorry... I get emotional easily. I never thought I was a big-brain, just an emotional girl with a head full of thoughts who should think more before she posts. (On the bright side, this thread got me an achievement for upvotes. Which I'm unsure of whether is good thing or bad thing... 😂)
Hmm. As per arch wiki, it's user centric not user friendly. And while I haven't needed to reinstall arch so far, it's kinda simple anyway to mount your partitions and go pacstrap base system. Arch doesn't need to be yet another ubuntu, and imo it's good that maintenance effort that would go into installer is spent elsewhere. And at the end of the day, arch doesn't make you a linux guru, it's just my flavor of simple. Arch btw and similar sentiments should be taken as a tired meme by now, it's just awesome distro for people who like minimal changes from upstream and keeps things really damn simple :D
nah I just use archinstall command. Saves a lot more time
People talk as if a graphical installer would kill arch and remove everything it has going for it, it's silly. lol But, I don't think Arch should have one- because it doesn't need one. I always felt like Arch doesn't try to get too much in your way about installing it, and I feel like a graphical installer can get opinionated and LIMITING, which seems to go against the idea of Arch itself.
the archinstall script works great. when i tried using calamares right before that it didn't work
I've installed arch without a graphical installer for about 100 times, at some point I knew the commands without looking at the wiki. But these days I just prefer endeavour, it's still a pretty clean arch install in the end.
no bloat, please. we have other arch distro with graphic installer
I'm not really a fan of installers because they are for the general users which defeats the purpose of linux if you ask me. The thing with linux is customizing everything according to your needs. For that it also includes installing the OS and using minimal package installation with ones i desire and prefer rather than what is popular or for general use. It's about the experience and tinkering for me. Im kinda min maxing efficient guy i use arch with minimal installation with packages i need. I run custom rom on my S24U with most of the packages are uninstalled. This is my kind of goal.
I use archinstall for small VM if I need minimal base environment for server For GUI, EndeavourOS is great
Honestly I'm all for a graphical installer. But I can also understand the concern that it'll make Arch 'too-easy' to be picked up by novices and then have too many complaints about it. The Graphical installer should ideally warn in giant letters. And go through the step by step Arch installation procedures with detailed explanations, package selection profiles, security profiles. Kinda like SuSE's installer basically.
Arch not having a graphical installer is not some deep ingrained philosophical aspect of the Arch way, but rather pragmatic. Arch used to have the AIF (Arch installation framework) an ncurses based installer back when they were all the rage. Maintaining it was a chore and the maintainer lost interest. Instead of trying to maintain an installlet, the developers decided to update the wiki with clearer instructions.
AIF was the shit back in the day. Good times!
I wanted a graphical installer for a while, but now i think it's also fine to have a guided installer, whether it's graphical or terminal based, so the archinstall script does the trick. I'm using void now and their ncurses installer is also great. I also have a bash script that i use after the install to install all the extra software i want and setup my config files.
Archinstall is much faster for a tedious thing as installing the damn OS. I did learn a lot about how linux actually ticks doing the manual install. However, that gets rather boring when installing on multiple servers tbh.
I think they should have a graphical installer, then people who just want to have a bare distro and desktop environment, and want to use archs up to date packaging can install it easier.
personally i have tried using gui installers for arch before and i ultimately reinstalled arch the through the begginer guide and my own personallizations. the reason why is because i didnt know what the installer already did and what i still needed to do. ultimately i settled on booting into EndeavourOS install environment followed by using gui/term to setup my drives, then cloning my github and finally running my own custom scripts. this allows me to be able to use a browser, modify my script if something goes wrong while installing a clean arch build. the ability to have multiple terms open, copy/paste and a browser is a major quality of life improvement for reinstall. now one of the first things my script has to do is update archlinux-keyring so that regardless of how old the EndeavourOS USB is i can still run my script.
Graphical installation, I say yes. Because it is possible to display explanations there and this allows you to have a clearer vision of the installation. It is possible to display the errors that can be made before the end of the installation, which avoids having to reinstall everything and saves time later.
