Why you (probably) shouldn't use an Arch Linux install script
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- Have you been wanting to try out Arch Linux and are thinking of using the archinstall installation script? In this video, I'm going to GATEKEEP Arch Linux by telling you why you SHOULDN'T use the easy install script and why you should install Arch Linux manually instead. Trust me, I actually have good reasons to as why new users might not want to use it, I'm not just being elitist...or am I?
Arch Linux isn't that hard: • Arch Linux Isn't *THAT...
Background footage:
• Arch Linux: A ℂ𝕠𝕞𝕗𝕪 In...
• Installing Arch While ...
• Arch Linux speedrun - ...
🌐 My website: ericmurphy.xyz
💸 Support the Channel: ericmurphy.xyz/donate
🎥 Watch my videos on Odysee: odysee.com/@ericnmurphy
💻 My GitHub: github.com/ericmurphyxyz
0:00 Intro
1:57 Why install Arch Linux manually?
2:59 What do you learn from installing Arch manually?
5:08 Mom, cancel my meetings, archinstall broke again
6:19 Manually installing Arch is scary!
7:36 Who Arch Linux isn't for
8:31 What about Arch distros with a GUI installer?
9:50 My recommendation - Věda a technologie
The next thing is: I use Arch without Archinstall btw
Based
Gave you like no. 70, and I'm terribly sorry!
nah, is going to be "I use LFS btw"
And then: I use arch without archinstall and pacstrap btw
I love candy BTW 🌚
My Linux experience:
-Use archinstall
-"Wow this so much easier than internet made it seem"
-Why my audio not working
-"Go read the manual fucker"
-Fight with PulseAudio for 5 attempts
-Realize PulseAudio was working the whole time and bluez was the problem
-Fight with bluez for 3 hours
-It finally works
-Never more proud of myself
-realize that the grub archinstall doesn’t work with my dell bios
@@0fficechairYup had the same issue a while back.
-installs and hooks up pipewire and every problem immediately dissapears
i absolutely hate the "go read the manual" people in the linux community. sometimes i really don't feel like reading several paragraphs about why and how different commands work on a page so bright it scorches my retinas out. sometimes i just want to copy and paste a couple commands in my terminal and have my problem solved without learning about the ins and outs of a package i'm going to configure one time ever.
thats me with linux mint 😭
Manually installing Arch cured my depression... at least for a day
No seriously, it made me feel like I had accomplished something and even though it took some time to get everything running, it didn't feel like wasted time but like actually learning something about computers/linux. Was a really positive experience!
These things are good if you've got a lot of time and need to use it productively. Maybe I should get back into Linux... but sadly, my form of depression tends to shut down the reasoning part of my brain just when I need it most. This results in _rage against the machine, not letting me do what I want!!!_ lol It could be turned into a comedy sketch. I've tried to use more straightforward OSs from BSDs to Plan 9 From Bell Labs, but the story is always the same in the end: A task seems easy, but when I'm deep into getting it done, a door opens into what feels like a whole new world of complexity and my brain just reacts with _raaayyyggge!_ lol
"Stupid machiiiine!!!"
@@eekee6034Hey man! Hope things get better for you. Normally the same kinda happens to me, actually happened while installing Arch lol had some trouble with the memory partitions and with pacstrap and got very frustrated with it. In the end I took it as an opportunity to learn: installed Endeavour OS and I'm using it to learn how Arch related stuff like dependencies and packages work, no regrets at all!
i just don't understand why every installation guide I see for arch is wildly different. or at least it feels that way.
I was disappointed that I learned less than I expected. Despite my goals to learn I used pacstrap and it does the work for you really aside from bootloader and partitioning the rest is system configuration (arguably it's all system configuration but I think my point is clear). The wiki is very good at guiding you in the direction of understanding the system more but because of the arch install process you're not learning about how Linux systems are for the most part you're mostly learning a set of tools that are common or have been installed and are given snippets that are useful to configure them. But you rarely learn what these tools do for you really. A fresh arch linux user couldn't tell you if they could replace any of those tools easily or not. There's very few tools you know if you could replace.
The one big exception to that that I like is the approach to the AUR on the wiki. They encourage you to understand the package descriptions. That really helps open up the idea of how simple (except sometimes laborious if you were to fetch every dependancy yourself) software installation really is on arch. Especially how helpers aren't really useful but it gives a small glimpse into packages that you don't really get with normal use of pacman.
