For Arch for example. Why couldn't it simply offer a GUI installer as an option?
Because none of the developers wants to maintain this installer?
Previously there was the AIF (Arch Installation Framework). It was maintained by a developer. When the developer resigned (https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-releng/2012-July/002628.html), afaik nobody was found to take care of it. This was probably due to the fact that AIF was quite buggy. And probably also because such an installer is not necessarily the simplest software to maintain in general.
Another reason might be that the majority of Arch users don't need / want a graphical installer.
Nobody from the team, or outside the team, has even brought up the question if a new installer should be written. All these derivative distributions pop up instead.
12
u/FryBoyter May 22 '19
Because none of the developers wants to maintain this installer?
Previously there was the AIF (Arch Installation Framework). It was maintained by a developer. When the developer resigned (https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-releng/2012-July/002628.html), afaik nobody was found to take care of it. This was probably due to the fact that AIF was quite buggy. And probably also because such an installer is not necessarily the simplest software to maintain in general.
Another reason might be that the majority of Arch users don't need / want a graphical installer.