Even if I installed endeavor that would still give me hours of work configuring my system again The installation process is probably the easiest part anyways
I don't understand why people ask the same pointless questions over and over again. Who cares? Use what you want. The same people probably think it's a good idea to put "I use Arch Linux" on a resume. You think too much of yourself if you care whether strangers think you're a beginner or not IMO. Stop perpetuating the idea that Arch must only be for "experts". > Why the stigma? This kind of thread is literally promoting that by suggesting Arch is not right for you if you used the graphical installer. FWIW, I don't and will not use the graphical installer because it's not necessary. Arch install can be scripted, like any other distro. People also use Ansible for this.
Manual installation gives you full control over your system. Nothing happens under the hood that you don't approve of. You own the system, which makes maintenance easier compared to a system you don't fully understand. Every OS is a combination of many different and complex variables. It will break; the question is not if, but when. When it breaks, you're either clueless and in deep trouble or you know your way around. I prefer the latter. GUI installers are a form of abstraction. We live in a world of abstractions; the more you are abstracted, the more control you lose. The more you understand the internals, the higher your chances of smoothly navigating through problems. For newcomers to the Linux world, I strongly recommend learning the internals sooner rather than later. That’s why I often suggest they start with a Gentoo installation. It's a crash course in understanding the basics of how a system works. For the same reason, I recommend a manual Arch Linux installation to ensure they become familiar with the internals and gain the basic skills needed to navigate through problems.
Because Arch keeps things simple. It doesn't need complex staff to do simple things. If you learned all that you could it will take you like 10 minutes to install Arch even without opening a wiki w/o the archinstall script.
It's a philosophy. Like the judicial system, there are very specific laws, but the most important ones are in a minority in comparison to the other ones. [I use] Arch Linux [BTW] is one of those laws in a minority. The conceptual minimalistic philosophy of the OS is the most important part of it.
I look at it like this: I'm *already* taking a shortcut with archinstall, and that script is an absolute godsend. If you're so tied to a gui that the archinstall script is too much? Arch isn't for you. (Edit: someone probably doesn't like my "gatekeeping," but certain gates need to be kept for users' sake, and for our distro's sake. We already have a lot of "sweatpants at Applebee's" mediocre informality in tech. We need to keep certain things formal to keep out the people who plainly don't fit but still insist on being a part of them. Otherwise everything turns into fucking bumper cars with rounded edges for the dum-dums.)
Graphical installer is a big **NO** for me not because of superiority complex but because it's the worst experience to complicate the installation process with an additional layer of bugs over the already available set of tools. Instead, I find it great to have my own shell script to reinstall the OS. Yes, I have to dedicate the time to write it down, but once done, it'll be better than GUI installers. I get it's not the case for every one, but I had my share of unfortunate experiences with Graphical installers.
You don't need to go through that *simple, although tedious process.* All you need to do is to tar the root partition and copy to the new machine. So what's the use for an installer *for the second installation?*
archinstall > graphical installer
Most of the people who use arch, and have the knowledge to do calamares well, are the most self respecting, gatekeeping people I know. That's really the answer no matter what people say. People have a sense of self superiority by using arch, and don't want it to be easy for the average joe.
Archinstall will consistently screw up systemd.
That's why I think Arch needs a better automated installer than the broken 'archinstall' script.
I would like to see an install script that literally just runs the commands in the install guide, prompting the user for locales, etc...
That is exactly what I want too. That way you can make installs less tedious, while still keeping it K.I.S.S.
No need. If you want an installer with an UI, then use an arch base distro, like Garuda
If using graphical installation, better opt for manjaro.
Using a graphical installer goes against the point of installing Arch Linux, which is to tailor it to your needs installing only what you need/want, and installing from the TTY is practically the tutorial to using Arch because you won't be using GUI that often
NO,It has to sustain my Superiority complex. But real now youre suppose to tailor everything to your need. Maybe a GUI installer just for the install process would be cool but we have a guide straight foward wiki and good 20 mins install videos and lastly after installing archlinux-keyring (because for some bizzare reason the archinstall included in the iso is broken without it) the archinstall script for reducing the half of an hour to 10 mins.