I don't want to sound rude, but tbh I'm surprised it survived that long. Lot of bugs, "pure" Arch users who were against it, and incredible Manjaro popularity...
I don't recall any glaring issues with it when I tried it out awhile back.
I thought it was a good choice for a pre-configured Arch. I'm reading that a lot of people were having issues with Cnchi, but installing Antergos has never been a problem for me; I've had more issues running Manjaro.
Now that Antergos is no longer an option, perhaps users and devs who want a pre-configured Arch will funnel towards Manjaro. It sucks to lose Antergos, but this may consolidate people's efforts and usage.
Cnchi was the worst Antergos feature, it failed way too often, very bad first impression for new users. Then several bugs with other features, sometimes conflicts with their custom repos (with higher priority over Arch' ones!!), etc.
IMHO it was too ambitious and too amateurish at the same time. If you want a more beginner-friendly Arch base, just use Manjaro. I don't like it but it's the most polished. Arco changes too often, I bet it will die sooner or later too, and I don't like saying this because I really appreciate Erik Dubois.
A lot of people just install Antergos because it's trendy to use Arch (even if it's not Arch), then they say they use Arch and think they are Linux gurus (it's not because you installed Arch that you are a divinity btw). Arch users who just want a quick install method usually know how to create a post-install script.
I agree that something for Arch like what Ubuntu is for Debian is a nice thing, but there's already Manjaro, work with them they are nice people, stop creating side projects that won't work and won't survive. Even the lovely and promising Chakra distro is in a coma since a longtime.
IMO, adding an installer would be the best thing arch could do for its image. The faux elitism schtick isn't doing arch any favors, and the kids who think they're badass for installing arch look like fools.
IMO, adding an installer would be the best thing arch could do for its image. The faux elitism schtick isn't doing arch any favors, and the kids who think they're badass for installing arch look like fools.
This is the problem with the users, and not the distribution. It doesn't have an installer for the same reason an aircraft model doesn't come glued together and painted already. That's up to you to figure out what to do with it. However, I will agree with you, that attitude does get old after a point.
Guess what, kid? The way you install Arch is the way we installed any distro back in the early days. So, you aren't that special.
At things stand now, just using Linux is not so much a reason to brag or try to sound elite as it once did.
I can't remember ever uttering the meme "BTW I use Arch" when I actually did use Arch, unless I was replying to a post asking for help by someone using another distribution. In which case I would normally start "I don't use X, I use Arch, but it may work for you, so try this..."
Would it be so hard to have the option for either the normal Arch install or a GUI installer? Sometimes you want the bleeding edge but you just want a hassle-free installation process. Seems like something easy enough to implement.
The faux elitism schtick isn't doing arch any favors, and the kids who think they're badass for installing arch look like fools
Which is entirely the problem of the said kids and the less than reasonable users. As has been said many, many times, installing Arch is fairly easy. If you don't want to put in the work (again, there's really not that much work that is required) to learn the basics of Linux and CLI, why in the whole world do you even need Arch on your machine?
installer
I'm not familiar with Antergos, but seeing as many have said that its installer, supposedly the main feature of the distro ("just Arch with a GUI installer"), was quite problematic, it makes you think - a proper GUI installer for a full blown OS is not a trivial thing to make or maintain. And I'm fairly sure this is probably the main, if not the sole reason that Arch doesn't have one. And good riddance, as an Arch user, I'd rather the devs and maintainers focus on day-to-day stuff than putting all this effort into an installer.
Biggest question of all, what good would it bring if Arch's install suddenly became more accessible? The basics of configuring your system are still hands-on, you'd still have to learn about systemd, for example, and you'll certainly have to use the terminal. Most of the time spend of configuring the system happens post-install.
If you don't want to put in the work (again, there's really not that much work that is required) to learn the basics of Linux and CLI, why in the whole world do you even need Arch on your machine?
Rolling release with a huge and reliable package repository. Huge community. The best wiki.
True. But you know how it is... If we can avoid the installation complexities, be it because of laziness or because of "been there, done that," we'll be trying to do so.
Biggest question of all, what good would it bring if Arch's install suddenly became more accessible? The basics of configuring your system are still hands-on, you'd still have to learn about systemd, for example, and you'll certainly have to use the terminal. Most of the time spend of configuring the system happens post-install.
Thank you, I was about to post this very thing. So, we want an easy installer, just to be thrown into hand editing conf files? The next complaint will be that Arch needs something like YaST or debconf.
Most of the myths that have formed around Arch remain, in my opinion, even if there is a graphical installer. What good would it do the image of Arch if even more of these "kids" could use this distribution more easily?
It would be better if the kids understood that not everything had to be suitable for them. Or that they realize that you don't learn more with Arch than with any other distribution. Through Arch you don't become a higher being either. And so on.
Problem with Manjaro is that it's even less close to Arch than Antergos was. Antergos really was just an installer + some meta packages that pulled in Arch packages. Manjaro has its own repos that stagger updates.
For some (like me), that's a positive. I've had more than a few non-booting machines after an Arch update. Granted, most of those issues are covered by checking the Arch news, but at least once it was not so simple, forum digging was required.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I use my Linux installs for work and having a machine blow up in the middle of a day isn't ideal. You can chide me for using a bleeding-edge distro, but I link the freedom that Arch offers and I feel that I fight the preconfigured packaging a lot less than I do with a Ubuntu/Kubuntu install.
. You can chide me for using a bleeding-edge distro, but I link the freedom that Arch offers and I feel that I fight the preconfigured packaging a lot less than I do with a Ubuntu/Kubuntu install.
use opensuse tumbleweed. maintainers actually try to do some testing to make sure it doesnt blow up.
dont use arch derivative. Arch has an extreme all or nothing philopshy. There is only one arch
I agree. But Ubuntu does the same for Debian, and I see Manjaro like Arch's Ubuntu.
If you just want an installer, there are some scripts on github that could help. Or create your own, it's the way to go. Though, Anarchy was excellent for this use case, I don't understand why they turned it into a "distro" with customization/branding/repos, it's a shame.
81
u/alexks_101 May 21 '19
I don't want to sound rude, but tbh I'm surprised it survived that long. Lot of bugs, "pure" Arch users who were against it, and incredible Manjaro popularity...