Why Arch has the reputation to be hard to install? You only need to follow the wiki. Or did I miss something?

Why Arch has the reputation to be hard to install? You only need to follow the wiki. Or did I miss something?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5ze0DjYv5DbCv9vNEzFmP6sU7ZmkGzcf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because it's harder to do than other distros obviously.

Some people can't figure out how to properly install a DE

In the defence of those people, the wiki was recently updated to remove much of the useful outline from the beginners guide. It's harder than it used to be.

Because people who use Arch have to make it seem like that in itself is a crowning achievement.

Arch is easy to install.
>partition your drive
>mount
>get core packages
>install bootloader
>configure

why would they do this? do they not want more people using their distro?

Why should I bother with all that when I can grab a minimal ISO of any other distribution and just press enter several times?

Linux noob here.
Hardest step to overcome was drive partitioning, cfdisk made it easy mode. Got confused at setting hostname, instructions were unclear. And couldn't quite figure out how to get a desktop environment installed.

6/10 would continue using Ubuntu again.

Only relatively hard, but not actual hard. Its hard to maintain tho.

Because if you did that, you wouldn't be part of the internet secret club of hackers that is the arch community.

>And couldn't quite figure out how to get a desktop environment installed
you got through partitioning but typing in sudo pacman -S was too much for you?

You mean... I wouldn't get (You)s in screenfetch and desktop threads on Sup Forums?!

I recently tried to plug in my laptop to my TV so I can watch movies on bigger screen. Nothing happened when I plugged in the cable so I started to change display drivers and google some commands and packages I might need. I ended up fucking up my X with that which didn't get fixed by uninstalling everything I had done.

I tried to fix X for a while but then I gave up and reinstalled. This time I tried Ubuntu out of curiosity and it was able to connect to my TV out of the box.

I guess I was never really the target audience for Arch.

most of Sup Forums is weeb niggers and we all know niggers can't read.

Something like that.

I'd completed installing Arch, had my fun, and lost interest.

>Arch is easy to install.
>>partition your drive
>>mount
>>get core packages
>>install bootloader
>>configure

That is verses clicking a few buttons on a gui.
Remember, people are stupid

Yes. Only the hacker known as Arch Linux can create and post in these threads, creating an atmosphere of superiority.

Most of niggers are Sup Forums niggers and all we weeb can't know read

...

What is Gentoo?

>sudo pacman -Syu gnome gnome-extra
>sudo pacman -Syu xfce4 xfc4-goodies
Every DE has a group package that you can install easily.

You did it wrong, for some reason your broken piece of shit computer worked with ethernet or wifi and you were able to install. Most of the time no hardware works out of the box, you need to get some script running so that your keyboard works even when it works fine in BIOS and other shit.

The internet is never supposed to work, neither with ethernet or wifi.

>sudo pacman -Syu xfce4 xfc4-goodies
Patrician's choice.

That's bullshit.
I even used a 3G USB modem, and it worked during installation!
It stopped working once I installed everything, but I figured out how to fix it.

I didn't say I use it.
I'm an i3wm guy myself.

It almost never works and there are never any real help in the wiki for 99.9% of the arch problems you meet.

The mere fact that you need to follow a wiki to install it suggests it is extremely unintuitive for the average person. You already answered your own question.

I3wm for life.
Sure it takes some time to set up but it's unbeatable after that.

Arch is not supposed to be installed manually. Run a script and go drink some tea.

right. people who install Arch tend to fall in one of two categories

already seasoned linux users who want to build an OS from ground up for shits n' giggles

Sup Forums weebs following youtube intallation guides to fish for (you)s in desktop threads

True.
I just watched these videos and then read the documentation and I set it up nicely.
>youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5ze0DjYv5DbCv9vNEzFmP6sU7ZmkGzcf

>Arch
>build an OS from ground up
Don't be that guy, user.

You don't.
>ctrl+alt+f2
>less install.txt

I don't know why people think that you have to build Arch from the ground up
They have binary packages, all you need is to install them!

Where is the install.txt file located?

Whatever directory you start in when you log into another TTY

cd /
ls -R

or better yet: find / -type f -name 'install.txt'

I think the stupid ones here are those who go for Arch

There is only one requirement to be able to install Arch, not being afraid of text.
It has nothing to do with intelligence.

lol no. Arch is a secret distro for elitists and hackers

true.
linux = lot to learn, not hard to learn.