I think there should be a Linux install distro or process that's designed for you to understand the system. Not really intended to be a good system just something that gets you to the point where you have a basic familiarity with what happens at a lower level when you do certain actions. Things like how a keyboard press is processed or how a device is detected and attached to the system. An arch install doesn't even mention udev. If you install the system you should feel you want to read about device files block devices a little bit. The two three paragraphs on wikipedia are fine, not linux kernel documentation. Someone who's installing arch through the manual process won't understand why "everything is a file on linux". You get the black box view of the system.
Why that should be an install and not just people taking their own time to understand their system. I think it has special appeal to be building your thing as you learn it. And it also leaves you with a smaller subset of the system to understand at any point of time. For instance when you reach the step of having installed the minimal subset that allows you to throw a ping, you know nothing else is needed for this. But I'm not asking to create /usr /etc /bin /sbin and set permissions. That's too manual and repretitive you learn nothing. Being told that the filesystem looks like that for what reason and what the use is is good enough. I'm asking to dip my toes in every part of the system so I at least know the names. And for important components of the system I should have a basic familiarity when it's done.
@@0xCAFEF00D Very interesting. I knew Linux pretty well; I built Linux install from scratch before I tried Gentoo, before Arch even existed, so I was wondering how an Arch install would really look to a new user. Thanks for writing it up.
Arch has become the same thing as Souls games, the same passive-agressive attitude of "it's okay if you don't like it, but if you don't like it you are inferior"
"You're not a real Arch user if you heal"
as someone who both uses Arch and platinum'ed Dark Souls, I sadly have to agree that both communities are often unbearable because they feel like they'll lose their bragging rights if it becomes accessible...
Gatekeeping is based
Yea nah. I've installed Arch both ways and the only thing manual installation taught me was that I'm in fact capable of following instructions. I learned far more fighting with Debian to get non-free repos set up. Arch isn't a specialist piece of software for the elite of the elite, it's just a bit of a cumbersome OS. With archinstall you get a functional and fine system in no time at all that anyone can use. It can break, yes, but so can any other rolling release distro and either you can fix it or you can't and will have to reinstall. The install process won't teach you to fix a fucked bootloader, learning to fix Arch is no different to learning to fix Tumbleweed or Void or whatever else. You learn because you have to after you installed a rotten update, not because you went through the obnoxious process of manually partitioning drives in cfdisk.
finally a sane take
I agree and disagree. AS LONG AS, you have some sort of IT knowledge beforehand, and have developed nicely the skills of, and for the sake of simplicity lets call it "following and understanding instructions you knew nothing", you are good on skipping the manual installation. If its your first real practical experience and dont really know the theory of everything that's needed to do when manually installing, doing it and skipping archinstall its a nice idea, because while it gives you the IRL experience, you also get to read and understand many things, like how partitioning works, how disks works, how packages and filesystem structure works, etc. But, if you already knew some of that stuff beforehand THOUGH you may never have done it manually, you are ready to go on archinstall.
People will learn more by doing it the "wrong" way than by not doing it at all. The script isn't perfect, it doesn't teach you as much, but it makes it approachable.
No one starts by painting a mona lisa. You start by drawing apples, or coloring books. That's what the script is. Is place to start for those that maybe are too scared to even start. And the same is true for arch distros. I agree, often there is problems with them. But it's better than having people never even try arch.
Learning slowly, at your own pace is valid. You don't need to jump knees deep into building your own system. I've learned a lot by just solving problems as they come instead trying to learn all at once. I definitely think this video is well intended but very much off the mark.
i actually find that the arch install script offers more depth and customization over using a standard gui installer and i learned a bit of new stuff from it
@@FeTetra that's awesome because it only means that people WILL learn from it even if they are not learning everything at once. It's guided learning and that's more approachable.
@@jhonyortiz5 I personally hate the gatekeepers and find that the way I learned Linux to begin with is letting it in slowly and archinstall is a good way to install arch and use it in an easy and mentally manageable way for the first time, and that's not to say you can't later reinstall it without arch install for a more custom experience
@@FeTetra exactly, 100% agree 👍
if you care about learning then stop posing with Arch/Gentoo and use LFS
You don't need to use arch to learn all this stuff. Spending enough time doing projects in any system will force most users who are curious to learn these technologies
idc im still gonna use archinstall
This video's narration is kinda similar to Mental Outlaw's, with innumerous 4chan-tier meme references and doing something technical that is related to the subject.
Next, we will be expecting a cooking video on how to make some Midwestern stew or something
Lifting videos coming soon
@@EricMurphyxyz We are awaiting for them
Mental Outlaw is much more critical of normies and Windows Users. Eric Murphy is much more understanding of the limitations of Linux
Mental Outlaw pretends to be more knowledgeable than he actually is. Much prefer Eric's videos.
