Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
"from scratch"
It's like a page worth of instructions you can follow verbatim excluding bootloader and network. If you watch one video of someone doing it to fill those gaps there is nothing to it.
Source: I watched Kai Hendry speed install arch, bookmarked the video and all my machines are now arch "from scratch" in 10 minutes or less of actual keyboard time.
Mental Outlaw also has the great guide explaining the install step-by-step in a great detail
except he doesn't talk about the difference in bootloader installation for uefi
I think calling it "a page worth" is understating it somewhat, especially if you want a full install to actually use stuff. In reality, when installing at first, you'll be finding stuff you missed for a while, like hardware video decoding.
Also, are you referring to just the direct instructions for one choice? Because to me, the point of installing manually is educating yourself on the choices, choosing one that suits you, and understanding what you're doing to set it up. Of course, when you're doing subsequent installs, you already know that stuff - but at that point you might just want to write an install script instead of running them manually.
I think it depends what you want out of it.
The arch install from the ISO is a layered process. You can always add more, but a bootable install is not much over a page away. I do like to pick what's best for me, but that's not a prerequisite for first install. Do it, take notes, refine, and repeat.
I don't have an installer or anything, but I have pretty comprehensive notes of what I like (bootctl vs grub, network-manager vs systemd-networkd and friends, and so on). But to have a system that boots and optionally has a desktop environment of your choosing is not exactly a Rubik's cube of difficulty.
Trve Arch users don't remember their install process.
Can confirm. Install once and it lives forever until the hardware dies or is replaced.
No big difference between those two methods of install. You get the real medal when a random upgrade breaks some software and you are able to track down the issue and corresponding solution(s).
is installing debian an acceptable solution(s)? :D
It is if that's what you are comfortable with.
I'm a big proponent of using tools you already know how to use, so long as you aren't making things needlessly harder for yourself by doing so
Debian is always acceptable solution
debian ♥️
Shout out to Julia from Drawfee on youtube for the bottom art. It's Bobby.
No!! Julia!! That's Bobby Hill??
The room is in shambles.
The room full of vampires?
Sorry
SORRY
Yo Arch users. Try daily driving Linux From Scratch. I dare ya. Let's see what you're really made of.
Been there. Done that.
Endeavour Os was the best thing I ever used. Easy to install, out of box is minimal but sufficient. I traded my Linux Mint to be able to customize my workflow, look and feel.
I never had success with archinstall, just the regular installation.
It's kinda weird, actually.
I use EndeavourOS and it works without issues.
Jeee EOS gang!
I don't use Arch but if I did id probably go with archinstall. I don't see the point in going from scratch unless you absolutely need to. I could care less about bragging rights for installing an operating system lol.
I just don't bother going for archinstall when regular installation "from scratch" takes 5 minutes (or 15, if you do it the first time). It is not scary and extremely simple, contrary to memes. Besides, it makes you understand the processes involved.
Archinstall is just a little, nice helper to shorten and simplify installation even more.
You mean "couldn't care less". The way you've written it means that you do care a bit since you "could care less".
I was going through some stuff and installing Arch from scratch was the only way I could feel anything at all.
Every now and then I see that laptop and think "I should keep going and install those power management scripts ". Then I think "nah".
idk why, but everytime I try archinstall it breaks in one way or another. I'm sure it works perfectly well for everyone else, I'm just cursed
note: not seeking advice, I prefer my manually installed FDE + secureboot EFISTUB setup anyways
built as in "made the os"? If so, then yes they probably cried a lot those damn wizards
I still install manually just out of habit
The new / rewritten arch install is fantastic. The btrfs layout, with encryption, really nice experience and end result.
archinstall is actually good now though I've used it
NixOS is the new Arch.. (cat, meet pigeons) Unfortunately It doesn't have as much basic training as Arch did (which archinstall obviates, not that I think this is a bad thing, it's time is here), which did so much to improve community. Unfortunately NixOS's doco is woeful, while ArchWiki is gold standard.
I say this as an ex Arch type who moved to Fedora, now ublue-kinoite, waiting for Nix to mature enough to daily (although I do have a T440p with 3 boot drives not doing much, hmm)...
NixOS is the new Arch..
Yeah nah, arch has an actual use case for normal users - it's just the same old Linux with the most recent packages.
Nix and guix simply don't work as distros for regular people. They're made for scientific and corporate applications. They add a huge amount of complexity in order to solve problems you don't have.
Nixos is like rust: hyped into the stratosphere by people who don't use it
I say this as an ex Arch type who moved to Fedora, now ublue-kinoite, waiting for Nix to mature enough to daily
I'm running guix in fedora as a PM. You get most of the benefits, and can still use other PM's like npm without crying for a week first. Although imo guix works better in that scenario since you can just "guix install X" and then use X like any other binary.