What happened to the arch installer?

What happened to the arch installer?

Attached: arch_06.png (720x400, 7K)

they are too hacker.

>finally learn how to install arch properly
>write my own personalized guide so I don't forget
>they change it to an easier installer
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

There was an installer?

>arch installer
no no NO NO NO

yeah but nobody wanted to maintain it so they removed it

Why would you want an installer when you can more easily customize your system using a terminal?

>nobody wanted to maintain it
Gee, I wonder why?

Manjaro exists, why would anyone want a basic Arch installer?

Yeah like 6 years ago when I last used arch.

Because the new way takes too long and is too interactive.

niceme.me

so you're saying it broke like an xorg.conf

it takes like 10 minutes to cfdisk, pacstrap, configure the system and install the bootloader

Maybe if you have everything memorized which is a waste of my time in and of itself

there's a guide in /root on the "live" system

debian has both an installer and debootstrap, why doesn't arch

No, Cathy Newman, I'm saying that nobody wanted to maintain it.

I don't remember enough to tell if it was a mess or not, just that no trusted user wanted to update it to add new stuff or fix bugs or anything at all.

Yeah, you're a real busy guy. Video games and Sup Forums shitposting takes a lot out of your schedule. Better just live the Windows lifestyle.

Looking through a guide will make things take longer than 10 minutes

It's not a meme. Arch is founded on KISS. Adding an installer adds unnecessary complexity and abstraction, and doesn't teach the user anything.

>manjangalo loonix gaiz
lol, literally what's wrong with you?

Stop trolling

the arch maintainers are autists

Stop trolling

convenient, when it was founded there was an installer but suddenly when nobody wanted to maintain it that's for KISS

>Arch installer

Attached: brainlettttt.jpg (800x450, 41K)

It worked pretty well. I cut my teeth on Linux when Arch had an installer and a beginner's guide on the wiki. They both had their place and were incredibly valuable to a new user. I don't need them anymore, but for new users' sake it's a shame they were scrapped.

>nobody wanted to maintain it
Yeah, because it's unnecessary and complex.

I disagree. I think that it's important to have some degree of handholding when you're trying to educate people or attract new Linux users. It still took you through the same steps as you currently need to install Arch, so you still learned how that process works, it was just a lot easier for people that had never used the terminal before.

It's an ncurses interface to patch together a bunch of configuration options. It's not unnecessary or complex.

i guess an installer is unnecessary and complex but 30 aur front-ends isn't :^)

>Arch is founded on KISS
why is it using systemd instead of a BSD-style init then?
I think it's more accurate to say that Arch is founded on autistic circlejerking

>BSD-style init
I remember when this was one of archs selling points and then they moved to systemd. lol

It was maintained by this guy who got pissed off about too many changes to the system in a short time. He quit. Years ago.

They didn't want to maintain initscripts anymore, so they went with systemd, which had the full backing of Red Hat. Sysvinit was on its way out and Upstart was shit. They could have went with OpenRC but pretty much only Gentoo uses that. Most of Arch's poor decisions are based on them being lazy or lacking the talent to support better options.

The KISS principle applies to the maintainers, not the users. Basically it means "do things in such way that it results in the least possible work for us".

Systemd is great. Everybody's using it.

It should be an optional script that you can curl or wget from the Archlinux servers.

AUR frontends are community built and not developed by the primary arch maintainers.

>It should be an optional script that you can curl or wget from the Archlinux servers.
It's not like it's a large dependency and it could easily be included as a bootloader options. I.e. Choose between Easy Mode and Autism Mode.

>Autism Mode
That's the whole point of arch. If you want an installer, go with Fedora or Debian.

Or void heh

arch got an installer

>KISS
>unnecessary abstraction

durr contradictions

They want to keep brainlets out. Just look at their forum registration captcha.

Arch was at one point the next logical step in-between Fedora/Ubuntu and Gentoo/LFS. It made for a decent educational appliance for people that had little Linux experience. I don't think stripping down the installer helped that, and saying it's KISS is just an excuse for them because they didn't have anyone to maintain the installer.

>contradictions
No, not really.

Damn, you're fucking retarded.

That leaves out even most of Sup Forums. Which is a good thing.