Antegros is better IMO, I keep a minimal iso on a USB incase I somehow fuck up my arch.

kek

People are lazy. And sometimes dumb. Just watched 3 in my work trying to install Arch and just fucked up because they always get partitions and options configured automatically or with help of GUI installer.

ive installed arch 50 times at least, it is monotonous, would take at least an hour even after all this experience and you cannot ever really leave to go do something else, have to baby it. i finally started making my own collection of bash scripts to deal with everything i do semiautomatically but in the end its still a pain in the ass and i wouldn't ever recommend it. i think the wiki itself is too openended, they list too many options, just in case you wanted to use systemd to turn on wifi instead of the small cli gui utility which is as easy as typing in wifi-menu. i think since you would very likely be performing the same steps in the same order every time, there should instead be a script that installs it all for you with user input like every other "server" options, from ubuntu server to alpine linux to freebsd. there is no reason it needs to be such a pain in the ass just for "simplicity"

you need some implicit knowledge of how the linux desktop works

few or none of the individual steps, as simple as the Arch scripts make them, would make any sense to a new user

Been using arch for a while and I can't figure out how to expand my systems storage but turning a partition into /data. The wiki is for elitists that don't like explaining things in a simple but concise manner and expect the user to know every Linux jargon in existence.

>what is Gentoo?
Nothing but a meme.

>ive installed arch 50 times at least,
>would take at least an hour

>it takes an hour to partition, mount, and download packages even with the experience of having installed Arch 50 times
Unless you have some of the worst internet in the world (in which case, yes, you could leave and go do something else), then you need to get a grip.
It is literally, and I mean literally, no different to installing a new disk and moving some data to it. Does that take you an hour, disregarding file sizes?

maybe you just don't know how much time you actually spend. even downloading at 50 Mbps the entire process will still take upward to an hour give or take 20 minutes. regardless no matter how much faster you can install anything comparable faster other than gentoo

Ten minutes at 50Mbps
Check your mirrorlist, nigger

>maybe you just don't know how much time you actually spend.
Maybe if you're constantly flipping back and forth between the wiki and your installation, then maybe. Definitely if you don't know what you want from your installation.
But if you have good speeds, know the basic Linux commands used, the partitioning software, and you know ahead of time how you are going to slice up your disks, what you want from your bootloader etc., you can be in your new installation within 30 minutes easily.

I spent more time on my last openSuse installation than I did my last Arch installation, and that was installing from DVD.

...

virtualbox record it niggers, with all the software you use on your finished machines, i dont believe you, speed run it

It's not hard, just time consuming. Haven't got time, too busy shitposting. Manjaro is a good way to do Arch IMHO, YMMV etc.

lol, no
Why don't you speed run it? See how fast you can get it done, then you can see for yourself.

How the hell writing sudo pacman -Syu from time to time translates to hard to maintain?

if you don't know how to use a shell and don't want to learn just don't use it. It takes literally 1 shell command to do what you said

not him, xrandr would accomplish what he is talking about sure. but how is that preferable to plugging it in and automatically working? what are you trying to say

>It takes literally 1 shell command to do what you said

>all that clackety-clackin' when I can be clickety-clickin'

people are idiots user.

Arch wiki helped me solve problems that weren't even related to linux. If you cant find help there odds ae you wont find it anywhere else.

> I'll bite
Because no GUI, you have to manually set a GUI and this can go wrong if you haven't a clue wtf you are doing (ie. not setting GUI to boot with machine)
>also most fags come to Sup Forums using windows
>see "meh arch is best use arch, Ubuntu babies first OS"
> attempt arch install with no linux experience
> tfw how the fuck do i internet
> tfw exception thrown not sure how to trouble shoot
> gets OS installed after 4 hours WTF user only got a command line interface
> installs Ubuntu
> learns bash, Linux extra
> can now install arch, no hassle
> its a meme

Don't know about hard to maintain but again time consuming. It's when they make changes you have to know about so end up reading a textwall about what to do now they've switched to some new init system or whatever.

Yes, but then once you do

> pacman -S gdm

Everything goes to shit. Suddenly black screens after boot and freezes

you dont need to have a service in the background checking if there is a monitor connected the entire time if most people only use it once a year and if you use it frequently you can automate it too.
Its a matter of control and debloat. Your OS should do what you tell it to do and not try to guess what you might want and fail miserably most of the time, like windows updating, defraging and restarting when you don't want it to.

Arch devs don't give a flying fuck about keeping the system running so long as it's bleeding edge

>delete sysvinit and drop in systemd(isease) with no migration script
>delete /lib (and its contents too lmao) because fuck you this is a symlink now

I could go through on but I'll spare you archfags the misery

If I had a dollar for every time Windows Update breaks remote desktop, I would be Bill Gates

because there's no reason for the extra steps except sperg credit

The symlinks bothered me for a little while too, but there's no reason you can't just unlink and make your own directories in their place.

Something like that hasn't happened in years. But i guess that's the price to pay for a rolling release distro.
But don't forget you have to do that too every time you upgrade the OS in a stable distro.