@@Yusha7135 well, agreed. The world is your oyster, I am just floating in it
Maybe it's because I started my Linux journey from Gentoo, but I find installing Arch very simple, given how amazing their Wiki is. The installation process itself teaches you more than some Linux courses :D
I agree, the Arch Wiki is an incredible resource
If you have an entire day to install arch is definitly worth it
Indeed, it is very simple and once you did it once it takes just few minutes to install it.
I made a simple script witch install arch with dwm from the scratch automatically and it takes about 6 minutes to complete all installations.
The guy that just did the "install gentoo" and then lived
@@no_name4796 It only takes about an hour.
But the thing is not everyone has unlimited amount of time install it manually. Some people might of just need it up and running asap.
This guy is making me uninstall Arch and reinstall it without archinstall
Here's a few other reasons not to use Manjaro: the constant f ups, the incremental bloating, inconsistent updates (the latest update came over a month after the last one and it's huge, so expect about 15 minutes of downloading and updating), not being able to update an outdated program from their repositories for weeks, etc. This week I'm saying goodbye to Manjaro on my laptop after almost 3 years. Good thing I had my desktop PC with Arch to keep me sane.
A reason not to use EOS: if you want your system setup exactly to your specifications, be prepared to uninstall a lot of unwanted/unneeded pre-packaged programs, in which case just spend the time to install vanilla Arch. Otherwise, it's a fine distro.
Lastly, yes, it's true: installing Arch is not that difficult. The first time is a little bit nerve-wracking, but it's nothing out of this world. If anything, it's just time-consuming. And you do learn some things about Linux while prepping the install. So, don't follow instructions mindlessly: make the effort to learn something about your system.
I used Manjaro for a few months in the past and I had the same issues. I've been meaning to make a video ranting about Manjaro for a while, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
@@EricMurphyxyz good video idea
@@Proferk Coming this week
Use EOS for half a year now after moving from fedora
I would say it's great for someone who wants benefits of Arch, already comfortable with command line or basic troubleshooting of Linux, but don't really want spend time manually installing arch nor have specific need like manually install Arch
Also been using EOS for making 'kickstart' script in VM, quite useful compare to if install Arch, the stuff would take more time
Also, I think most of the prepackaged stuff can be unchecked on the calamares before the install
That's my opinion, thx
> I remember using archinstall to install archlinux because I was lazy.
> Few weeks later I got a broken system and didn't know how to fix.
> Eventually reinstalled everything the right way...
> Understood how stupid I was and that I could even easily fix my previous problem
> Installed archlinux the third time on old mac book air 2017
> Currently learning to how to do installing Gentoo with dualboot the right way because I learned from my mistakes.
> I use Arch btw
The main reason i use arch btw, is because the first time i tried it / installed it, i noticed how blazing fast my haswell laptops did run compared to distributions like ubuntu, mint, elementary etc etc.
Now i use window manager (qtile) with arch and basically my complete setup with all the software that i use gives me an install below 700 packages in total (compared to 2000+ on other distros).
No bloat, customized the way i want to and super efficient and happy with it.
While I understand the value in following the wiki and installing manually, if you just want to compute on Arch I don't see why the script matters. Why do you care how another Arch user installed Arch?
they are crazy :D
arch elitists and gatekeeping
@@samyt681 everyone seems to forget that archinstall stores user and some disk encryption passwords in plaintext. its worth just spending the extra half an hour to an hour to do it the traditional way, even for that peace of mind
If you're new to linux installing a derived distro can help to have an idea on which packages to install (endeavouros install is really good for that) and if you're new to the distro, it permits to see the bigger picture of it. archinstall script is just a layer above the step by step installation guide provided by archlinux, after that you have to do everything by yourself and its amazing
The best thing about doing the manual Arch install multiple times is that as you learn, you can start scripting it and automate how you're going to install your base system every time. This is incredibly handy if you're building different types of systems on Arch (desktops, servers, etc.) and want to ensure you start at a consistent base for all of them so you'll always know how all your systems will work every time you build them.
I think your wrong especially about endeavour. New arch users generally need a community to help them once they hit problems but eventually they will migrate to pure arch.
They need to learn how to use a search engine, chatgpt, wikis, instructions etc.
I went from from Fedora > Endeavor > ArchInstall. I like arch but don't really want to do all the tedious install stuff manually. The only reason I switched to Arch is because I wanted to run a WM that Endeavor didn't have a flavor for and it was eaisier to start from a clean slate. The install process isn't very much like using your system day-to-day anyway. Most of the things you do, you'll never do again or do very rarely. The part I cared about was setting up my WM. If you just want to use Arch you can 100% run Endeavor and move to Arch if and when you want too.
