On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

On 21/09/12 18:03, Jan Litwiński wrote:

...

When will Arch have more friendly installation program like Ubuntu, Fedora, or opwnSUSE. I installed Arch some years ago and it was very difficult for me.

Ha ha ha... best troll ever!

LOL! xD Arch's installation is trivial, just hold the Installation Guide and the Beginner's Guide hands -like myself did long time ago- and enjoy the ride! Installation Guide: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_Guide Beginner's Guide: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners'_Guide If everything else fails you can just try Manjaro Linux or any other of the Arch Linux-based distros, most of them listed here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Based_Distributions In the end keep in mind @Lukas advice: Arch isn't really meant to be used in a "canned" way.

Please, please /please/ don't recommend spin-offs as "Arch Lite" or "Arch Made Easy" or anything like that. Neither Manjaro nor Chakra are closely related to Arch, and giving folks the impression that they are just leads them to ask for help on our forums--where they get the brush-off--and everyone ends up unhappy. It's enough to mention that Arch doesn't offer what the OP wants. On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Frederic Bezies <fredbezies@gmail.com>wrote:

On 21/09/2012 10:03, Jan Litwiński wrote:

...

When will Arch have more friendly installation program like Ubuntu, Fedora, or opwnSUSE. I installed Arch some years ago and it was very difficult for me.

If you're looking for a more simpler installation program, check manjaro linux - http://www.manjaro.org/ or Chakra Linux - http://www.chakra-project.org/

-- Frederic Bezies - fredbezies@gmail.com Blog : http://frederic.bezies.free.**fr/blog/<http://frederic.bezies.free.fr/blog/>

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Martín Cigorraga <msx@archlinux.us> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Bigby James <anoknusa@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Please, please /please/ don't recommend spin-offs as "Arch Lite" or "Arch Made Easy" or anything like that. Neither Manjaro nor Chakra are closely related to Arch, and giving folks the impression that they are just leads them to ask for help on our forums--where they get the brush-off--and everyone ends up unhappy. It's enough to mention that Arch doesn't offer what the OP wants.

+1

[OT] @Ralf: from all the canned distros installers I've seen so far Ubuntu's is the best, far superior to the rest (including Win and MacOS) and certainly fairly ease to use; however I agree with you that Anaconda sucks (hard) and that all these graphical installers (including Ubuntu's Ubiquity) are targeted almost exclusively to non-technical people (openSUSE's installer may be an exception here) leaving us out. Looking on the bright side, the vast majority of this installers let you have a fully functional system in no time, varying from 15 minutes or less (like Ubuntu) ~35' (like Windoze). Cheers!

There seems to be quite a lot of fuss about the installer - however I have installed arch on a laptop two days ago that was running a non-arch distro until then - I have to say that once I had done the necessary reading so that I was happy I could go through the steps needed the entire initial install only took me a short time. I did all the partitioning ahead of time using a usbkey with PartedMagic on it so that I would not need to do any partitioning during the arch install. Even with going slowly and typing all the commands manually once the usbkey with the 9-7 arch iso booted, it took me less than an hour to install the basic system (base and base devel). I suppose I cheated with the main set of packages because I took another machine already running arch and using some scripting plus a bit of manual editing created a script to install the remaining packages after rsyncing all the files in /var/cache/pacman/pkg/ to the newly installed system (to save downloading from the outside wan) - then ran the script I had created to install everything else. Another hour and a half later I had the system with the package set I wanted and then switched over from runlevel 3 to runlevel 5 and had a kde login working. This evening I spent about a quarter of an hour to change over to systemd from initscripts (again I have already researched this and done it on two other machines) - some additional time is necessary to configure services (such as postfix, dovecot, chrony, named, iptables, etc). But this would be the case for any system and is outside the basic install. So all in all this seems to me very much in the spirit of "The Arch Way" and was not too much of a learning curve. Yes for someone inexperienced in using linux this would take a whole lot longer. However I believe that it was useful going through the process of doing an install manually - and there is enough information on the arch wiki to provide everything I needed to get the system up and running - which is I believe what many others are likely to be doing as well? I guess it is actually not too difficult to set up scripts to do an install configured to personal taste - but having a more general script written to cover everyone's individual myriad of possible install configurations may be quite a big task to both write and maintain? -- mike c

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:54:21 +0530, mike cloaked <mike.cloaked@gmail.com> wrote:

... So all in all this seems to me very much in the spirit of "The Arch Way" and was not too much of a learning curve. Yes for someone inexperienced in using linux this would take a whole lot longer.

