Anyone else think Arch's installer is stupid ?
 

I've been using Linux on and off since 1997 so I'm not a newbie. I've also installed and setup arch linux successfully before like about the 3 times I tried it and actually wanted to go through with the install.

So I first installed Linux in 1997 with Redhat Hurricane or Manhattan (whichever came first) then I distro hopped and installed Debian Slink in 1999 before Debian was easier to install. The default desktop was windowmaker , I think, and I had to compile a kernel just to get my soundcard to work.

I've used everything from OpenBSD and FreeBSD to Slackware to Void Linux and all these so called 'hard' or 'advanced' operating systems all their installers make sense.

Arch's installer on the otherhand seems mentally retarded. Ostensibly you are supposed to be learning linux or some other claptrap while installing and using it but yet it has it's own weird commands like pacstrap etc...

Anyway, so I'm installing arch linux and I'm reading the install.txt and while arch is generally well known for it's good documentation it is all online. So I recognize the encryption of disks documentation is lackluster so I go and I use wpa_supplicant and dhcpd to configure my wireless connection and lo' and behold there is no lynx or links browsers so I finally find an elinks browser and it is totally unusable for searching the web from the CLI because it's keybindings are retarded I read the man page and tried to disable them with flag but it did not seem to work. So I use pacman I update it's database and sync it and install links or lynx or whatever. Bam ! it works fine unlike elinks so I'm reading the online documentation for encrypting disks and installing arch linux and it finally dawns one me :

"Why the f*ck I am doing this ?!"

This does not make someone l337 or /<-rad 31337 it makes you stupid for wasting your time !

If you can bake a cake you can install arch. Except installing arch is like following a recipe for a convoluted cake with too many steps.

Arch is so well documentated, unlike say Void linux, that installing it and configuring is not elite it is just mentally retarded waste of time !

Dude, I could install like 10 or 20 OpenBSD boxes in the time it takes one person to install arch Linux.

Even Slackware when you are installing it if you mount the install media to /mnt or whatever it has like CRYPTO.txt and LVM.txt that tells you how to encrypt the disk. That will be the extent of your CLI work as the slackware ncurses installer takes care of the rest and with OpenBSD it is simple as f*ck to encrypt your disk quickly with the bioctl command.


If anyone disagrees with me just ask Linus Torvalds, who uses Fedora, to install Arch Linux and he will tell you that you are crazy , stupid or retarded !

Sorry you should feel that way.
I'm glad you could use LQ to vent your frustration.

...


Next!

:lol:

Damn, I hope you have asbestos underwear. I have used, and advocated, Arch for years. But I also haven't installed it afresh in that timeframe - pacstrap didn't even exist last I tried.
Possibly why I too use Fedora as my day-to-day system .... :shrug:

OP: Arch has no installer. Arch is brilliant actually.

Just do it like the noobs that post their "Arch with i3 w/gaps" screenshots on reddit/r/unixporn do: Zen Installer ;)

EDIT: You're not required to use Arch. Maybe install Gentoo?

Some (a lot) of us came to Arch from gentoo during the dev wars.

Some others are too young to remember history, and need a GUI. ...

I take umbrage at that!
I was very far from using Linux when Arch was born and I don't know what Gentoo's dev wars were, either, yet I still don't need a GUI!

Didn't Santayana have something to say about ignoring history ?.

The solution is simple, move on. You don't have to install it. There are many people who are perfectly fine with the manual install. You can always install Manjaro, basically Arch with a newbie installer.

:twocents:

Anarchy has worked out nicely for me.

https://www.anarchylinux.org/
https://github.com/AnarchyLinux/installer

Thousands of people are able to install arch, and are using it.
You want proof of that? Watch the bbs.archlinux forum. When someone posts a question, even if it does not get an answer right away, there will be 500 views on the thread in a few hours. That tells me that lots of people are reading the arch forum. Why would one read the arch forum? Probably because they are using it.

Arch is for an experienced linux user, not L33t, just a couple of years experience.

Here is a step by step guide to install arch, and it works fine.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_guide
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ecommendations

And that is what you should read to install arch. It's a rolling release, changes all the time. A youtube video about it is probably out of date. The wiki changes all the time to match what has changed.

The devs opinion is, if you can't get it installed, then you won't be able to maintain it. And they tell people that. There is even a little question that you have to answer to register on the arch forum, and you'll have to be using arch to answer it.

So, if you can't get arch installed with the installation guide, maybe that says something about you. Not anything bad, you just need a little more study-practice. I don't care how much you think that you know. If you can't get arch installed... well then you need to know more.