Installing Arch on my own was a great introduction into Arch. I learned how to do some stuff like partitioning, using pacman, installing GRUB etc. throughout the installation which was helpful later. And the wiki is so well, that it shouldn't be that hard to install it manually.
did you use the wiki? cause it's easy to follow in terms of just copy pasting stuff. but i have no idea what's going on lmao.
@@weirdo3116 i used wiki the first time i tried to install, but there was a lot of command that arch didn't recognize, command that were working on tutorial , video etc... the script solved that issue.
There's some credence to this: Learning to install Arch manually allows you to understand your system a little better and know what to do in order to automate it.
A customized ArchInstall script after creating your own is fun to tinker with. Especially once you know your configuration you could automate the whole installation process and not have to bother with the manual installation process. That being said, I find it better as a tool to mess with instead of something to rely upon at first glance.
Personally, to each their own. ArchInstall has its uses, but would definitely recommend people to start out by manually installing a couple of times on a VM, before moving to hardware. I *do* use ArchInstall for when I can't be assed, but I do know the manual process pretty well enough to finish an install within 10 minutes.
Been installing manually many times, but I love how fast this scripts does basic install.
I'm not really sure what the script does to make things that much easier, it just gives you the steps you need to take and the options you have. The wiki will tell you to do exactly what the installer does, basically. The difference is that you are guided along the way and given sane defaults, which is nice for a beginner, probably also nice to get it working fast.
The Wiki is super easy to follow, but it also isn't explaining much about what is happening, so people with no previous experience aren't really learning much anyway, they just copy the commands as they see them. At the end of the day it didn't really matter if they used a script or installed it manually. I say you learn more by actually using Arch than fumble with the installation.
you hit the nail on the head with that last part. I went to the wiki to see how easy it was and I was surprised that it was almost the opposite of what this guy said. Sure it's easy in terms of all I need to do is copy paste commands. But I have NO idea what's going on. at this point I'd rather just use the Archinstall script and get to using arch. way easier to learn that way then what every the wiki is saying.
I used debian and fedora based distros for many years when i first got into linux. I just recently decided to switch to Arch and I used the install script. I went the minimal install route and installed my own display manager, window manager, etc. I found the script a great middle ground for someone like me who knows a good amount about linux and just wants to get an Arch install up and running. I went through probably a dozen iterations in VMs before finalizing a setup I was happy with and I would definitely recommend doing those VM test runs before performing the final install.
Nah, I just want to use my system and customize it if I want to...
I used Arch Install specifically to make the process easier, but I did so with the understanding that I would have to learn a lot more on my own after I got the install done. This was also testing out Nobara and realizing that I really really wanted rolling updates/releases instead of stable/LTS stuff because I was already in the mindset of fixing everything myself as I was cutting Windows cold turkey and going perma linux on my desktop.
Haven't tried this yet, but you deserve credit for getting that job done. You may have convinced me to try it, so Thank You!
I agree 100% … I decided to jump into Linux knowing nothing about it. After a couple videos searches I decided to install Arch Linux using Archinstall. After using it daily for about a month I wiped my ssd and installed it manually. Learned more about Arch during the manual install than I did in a single month of daily use.
I actually support the "installation as familiarization" approach tbh
I'll probably never try Arch, but in modding my DSi, I've been left with a lot of confusion about functionality and where to find certain settings. When things ALWAYS come pre-packaged to do them the "easy" way, it's got tradeoffs
like with food, you trade convenience for wholesomeness a lot of the time
sometimes the best route is to grow your own produce or bake your own bread, and if you want it bad enough, you'll make it to your own tastes
And a beauty of the world I think is the infinite variability of all the humans living here!
I think the best way to install arch is to put on mutahar's video and put up the wiki in another tab and go to town. From my experience the Wiki is really hard to understand in some places, and having a video to clear things up is nice. The bootloader part got me a few days ago since the wiki was confusing in its wording.
agreed. i had to reinstall grub because i accidentally put it on nvme0n1p1 rather than nvme0n1, which is an easy mistake to make
For me I have installed it both ways, and I enjoy arch install for the easily replicable systems as well as it automatically making scripts for things that you would otherwise have to write yourself. For me, I will use the xorg profile so that it installs just a base system with xorg and nvidia drivers and then I build the system from there.
I always skip a tutorial
I took more time assembling my pc on a Sunday evening than anticipated and therefore did not have a lot of time to install Arch the correct way as I needed this PC for work the following day. Archinstall was very useful in this regard. Even though the OS was not setup the way I wanted, I could at least use my IDE on the following morning and then spend the evening setting it up properly
Just installed the arch using the manual way and oh man, it was amazing! I think using Arch kinda gives you a mindset of independence. I'm getting more and more fond of this distro because you have, and dare I say, the ultimate freedom to everything! Try it out yourself before judging it!