However I believe that it was useful going through the process of doing an install manually - and there is enough information on the arch wiki to provide everything I needed to get the system up and running - which is I believe what many others are likely to be doing as well? ...

i'm very new to arch and have installed it only twice: once via the aif script (if that's the name), and once without. yes, the first time went a bit faster, since the install script took some decisions for me that otherwise i would have had to research, but very soon afterwards i had to read up on all those things anyway. the second time around didn't take that much longer (since i was a little familiar with arch by then), but if my first time had been without the script, it would have taken a bit longer. IMO that's a good thing though. as far as i understand, arch isn't meant for complete linux newbees, or people who just want to use the distro, without understanding hardly anything about how it works. i've been using openSUSE earlier, and to me it appears they (oS) are trying too much for a compromise: suitable for all types of users, geeks as well as those without any technical inclination or understanding. this leads to a lot of unnecessary complexity, for both types of users. i don't believe every linux user should be forced to become a 'geek' -- but there's plenty of distros that focus on the non-geek market already. they're much further away from the 'bleeding edge,' but for somebody w/o technical interest or inclination, that shouldn't matter too much. on the other hand, arch is the first distro i experience that's pretty darn close to current development, while delivering a very stable system for only a little bit investment of time & energy to understand how things work. i don't have any vote or voice in this, but i'm perfectly happy with the way arch is right now, with or without a rudimentary install script. for those who just want to use their system, there's other distros, or arch derived ones that (are supposed to) make life easier. (no idea if or how that works.) openSUSE would be a good choice for those who find arch too demanding, since it allows one to run a standard (non-bleeding-edge) system without knowing much, or, after getting used to it, add other repositories from OBS (open build service) to spice things up. for those who are sure they want to undertand at least the basics and take some trouble to get more up-to-date programs & libraries, arch makes life easier by purposely not providing all the hand-holding that others are famous for. -- phani.

On 09/27/2012 11:23 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

Having done a few installs with the new system I can confirm this, and I must say do like it and prefer it over the previous 'automatic' installer. It's much more open and you know exactly what's happening. It may scare off some novices, but otoh if they 'bite the bullet' they will learn a lot. Ciao,

It really shouldn't scare off anyone. If you have access to the beginner's guide (and no deficits in reading comprehension), the installation is a no-brainer. Philipp

One thing I like about the current arch install methodology is that it's incremental. If you don't have time to finish the install in one sitting all you need do is remember which step last completed then start up the computer and carry on from there at some later time. Since alternatives exist for boot loaders if one doesn't work you can go and try another and when that works and everything else has worked before that in the install process you're good to go. A single install program might get the intelligence to try to install multiple boot loaders to find out which ones will work and which won't, but I've never encountered any single install program that did that as a routine matter yet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- jude <jdashiel@shellworld.net> Adobe fiend for failing to Flash

Dnia piątek, 21 września 2012 10:26:38 Lukas Jirkovsky pisze:

On 21 September 2012 10:03, Jan Litwiński <jlitwinski@vp.pl> wrote:

...

When will Arch have more friendly installation program like Ubuntu, Fedora, or opwnSUSE. I installed Arch some years ago and it was very difficult for me.

I guess Arch is probably not the right distro for you.

I installed once :) -- Jan Litwiński http://netsjanek.blogspot.com/ Linux is like a wigwam no gates no windows but apache inside

Dnia piątek, 21 września 2012 10:59:25 SanskritFritz pisze:

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jan Litwiński <jlitwinski@vp.pl> wrote:

...

Dnia piątek, 21 września 2012 10:26:38 Lukas Jirkovsky pisze:

...

On 21 September 2012 10:03, Jan Litwiński <jlitwinski@vp.pl> wrote:

...

When will Arch have more friendly installation program like Ubuntu, Fedora, or opwnSUSE. I installed Arch some years ago and it was very difficult for me.

I guess Arch is probably not the right distro for you.

I installed once :)

Great, you don't have to care about installations anymore, one is enough :)

it was not as hard on my desktop computer, but now I have laptop, I don't know if I can configure system -- Jan Litwiński http://netsjanek.blogspot.com/ Linux is like a wigwam no gates no windows but apache inside