[arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO

Junayeed Ahnaf nirjhor at outlook.com
Mon Jul 24 07:54:02 UTC 2017

I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them 
successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it 
hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with 
wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress.

No need to be so aggressive man.

On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote:
> A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set
> of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which
> can be configured into anything. I'm not going any
> further for you have made yourself clear that you
> haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd
> say *RTFM*.
> PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing
> but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux.
> RW
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO
> From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general
> To: arch-general at archlinux.org
> CC: Junayeed Ahnaf
> All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something
> other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch
> server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional
> desktop? I think it's rather high.
> On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote:
>> On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote:
>>> Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO?
>> Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's
>> ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have
>> a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It
>> has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your
>> given install target.
>>> Isn't it widely accepted as
>>> the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux?
>> No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for
>> network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as
>> the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways,
>> not only for the desktop.
>>> Is there any reason
>>> for it not to be default?
>> The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and
>> less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies.  Also,
>> minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past
>> and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros.
>> Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you
>> might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose
>> your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.

More information about the arch-general mailing list