After breaking it multiple times I think the archinstall stript is a great thing.
Warning! Vanilla Arch, especially with a tiling window manager is addictive. After years of this I just can't run other setups.
I use arch btw.... As long as you understand the base of the system, more or less starting with the package management, you can make any distro any way you like, arch is just custom from scratch.
I did it the hard way 🤷🏻♂️ and it took an entire day, but its what I want.
I can see both sides of the arguments where not one answer is always going to be right, because hardware and kernals and so on are different, but ..
I'd also argue that to start, it would be smarter to use the script, because you're still going to get plenty of trial and error with the rest, the script just gets you started.
Still no GUI, just a user login ttyl terminal 🤷🏻♂️ so why gatekeep?
as someone who's switched over to linux a month ago as a former windows user, installing arch the way god intended has helped me learn a lot about partitioning, getting comfy with command lines, boot loaders, sound servers, file systems, and much more. will i had learned the same things if i used archinstall? probably. but this really jumped started my process. i still don't know most of the things, but imo i'm in a better position to understand newer knowledge. installing arch is not hard if you know the reason behind the process - that you gotta actively learn, instead of just copying commands. i'm not entirely sure if i'll stick with arch, i'll have to see if i can maintain my system if it ever breaks. but i'll be sure to carry my knowledge whichever distro i'll use. if you're struggling with the wiki, find a good video on arch install guide, watch a few and try it a few times. many decent youtubers explain the process behind each commands
I just would like to thank you because of this video i got the motivation to install arch linux at first it looked very difficult but when i followed a a persons arch install guide on youtube i finally found it to be easy and decided to install it on a virtual machine i had a basic arch install and decided to get a de or wm so i got dwm and it did not work so i reinstalled it and found the problem and i got i3 working even though it isn't much it feels like a great achievement and now i can install arch linux confidently thank you so much for inspiring me to one day have a great arch linux setup
The thing about Arch is that it is collectively (maybe subconsciously) designed in a way that you must know the decisions you take for installing the systems. Once you use an installer, it takes decisions for you for the sake of practicality. And that not-knowing-what-was-decided comes back to bite you, so you will be greatly harmed for trying to save some minutes from the manual steps.
Arch is a meta-distribution, it is really the wiki and repositories. That's why each Arch installation is practically a different distribution. That makes all the difference and explains why using uniform installers does not match using Arch the manual way.
I personally like the 'do it yourself' of Arch for everything except disk management. I used archinstall for that, but set up everything else by hand, which was very rewarding.
I understand your point and I agree: as a new comer from linux, I learned I lot installing arch without the install script. Then, the next couple of times I installed, I went on and used it, with the base knowledge I had acquired. Recently I had a problem dualbooting win11 and arch in different ssds, and that knowledge helped me.
You know the old saying, "Pick your battles". And better yet, "Pick a hill to die on". Having installed pure Arch a handful of times, meaning once, and Arch derivatives many, many times, I'd say this discussion is like that. You need to look at your life and decide if the glory(?) of running Arch successfully is worth the vaporized time that will be required to master what has to be mastered...or if you have Bigger Things that take precedence.
I had a really good experience with Garuda, but I'm not running it because it coddled me so that when I had to build programs, I just didn't care anymore, got frustrated, and went to something else. I get exactly what you're saying, unfortunately I'm not special enough yet to enjoy self-flagellation. That's not sarcasm. I simply have work I need to get done instead of spending a lot of time on system creation. One day when I'm rich and can spend a lot of my time manipulating time and space, I'll go back and enjoy Arch the way it was forged in the deepest levels of software comfort Hell to be.
With deb-based systems, you're coddled up front, and then kind of coddled later too. Arch-based derivatives coddle you up front, then throw thine flailing mind upon the rack later. Pure Arch starts with a thump to the nads, and then progresses from there. That's what this video is saying in a nutshell.
I have installed Arch the manual way numerous times. But have recently moved to Arcolinux as I already understand Arch really well and Arcolinux just removes the tedium of installing the base Arch and additional configurations. Arcolinux is 98% Arch just with most things already configured and it just works.
i heard how hard it was to install normally but archinstall wouldnt work properly so i installed manually and it is actually easier than it seems
I've done both, manual install and arcolinux. I get enough work with fixing things and customizing desktops such as my current desktop bspwm. I have also read a lot of the wiki because I have the time to do it, even though I probably use my MacBook Pro M2 Pro as my daily driver. My old PC desktops and laptops get Linux OS, one arch, one linux mint with a variety of desktop environments.