Attached: DThBVMSVwAASPin.jpg (1000x1333, 151K)

>date -u +%V$(uname)|sha512sum|sed 's/\W//g
So I can only register if I use linux wtf

Well, I think it doesn't really matter, because there are still people who love it and prefer the CLI install. You can get angry about "muh elitism muh circle jerk" all you want but it fills its niche perfectly and there's nothing you can do about it.

You're assuming I'd want to do something about it. I don't use it anymore, so it doesn't matter. Now I've reached the stage of the circle where I'm only using whatever my current employer mainly uses because I'd don't have time for that other shit. But I still think that they went in the wrong direction.

Again, it doesn't matter what you think about them, because there is obviously a demand for what they do. It wouldn't make any sense for them to just make another Fedora or Debian.

>make another Fedora
>adopted systemd
heh

They basically did make a new Fedora. It's just a faggier, less stable, version of installing with febootstrap (or debootstrap if Debian is your thing). And yes, they can continue having their niche, but userbase will shrink over time since they're no longer memeware for new users and there are better options to learn on.

Sadly it was removed. It was nice. However, Arch is so far the only UNIX-like distro that lets me reinstall my system without even changing the partitioning: I just delete anything but /home and reinstall right over it.

Arch is KISS for the lazy developers, not necessarily for the users. A big advantage is shipping software the vanilla way, instead of doing a lot of patching like Debian does, which just complicates things and frustrates everyone in the end. A disadvantage is going with systemd instead of BSD-style or OpenRC.

What? You can do that with any distro. Pretty much all the GUI installers will let you delete partitions and choose an existing partition as a mount point. So you delete everything besides /home, and select the partition you've got /home on as /home. Then click install. Done.

And technically you don't have to delete the partitions either, most will let you just reformat them.

>installing Arch takes about 10 commands
>using Arch requires you to be comfortable with the CLI
>one of the main advantages of Arch is customizability (not Gentoo level, but it's easier than something like Debian)
I don't see why this is surprising

Antergos is an Arch installer

>Arch easier than Debian
What are you smoking?

except in that case /home is a separate partition.

he means easier to customize
not exactly sure why he thinks that though

After I lost all my dotfiles I wanted to chuck my PC through the wall. There's nothing easier about it.

I suppose in that case you could use debootstrap.

This is basically void's installer. It's literally the same as running the commands yourself, but archfags don't like it for some resson. It follows KISS quite well.

>degree of handholding when you're trying to educate people or attract new Linux users
That's not the purpose of arch

It may not be anymore, but it was at one point. At least, that's what popularized it.

Its weird how nobody ever talks about how much arch influenced void

that's what the install.txt file is for
You may need to know about the cat command first.

I get that you weren't around for Arch's prime when they had maintainers that would write their own initscripts and took the care to actually make an installer, but install.txt is nowhere near what the experience was using the wiki's Beginner's Guide and the ncurses installer.

>using cat for anything but concatenating files

This was made in 2016 when they scrapped the beginner's guide.

Attached: 1478433296773.png (3300x6993, 1.54M)

Add in the 20 minutes to read the man page for dmcrypt and LUKS

>not just using anarchy

jesus christ
this just sums up the hilarity of arch faggotry. Even the fucking installer someone went through the pain and suffering of developing broke because of some random xorg.conf update and nobody has ever been able to fix it

there was an installer a few years ago
not my fault that you're too much of a noob to remember

cli autism

>not just using Crux

If you can't install it by simply following the guide there's a big chance that you will break it while using/updating so that's like neccessary complication which does a great job as an introduction to the OS.

archfi script is pretty much the same shit.

...

Weird that they didn't keep it. Void I think lets you go either direction with installing the system. Neither way is really all that difficult, the installer just makes sure you didn't forget to set your locale or whatever.

Or Antergos. It has saner defaults.

installers fail

the only ''hard'' thing which takes time is partitioning which any sane person would skip with gparted
then you only have mount, chroot, pacstrap, configure
not that much to memorize or waste (You)r ''precious'' time

debian's installer also puts the MBR on the install medium

they are still there just not in your face and maybe outdated

>unnecessary complexity and abstraction
You poor shmuk, arch kiss means them doing the least work possible making it easier for them. No one cares about teaching or learning anything.

wrong, that would be gentoo or lfs

I personally HATE assigning partitions in installers. I never know what it's doing or how it works and if what I selected in the GUI is what I wanted it to do. The way Arch is atm is best.

...

yes it is and it does not do retarded things [like starting a network service automatically before you've configured it] like debian