Oh and just for the record, Germany_chris, unlike you, I don't consider ANY Linux user to be a moron regardless of their experience level.

I also feel it's too bad that you do. It's attitudes like yours that cause the words elitism and Linux get brought up in the same sentences.

Also, some people just plain don't LIKE a cli only installer. I am quite capable of running Arch, and did so for a while, I just don't LIKE the installer, so have moved away from it.

Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we have the DESIRE to do it. I stopped using Arch several years ago because I got tired of the installer. I reinstall quite common because I had (at the time) limited hardware, and I liked to test OS's only on REAL hardware, no VM's for me. So I would reinstall every 2 months or so. Just got tired of reinstalling Arch because the installer is quite primitive and I don't want to have to remember what I've already done when installing. I like the easy installers where you do what you need to do and click next.

1 members found this post helpful.

See I have no desire to be elitist but I also have no desire to be tech support which is what happens because it does break. If the distro moved morew slowly then a grapical installer would be great but that's not what happens. There are a lot of things that are a particular way whether you agree with the reason or not I don't agree with a complete lack of a true package manager (including resolving dependencies) in slackware why do they do that so you don't get lost in dependency hell. I haven't been lost in dependency hell in a decade but Volkerding continues to ship it without one. If you want a graphical installer thare is Manjaro and Archbang they're both great distros.

You might find that it isn't too hard if you're willing to read all the instructions and follow the steps.

I'm relatively new to Arch. I installed Bridge Linux, then later installed ArchBang -- those are both nice for giving you an easy-to-install Arch system. Once Bridge or ArchBang is installed, it's pretty much Arch -- you're using the Arch repos, and it looks like all or most of the stuff in the Arch wiki applies.

I spent several months using Bridge and ArchBang, getting used to pacman and everything. I really liked how things went and what I was seeing, so I finally got around to doing a "real" Arch installation. I felt very intimidated by the whole thing, so I did a "test" installation on a spare computer first. I actually did two "test" installations, keeping detailed notes, just to make sure I was comfortable before I went ahead with the real thing. I did the partitioning beforehand, using GParted from Parted Magic. I still have Bridge and ArchBang installed here, along with "straight" Arch Linux.

I don't think it would hurt if Arch offered a relatively easy way to get a base system installed, along with the current installation process. I think there would be quite a few users like me who would choose the easy way first to get a feel for things, spending a little time learning some things and deciding if Arch is something they're interested in. I think many of these same users would later go on to do a "real" Arch installation, especially because there are plenty of benefits from doing that.

At the same time, some experienced Arch users would benefit from having a quicker and easier way to get the base system installed. For myself, if I found myself in a situation where I needed to do another Arch installation, I know now that I can do it the "real" way, but I'd seriously consider going with Bridge or ArchBang instead. I guess it would just depend on whether or not I wanted to save myself some time. If time was not a factor, I think I might I might decide to do it the "hard" way just so that I could install only the stuff that I'd really want/need.

@ JeffStory: Interesting stuff at your blog -- thanks for the link.

1 members found this post helpful.

Once you get the hang of it it can be installed in 20 minutes it's not that tough.

If one dose NOT like or buy into "The Arch Way"
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
then DO NOT USE IT !!!

it is your choice .

During my half-year of using Arch it broke once, but my ability to install Arch was of no help with this issue. I don't think it relates in any way.
Installing Arch is trivial anyway, it's just uber-PITA, nothing 133T like Archers like to think.

Yep. Yet there are projects like slapt-get, with dependency handling, and Slackware users here (on LQ) seems to be cool with it.

Lol. Looks like users are free to choose to use it even if they don't totally buy into "The Arch Way." Or is there an oath you have to sign with your own blood or something?

As I see it, Linux is about freedom on many different levels. Using a Linux based OS gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with it. Unlike some of the other DRM encumbered OS's that try to dictate exactly what you're allowed to do with their software you purchased through a licensed agreement, to be used only by their definitions of whats allowed..