"It's really not that hard to install arch..."
Earlier: "You have to be a bit special to enjoy Arch!"
First time linux user. Decided to install Arch cause our IT guy at work uses it and is a really cool and knowledgable dude. Used archinstall script, ran into issues, spent a couple hours diagnosing the issues, fixed them all, now I have a fully functional linux laptop. Would manually installing be better? definitely. But it would be slower and I was trying to get it installed in a limited amount of time.
After doing LFS, I will absolutely use pacstrap at the very least. Also, it was definitely super easy and quick to install compared to LFS. Feels like a breath of fresh air.
i just did my first arch installation to revive an old laptop and i didn't even know there was an installation script until after i had already done a full manual installation, downloaded all my packages, and set up hyprland.
I used arch for years. I don’t remember the last time I fixed anything do you? I tend to set a system and not fuck around with it
Remember that Debian was notoriously hard to install once. The thing with archinstall is you still need to configure the thing correctly.
This is a bit like beginning to learn how to code in C vs. python. While python has a low entry with a lot of tools that help you get started easily. Programming in C on the other hand would usually have some prerequisites, having an IDE or installing the compiler yourself. If you choose to DIY, you are confronted with a lot of things at once, making it very hard at the beginning with the need of research. And therefore learning ABOUT programming and not how to program. At least, this was the rabbit hole I entered when I started learning to program.
Best
This is not a fair analogy at all. Getting started in C might actually be easier, because getting a language server in VS Code, Vim or Emacs is the same process for both of them. Most linux distros come with both the C and python compiler engines out of the box. I would argue both python and C have their unique newbie gotchas. My point is that getting started with either is just as easy. Obviously, python is much easier to use.
On the other hand, using the Arch installer and the manual installation will both create an Arch linux environment. The difference is that the installer will guide you along the way with some sane defaults, while the manual installation will not. There is no practical benefit for most people not to use the installer. Most people need the internet, they need audio and they need a gui; it just so happens that the installer gives them sane choices for all of those. Even if you want a manual install for learning, it might be a good idea to follow the installer options as a guide and install the packages manually.
When I installed Arch for first time using auto install, it bricked my personal usb. 🤣
The Diy mentality thing you mentioned is right I learned a lot and had a fun of troubleshooting where only one installation video didnt worked for me😅
I’m installing arch rn but I have to keep inputting nomodeset to avoid black screens on boot, and after I installed sddm and plasma the boot hangs. It sucks to get past an error and then suddenly run into a new issue but I guess that’s part of the process
i did it manually once and i actually enjoyed it rather than becoming mad on why this or that doesnt work
I installed manually yesterday. Without ChatGPT I probably would not have been able to do it in a day. Yes, the wiki has all the info but it’s not exactly easy to follow. It’s stuffed with caveats, colored boxes and links to pages with unique layouts that makes it extra challenging to follow. Frankly, it’s a bit labyrinthine and it seems to be so almost for the sake of it.
Criticisms aside, the hardest part is dealing with the vertical learning curve, depending on your previous knowledge. Like, I knew what disk partitions are but got a little stuck when the first sector had to be the default value. Or then they don’t really make clear what the advantages of fdisk vs lsblk are in a way that someone without much experience could understand. Etc. Ok, so I really didn’t put aside the criticisms.
Anyway, the installation itself is relatively easy. Figuring out exactly what is actionable in the wiki is virtually Herculean for noobs.
The hardest part about installing arch is remembering to install dhcpcd and iwd
There is one point i will disagree with you on this. For the most part installing arch was somwthing i found relatively easy, and i dont have much experience with linux. I do have some, and i dont have determination but rather obsession, thats probably something i should check checkout out now that i think about it. New obsession for the year unlocked. But there is precisely one section that made me want to use a script. Partitioning the drive on the host machine. That or i did something wrong with the boot loader idk. I used the arch wiki as a guide for the installation process, now you go on there, and imagine you dont know exactly what youre doing, this is the first time youre hearing about some of these tools and the first fime youre installing arch, now go to the part of the wiki that deals with making the partitions on the host system and tell me where it tells me how to use these tools to make a barebones functional system. Spoiler, it doesnt. Now maybe youre meant to already have knowledge on this from other distros from when you plug in a thumb drive or something, but the fact that they only say "heres a tool. Here are some configs that might work depending on your system, you cigure out how to use the tool on your own and which config is best for you on your own" when the rest of the entire wiki seems so well documented is just plain stupid in my opinion. Partitioning the disk gets a smaller word count than setting the time and date. If there were a tool that just did the partitions for arch and nothing more that would be perfect for me but if there is i havent found it so im gonna use a derivative thats really close to the source material like endeavor
Nah bro, I already understood this was a manual thing. But I don't want to waste time installing manually when I could just easily setup and build the fun bits from there.
