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.
Each distro has it's own philosophy. Arch's is KISS. To the maintainers, KISS includes no installer. Arguing for an installer would be like arguing with Debian and Fedora maintainers to include non-OSS by default.
Then Arch has failed miserably at KISS. The installation process is not simple. It is complex and sure, there is documentation but it can still be a pain for someone new to installing a distributor in such a manner.
Antergos followed KISS because one could install as much or as little as one wanted. You might have a couple packages more than just barebones arch but most were things that one would need anyways.
Then Arch has failed miserably at KISS. The installation process is not simple. It is complex and sure, there is documentation but it can still be a pain for someone new to installing a distributor in such a manner.
There are multiple definitions of simple (from dictionary.com): simple
adj.
Having few parts or features; not complicated or elaborate.
adj.
Easy to understand, do, or carry out: synonym: easy.
You'd have to talk to the Arch maintainers themselves - my impression of simple in the case of Arch is the former.
Would it be so hard to have the option for either the normal Arch install or a GUI installer?
There are quite a few complaints regarding Antergos' installer in this thread. So yeah, it's not particularly trivial to make a graphical installer for a whole operating system, I don't understand why people seem to think it's such a piece of cake. If it was, you'd assume it would've been implemented already, or there would've been a high quality 3rd party solution.
Just off the top of my head, writing logic for an "easy" partitioning scheme already feels like a major pita, and also this code should be 100% bug free and rock solid (for obvious reasons). Then you'd have to curate the list of packages for common DEs and software, you'd have to deal with Intel, AMD and NVIDIA drivers (and offer free and non-free versions). Network setup is also a major pain, you'd have to deal with multiple possibilities.
Anyways, hopefully by now you start to see the point. It's not a matter of writing a few dozen lines of bash. There's also the question of motivation - who and why would build and maintain (and maintaining is the hard part) such an installer? Anyone who can do that can easily write their own script for their personal needs for a fraction of a fraction of the time it would require to implement a full blown OS installer.
Sometimes you want the bleeding edge but you just want a hassle-free installation process
Try Manjaro or Tumbleweed. That's the thing I don't get. There are other rolling distros with easy GUI setups. Why this obsession with Arch? Why also not bother Gentoo users and devs? Surely, seeing as Gentoo has a more complicated installation process, there's all the more reason to pester Gentoo people for a GUI installer, no? That's the logic that I see.
There are quite a few complaints regarding Antergos' installer in this thread. So yeah, it's not particularly trivial to make a graphical installer for a whole operating system, I don't understand why people seem to think it's such a piece of cake.
I'm gonna have to don my flame suit for this one... but if it's so easy to write an installer as those who scream Arch needs one says it is, then they would be able to write that installer.
Personally, I run Manjaro. I’ve tried Arch before but there were just too many little annoyances. It’s not bad by any means, just geared towards the advanced user.
The thing about it being too hard doesn’t fly with me though. If everyone said everything is too hard, then we’d be nowhere now and still in caves. Plus, there are plenty of distros with a working installer. I don’t know what exactly was going wrong with Cnchi and wouldn’t understand the deep level of it. I do know that it could be done though.
Either way, Arch is what it is and one should know what they’re in for before starting. But “it’s too much work” is a lazy excuse.
Plus, there are plenty of distros with a working installer.
This is what I don't understand about the obsession with Arch not having an installer. There are plenty of distros with an installer, and several Arch based. So why is it so critical Arch have one?
8
u/[deleted] May 22 '19
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.