I never have to read a bunch of stuff to learn how it's going to fuck my system over if I don't read through it all and take whatever actions it's warning me about. I just click "upgrade" and then go and have a wank for half an hour.

>You only need to follow the wiki

You apparently cannot even imagine how hard "follow the fucking written instructions" is for the everyday retard.
Because it is.

It's a way to filter people who lack basic reading comprehension. That includes most of the Sup Forums audience.

if arch gave me anything, it was a moderate amount of patience and discipline. because of it i learned to read everything thoroughly instead of skimming. reading a book is not the same as reading a manual

This is the mentality why linux is a failed os

>If you cant find help there odds ae you wont find it anywhere else.

Like most problems on Arch, which is why it's a popular tech support simulator. Breaks all the time and demands superior skills to keep running

Because people are fucking retarded.

I do this all the time, literally just use xrandr to switch the output to HDMI or whatever the shit you plug in, it's that easy you could even write a bash script to do it for you if you do it often.

Then you can just use pavucontrol to switch audio output to HDMI too and you're ready to go.

>failed os
>everything important runs it
>dominates the mobile market

Most people would never even attempt to install Windows, let alone Linux.
They just use what ever comes pre-installed on the computer until it becomes too infected with malware function properly which is the main reason Linux never gained a large share of the PC market.

I use i3 on top of XFCE4. How can I get it better? I like the built-in tools and the gui login, but nothing more.

>gui
not using i3? its 2016 user, tiled window managers are more productive and easier to use

No
Gentoo, Alpine and LFS are hard
Arch is only hard from the perspective of cli babbies

Most people that complain about installing Arch haven't even tried it.

[/fact

How is Gentoo installation hard?

I haven't tried the other two you mentioned but Gentoo was more of the same, following the handbook.

This has to have been one of the most idiotic moves I've seen all year. Why would they possibly do this? They claim it was to reduce redundancy and encourage users to actually read the wiki.
However, one article tying some other articles together in a more presentable and easy to read manner is not redundancy. I'm not sure that they understand Arch Linux is one of the first distros of its kind (namely, one which relies more heavily on the command line, particularly with installation) that a user will try out.
Moreover, my experience with Arch has been "learn about X as I need to." There are many reasons to use Arch, and sometimes one simply does not have the time nor energy to try and understand some general article from which only a few sentences of information are actually relevant to that use. Many other users have the same experience, and Arch itself had already positioned itself in the community as that type of distro, so for them to now come out and refuse that role is very agitating.
"Well then maybe Arch isn't for you."
This response is predicated on an incorrect idea of what Arch has been. They should embrace their role in the community rather than push some alien ideal of who an Arch user should be. I'm all for "RTFM" but they just deleted their install manual in favor of a mere assortment of references.

Calm your tits, the installation guide is perfectly okay for beginners.

Having two installation guides was confusing, and now the information is just a little more spread out over other pages following a more wiki-like structure... It's not about elitism, it's not about anything other than organizing information.

>"learn about X as I need to."
The ONLY thing anyone has to learn about Arch is how to use its package manager. Everything else is not about Arch but about the software it ships.
X11 problems? It's X11's fault, not Arch's
Audio problems? alsa's/pulse's fault
Wifi problems? Kernel's fault
Can't configure program X? Then program X is not intuitive enough for you.

It's NOT Arch's fault.

The wiki has TOO MUCH information regarding every package, every software it has, how to configure them, how to deal with common problems they have. Arch has the best source of knowledge out of all distros, people just like to whine with their mouths full.

>"Well then maybe Arch isn't for you."
Who said this?? Arch isn't elitist, Arch isn't secret club, it helps you learn how to use everything, it holds your hand as you go.
It's just different than other operating systems in that it doesn't have an installer, this triggers the baby duck syndrome in people and they make Arch look like some sort of dark villain, it's not.

To answer this question you need to put each variation of how you could install it into a number of minutes of effort. "Minutes of effort" meaning looking something up or typing, and not idling.

Absolute noob with no linux experience: 1200 minutes
First timer with previous linux experience: 600 minutes ('TISM ALERT!!!!!!)
Second timer: 200 minutes
Hardcore supersperg that knows it by heart: "15 minutes"

Meanwhile Ubuntu is always 0 minutes, no matter how noob or experienced you are. ('TISM^2)

Every benchmark always shows that the "performance gain" is less than the average statistical difference of 5%. Why would you waste exponentially more time to get nothing? The reason is because you are a snowflake just trying to be different and don't really care about linux and because of the autism encouragement culture of what happens when turbospergs meet online; they want to out-turbosperg each other. It also is convenient that if you want to be different, your time is instantly worthless. Unemployables cannot get their head wrapped around this idea of 15 minutes, 0 minutes, 600 minutes, 1200 minutes, or 1.5 million minutes because they have nowhere to be and nothing to do because they have been, are, and always will be losers.