I completely agree with the first 90 seconds of the video. I don't think I'll finish the video, but at least that part is good.
I learned that it matters if your in the user or root when you download something.
Dont download programs within the download file while in root permissions. It screws up systems that try to refrence that program and makes system confused.
When I first saw this video, it annoyed me; but, now that I’ve gone through both the `archinstall` script and the “manual” installation process, I fully understand and agree with you on this position.
You've given me some motivation to try to install Arch Linux manually (on a virtual machine)
I couldn't agree more. I use Arch many years and still reinstall Arch with *_"old ways or Arch wiki strong recommended it"_* , it's so easy tho.
okay, here is the thing, You should Install arch linux using the command line, in this way, you will learn a lot, I have install arch Linux using command line like 2 to 3 times only, I know what is happening under the hood, but now, I don't have time to install arch Linux using command line, so I am glad they made a short arch script that would get you a simple clean server or a window manager, I am using Arch linux with Awesome Window Manager years and I love it, it make life, easy.
I wonder what your thoughts on ZorinOS
its geniunely kinda fun to install arch manually, makes you feel accomplished
for me i dont have access to ethernet cable so after installing my pc went into tty mode and cant do anything from there
I've installed Arch both ways, and have used Linux for 20 years, and I think archinstall is a good thing. Granted, it installs a very minimal version of whatever desktop you desktop, so you'll still have to tinker with it after installation, and enable things like printing and Bluetooth, but it's a very useful tool to have if you need to reinstall for whatever reason. Arch is pretty much your only option if you want to use brand-new hardware or you don't want any distro-specific customizations to your software, or if you want to run obscure window managers or desktops. Gatekeeping is not cool.
i have installed arch manually like 10 times, i have the entire installation memorized at this point and I just use archinstall to not waste time now
I used to be scared of installing Arch manually and stickt with the archinstall script, which was annoying bc sometimes it could randomly break and not even understand why (literally the arch install script is a 50 50 roulette). After i decided to actually learn how to do it manually it didnt break even once and it ran very smoothly
Arch as an everyday desktop computer is for a special breed of people
Its literally the most popular version of linux in use 😂
How do you get it so the wiki is on the side while installing (is it in the manual)?
I daily drive Arch for 4-5 years now and never installed it manually. I still love it and its still my favorite distro... at least for now. Maybe ill switch to Nixos soon.
I manually installed arch on my desktop a couple times, once vanilla arch, next artix, then when I found out how unreasonably much depended on systemd, I installed arch again. Then on my laptop I used the archinstall script because I was lazy and I wanted btrfs for its backup capabilities and only knew how to setup ext4.
Setting up encryption manually on two drives is such a pain, that’s the reason I use the archinstaller
I will defend Endeavour OS till my last breath
Can we create a script to install it ?
Never say never...
Yup. a few years back i installed manjaro and that was a complete cluster fuck, much later found endeavour os and its been absolutely perfect and the best linux experience ive had.
Since installing endeavour os ive also installed vanilla arch in a vm and didnt find i really learned much that i didnt already know or couldnt figure out if a similar problem arose on my endeavour install.
If you've ever dual booted and ran a system with multiple drives you already know about managing partitions, file systems, mounting drives etc.. Copying the command from arch wiki instead of doing that in a gui doesn't make much of a difference learning wise, youre still going to be reading the same article.
I found that moving from a DE to standalone WMs was a much larger leap in learning how my system works than simply installing arch.
Idk, seems like a bit of a strange argument to make, noone installs arch or a closely related distro without already knowing before hand there will be more tinkering than on something like ubuntu regardless of if it comes with a calamares installer.
A wasted life spent defending a Linux distro fork.
"you have to be a bit *special*, to enjoy arch"
after i had installed it manually 8 times i stopped enjoying doing it. this is why i now use archinstall
I just installed Arch by hand (as you suggested), just to find out, that my Lenovo T500 uses BIOS / MBR, and i made GPT partitions! As i wanted to install GRUB, grub told me it wont install because of GPT.
So i can not boot my Arch install and have to it all over again! Welcome to Linux! xD
4h later, i managed to boot Arch (yaaaay) and now im connected to my wifi, but i dont get an ip from the router. bad wpa_supplicant!