I personally feel "The_Arch_Way" similarly tries to limit my freedom by telling me how I "should" use and configure my OS, how to think, how to behave, and even going as far as suggesting "do things our way and don't be influenced by ideas from outside our community"

There is no oath involving blood that I'm aware of, but admittedly, I was kinda outside the "click" within the Arch community. You see, I am not a coder, programmer, or developer, and I'm a free thinker.....

Try mentioning in the Arch forums, any situation where a GUI front end for a command line application (installer, package management, file browser for example) may actually make more sense, be more efficient, or just plain might suck less, and you will promptly be put down by a community uber geek (programmer, package maintainer, etc) to then be swarmed upon by a group of Arch community cheerleaders..... lol

I clearly do not need to be told how or what to think , what to not say in a forum regarding anything disagreeing with the Arch way, or even be told how I should configure and use my Linux OS. This is an intrusion upon my freedom.

If I believe others would benefit from a GUI installer, I am free to produce it. If I feel the elitism within the Arch community may be put into question or check by having a GUI installer available to new users, I feel motivated to produce it.

I believe no one trying for the first time, or using Linux long term, should be put down because they are not uber geeks or coders. Id like to make using Linux (even Arch Linux) a better experience for all users, from the casual level users to the hardcore developers in the future.

Why do I choose to continue to use Arch .... Simple, maintaining it is second nature at this point out of habit. I also, through years of using it, believe it's one of the best, most stable Linux OS's out there for my use.

With the plethora of Arch based distros in recent years though, I'll likely chose one or more of those communities to participate in and contribute to in the future.

1 members found this post helpful.

Yes and the nVidia drivers and the 3.12 kernel have broken X and left hanging 4 time once it even managed to corrupt /. It's not hard to install it takes 20 minutes and that's the point if it's not hard why add a GUI?

Since this is slackware home base eventually someone here will write a GUI package manager that resolves dependencies right??? I mean it's only been 20 odd years

building packages and resolving dependencies is a core tenant of Slack just like the manual install is for Arch. There a a bazillion distros out there if you don;t want to manual install don't use Arch, if you don't want to build packages don't use Slack. The manual install and building packages from scratch are ways to set the bar higher. The Slack community is much more "hippie" and encompassing and far more friendly than the Arch community and that's fine but let's not pretend that that appeals to everyone.

"The Arch Linux system places precedence upon elegance of design as well as clean, correct, simple code, rather than unnecessary patching, automation, eye candy or "newbie-friendliness." Software patches are therefore kept to an absolute minimum; ideally, never. Simple design and implementation shall always trump simple user interface."

They tell you right there that the graphical install is out the door and stuff my break your system.

Nope. If you want Slackware with that feature just use Salix.

If you want a GUI installer for Arch use Manjaro or Archbang


That's my point it's a fundamental change that adds zero value.

Never happened to me. I guess your time spent installing Arch haven't teach you the right skills to maintain it

As i've said, it's just uber-PITA. Why waste life with such nonsense?

gslapt
netpkg
and probably others i don't know or have no experience to argue with (like swaret).

Yes, it will never be a part of Slackware. My point is, these tools are here if you desire to use them, and i have never seen any Slackware user in rage over these tools, and how they taint the holy Slackware way. Like what some Archers do.


No hard feelings.

Some people didn't have them everything depended...nVidia even published a press release

It takes 20 minutes to install Arch the "hard way"

There are GUI installers for Arch on the web if you want them

Whats you point exactly?

A UI based installer doesn't always guarantee a distribution will be sound. Some of the more advanced distributions like LFS, Gentoo, and such don't even bother with a UI.

The distribution maintainers will decide what they feel is best for their distribution to use for maintenance and installation methods, and whether you like it or not, it's not your decision. Either like it, or move on.

Yes, please don't bother with the elitism views and rhetoric. It's not needed or required here at LQ on any level. Everyone here has every variable level of expertise in various fields, so do come with a respectful attitude, or there is a chance you may run afoul of a moderator on a bad day, and you won't like the outcome.