For an experienced linux user an arch install takes 30 minutes. There was a GUI installer for arch several years ago. No one wanted it or wanted to maintain it. So it was dropped. Every now and then someone asks that question on the forum, and the answer is always NO!

On the contrary. You are being treated like an intelligent experienced linux user, that does not need the hand held.

Anyone else think Arch's installer is stupid ?
 

yes, it is primitive, there is a reason the "they" came up with a easier way to install a linux/gnu distro. When I addressed the 'ARCH" Linux method of installing it in there forum. when I do not have defecated line out, I use public "free" wifi, they told me some smartass reason why it is like that. it is to separate the others from the arch'ers. a separative ideology if you please.

I think perhaps because they cannot figure out how to make one. So one can just burn it to a usb stick install it then get on with life.

When I used to write little reviews of distros I tried Arch twice. The first time I got it working — no software — in an afternoon. The second time I lost the internet before I installed the GUI and never got it back. I find people telling me I need to study more stupid — there's a limit to how many things I want or need to know, and manually installing an OS when I could use an installer is not one of them.

I just can't see the point. I may think Gentoo is silly for compiling everything and Slackware is tiresome for lacking dependency control and having so little pre-compiled software, but at least I can see their reasoning for being like that. The rationale for Arch's lack of an installer escapes me and Arch users never explain it.

So, I'll comment despite the fact that most everything has been covered...

1. The installation is designed to be as simple (as in programatically) as possible. It will work on anything that it can access. The installer will never fail due to a weird bug in it. In this regard, it's quite nice. Do I like to use it? no. Takes too long and I need documentation to remember not to skip a step. I hate using it, which brings us to #2...
2. There are like 4 or 5 "distro's" whose SOLE EXISTENCE is designed to be an easy way to install Arch. Don't like the Arch installer, use one of them. Anarchy even has the ability to do a full Arch-only install (no repos other than Arch, no installed packages other than Arch).

That is the problem I have, out of sight out of mind. I have to have the documentation just to make sure I get the commands right.

The answer is that they had one a few years back. But the "arch community" decided that they liked it better without one. The devs asked, anyone want to maintain an installer? And no one stepped up to claim it.

There have been scripts posted to automate the process, if you search the arch forum, but they quickly get kind of shot down. I think that there have even been aur packages made to automate it. I think that I recall a poll being taken a few years ago, and the vast majority of archers who answered the polls said no to an installer. So you can make one, but you're on your own.

I think that it's a matter of getting used to doing things the "insert distro here" way. And then it's a rolling release. You only have to install it once, then use the machine for 10 years. There are no re-installs needed.

The wiki does pack a lot in and you can miss something. If you are planning to install it, read the wiki first for a day and get in your head what you are going to do. It will install just like the wiki says.
Or...use something else.

The answer is that "They do not want any gui installers!"

It really doesn't seem so bad to me, and I'm no expert Linux user. I've found that the easier-to-install Arch derivatives never really seem to satisfy me like an Arch installation done manually. The Anarchy installer comes close, and I might go that route again if I was pressed for time. But as teckk mentioned, you only have to install it once. The end result is worth the effort, IMO.

Personally I find the install easy but then again I am a former Gentoo user. I normally have my own documentation that I keep updated so it’s easy to follow. The wiki install procedures are good but I hate clicking through to different sections so bring that info into a single list I use.

There's LARBS by Luke Smith. Never used it or arch, though, so I can't truly vouch for it, but, hey, might be worth a look.

every how to install ARCH on youtube I've ever seen there is a guy with two computers, one to install ARCH on, and the other to read the HOW TO install arch ... again it is a obsolete install method that they are using.

Even Slackware that came out in the 90's when Linux was first being introduced into the world has a iso to burn to a usb stick to be easily installed.

ARCH Linux came way later and they're using a type of install that only had to be used back in the 'day' because there was no other way to do it. the developer, to me must just think it's the coolest thing since slice bread to do.

I have very little experience with Arch's installer. I tried it once and then rebooted the computer thinking maybe there was an error or something. I didn't do any prior research to installation...just downloaded and gave it a try. It was then I changed my mind that it wasn't the right time to try it. I don't mind to tinker but I wanted something to get me up faster at that moment.

Perhaps later down the road I'll give it a try again.

To me Slackware and Debian have been the more complex installs I have done and I wouldn't say they were hard...just a little more time consuming.

^ Basslord, there's no such thing as "Arch's Installer". Maybe that's why it failed...