Arch linux is the first OS that really made me feel like im in control, im the captain of my pc, and whenever something breaks, it is pretty much my fault for being a dumbass. It is not for everyone, just like how an aircraft isnt for everybody.
I have installed arch too many times. I no longer give enough of a crap to manual install unless I have to do specific partitions and mounts… or if I’m bored.
It’s kinda fun ngl lol.
I couldn’t get archinstall to work properly so I just did it manually and everything worked fine.
i have it runing on a 2012 macbook when it breaks take the drive and pull up the files in VS code
I would reconment new arch linux users how to boot an older kernel they have so they can troubleshoot problems (go into advanced at boot so you can select older kernels what might still work and let you boot). But overall I think most linux users don't mind solving problems on their own because its the linux mindset I think. But good video and it makes sense what you say.
With respect, no. Arch linux (or any other distro for that matter) are tools to be used, not some kind of job or chore to "get on with it". Technology moves forward and not backwards, that's why archinstall exists, to help people get on with the cumbersome task of installing a simple operating system. Yes, you learn a lot about how computer works or what is in your system (whatever that means), but at the end of the day, it's just an OS, nothing else. I did install it once, manually, but I wish I could have taken back those 3 hours of my life!
Them "i use arch btw" me "i use arch without archinstall btw"
I installed Red Hat back in 1999, I think I can handle arch. :)
After abandoning the buggy archinstall scripts, finally I learned installing arch is that simple. The thing that really matter is just to mount the root directory onto /mnt of the usb driver's system and try to pacstrap on that directory. Then setup the boot option maybe if you want a dual boot. And you are done.
Funny how I went from Endeavor / Manjaro to a manual Arch install because I couldn't get all my hardware to work without breaking the OS. Sure it took longer, but I got everything to function properly even better than it did under Windows. It was a few years ago though. Nowadays I use a custom Windows 10 cause a few games I enjoy don't work under Linux. I might give it another try though, just for fun.
I disagree, installing Arch Linux manually doesn't really teach you anything except how to copy and paste commands. Mostly due to the Arch installation guide assuming you know all the basic concepts of an OS installation. if you actually want to learn something install Gentoo as that installation guide is far superior. And even then it really doesn't teach out much outside if file structures, config files, and package installation. The best way to learn about Linux is to just use it, come across problems and try to fix them. And the Arch community needs to be more welcoming everyone starts from somewhere, if your going to link them to the arch wiki link them to the page that may be the solution or at least help them find the solution to their problem.
I'll stick with Garuda for now thanks, but i will keep your words in mind. I am pretty new to Linux and would have chosen something other than an arch based distro to start out with but debian, ubuntu and fedora based distros just do not work with my hardware because of a really dumb quirk of my motherboard.
I do like archfi - even tho it's a bit long in the tooth - but agree that users should have a strong understanding of the cli install process before using any script to deploy a system.
I tried manually, and it reminded me of installing redhat back in the 90's. I then tried the script and crashed it. I managed to fix the install script by wiping all my partitions using fdisk. Then I installed it 4 times until I finally got it to work how I wanted. The install wouldnt work on wifi, then had a hard time getting ethernet working post install, then didn't have a sudo user, and finally the 4th try I got it, only to have my bios complain I was in legacy boot mode and then had to switch to uefi. Was a fun few hours
There is nothing wrong with using an Arch-based distro. With pacman & AUR it's a great way to have access to the vast majority of apps. Many who want a rolling release will also find Arch appealing. From my experience the best two are Arco & Garuda as they offer additional utilities for maintaining the rolling releases over time, in addition to the fact they have multiple versions of their distro. Yes there is a lot to be learned from doing a vanilla/from scratch Arch install but having done that several times over the years, it's nice to have pre-built distros that save a bunch of time in getting a system up & running. Not all of us are "by the way" types of people. Some of us just want to get to work quickly & be able to do updates without borking our system.
I feel like I did something wrong, I installed arch via manual method the first time, however I didn’t feel like I understood Linux any more. I think I should just install arch a few times to practice
5:55 broo thats what happened to me first time i tried installing. I kept on messing up or things didnt work so i had to restart the instalation so much that it passed the whole day and i was still at the start. then i just used arch install. i couldnt even get wifi to work and my router is far. i just switched to mint. now after a really long time. i will try again. see if im ready you know? i am pretty confident that i can do it this time
The final redpill is Linux from Scratch. At the end of the day, do you really know how often your packages are updated? How big is the team that maintains your packages? That's the biggest reason I like Guix. It allows you to be flexible with your system but gives the user a great deal of power. Nix started it all with declarative configs and reproducible builds. Guix took it a step further by using a real programming langauge instead of a DSL. Time will show that it will make a very big difference.