Take the above and apply it to every microcosm of this or any dropout distro and you'll see the same thing: "I don't understand why you say the package manager sucks because it doesn't matter if it takes 4 days for me to read all the mailing list notes about everything breaking and then selectively not choosing packages to upgrade (thereby defeating the point of a package manager in the first place) because 4 days for me is the same as 30 minutes and is also the same as 400 days."

This is why I call autism distros time machines - they teach you to make time worthless because it's the only way you can deal with being a loser for 80% of your time. Death solves all problems and in this case it's an early form of it.

>1200 minutes
>600 minutes
>200 minutes
You must be kidding right?

>to get nothing?
What about you get to learn how to partition you drive, use pacman, change some basic configuration and reboot????
Do you seriously not know how to do those and are not willing to learn?

If you don't know how to play a guitar and are not willing to learn do not expect to be playing it anytime soon...

I'm sorry but you seem to have confused the unit of measurement of time called minutes with the one called seconds.
And no one chooses an OS cause muh benchmark performance.

>The installation guide is perfectly okay for beginners.
>The wiki has TOO MUCH information.
These two are contradictory - the installation guide is just a bunch of links to other articles. The one that got removed was the better installation guide.

>It is NOT Arch's fault.
Yes, unaffiliated software problems are not their fault and I made no claim to the contrary. I did say that linking to general articles on a topic/software is not a guide; it greatly extends the learning process beyond what is necessary.

>Perhaps people just like to whine with their mouths full.
I will complain if I ask for a needle and I'm given a haystack, especially if needles were freely available in the past.

>Who said this? Arch isn't elitist, Arch isn't a secret club.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the Arch community. A significant portion of it does exhibit an elitist/"secret club" mentality. As for actual examples of who said this, try finding threads/forum topics with users complaining about the removal of the "Beginner's" install guide.

>Having two installation guides was confusing.
Was it? One was clearly labeled "Beginner's" and the other was much, much shorter, inplying that it was for more advanced users. It was confusing for no one.

arch-anywhere works

i take it you downloaded the arch iso on your iphone and couldn't find the "install it for me" microtransaction button
holy fuck

how often do you guys install a new OS? damn, what does it matter if it takes you a while to figure it out

I do know how to partition a drive, use a package manager, and do configs, but these have all been automated since 2003 and I don't have to anymore.

Yes they instead psuedo-choose it instead because of how hard on purpose it is to impress other internet losers.

because my time has value I am automatically a smartphone user... okay. There's a difference between dumbing things down, and shit that nobody ever wanted to do. You cannot tell this difference because your time fits my model of there being no difference between 1 and 1 million minutes, same for anyone into any dropout distro.

Because hard does not necessarily equate to complex. How is this hard stand.

>but these have all been automated since 2003 and I don't have to anymore.
Okay, so you're lazy, and that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to install Arch. You can use the Arch installers that are out there or you can pick a distro full of automated stuff that will better suit you.

But for the people out there that are not lazy, Arch is good. Some of them actually like that its installation is not automated.

Automation doesn't mean you're lazy, no matter how much your IRC loser culture dictates it does. See: every business that uses linux. Ubuntu, debian, fedora, rhel. not much else. Linux "maintenance" is indeed a 00s thing, except for dropout distros that insist they're superior for staying shit on purpose. Putting "Able to rice obscure tilingwm in 30 minutes flat" on your CV isn't going to get you anywhere because irc channels are not hiring.

Arch installers are one of the funniest most quantum bullshit things there are out there, if you're going to use one, why not just go for a proper distro instead? And if you're not, then all of the internet spergs you're trying to impress will put you right with the "ubloatu noobs" crowd anyway. Most arch turds insist that any installer or sub distro of it that automates it is just as bad as ubuntu or worse because it's enabling other people to think they belong together. This isn't really about technology, it's contrarianism first and computers second.

>some like
Some people like being unemployable that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

The first half of the installation was relatively easy until I got to the bootloader configuration on my Thinkpad X220. I heard the BIOS only read certain-named .efi files, so I went through that process. The shit didn't boot. At this point I ended up sinking like 2+ hours on the installation and thought "fuck this time-sink OS". Took way too much fucking effort in my case, then I just gave up and installed Debian testing in the end.

The entire time I spent trying to configure Arch I realized I would have had my window manager, web browser, text editor and shit installed on Debian testing-sid, with the same amount of "bleed-edge" and "lightweight resources".

I wanted to be open-minded and ignore the criticisms for Arch and its installer and try it myself. I'll also be honest and say I also did it for the e-peen.

Overall, Arch is an unnecessary distro unless you have a fuckton of free time, hence the neckbeard meme.