]]>cfdisk only does GPT (but your should know this already)
and if your doing GPT then what about the EF00/02 partition at the beginning of the drive and are you running a UEFI or BIOS system unless you are going to force people to use syslinux
But I found Syslinux to be a pain an ended up using grub
install Antegros and ready, it's archlinux with a S XXI Installer
Manjaro is a little different, is not as bleeding edge
Wrong. Neither Antegros nor Manjaro is Arch.
]]>Manjaro is a little different, is not as bleeding edge
]]>With that said, I will check it out on for next install.
On a side note there is a "guide" by lifehacker that helped me with my install, it did not fill all The gaps may times I had required to go back to the wiki or search Google for another answer due to the complexity of how my netbook is set up.
All that said....
[edit]
I have reviewed your guide. it is very long winded there are no links to usefull information.
As a guide it is very difficult to follow, I resorted to skimming through it as it is very difficult to keep my attention.
My biggest suggestion is cut back the flavour text, add choices for the user to make. Focus less on using alternative ways to install, and more on getting the installation done.
I for one after using ubuntu have had enough of gnome its [my opinion] thick and following with the reason I went with linux, it just does not have that free, simple touch.
]]>Now as a newcomer to arch, I will admit, I did visit a few various blogs and read some unofficial guides to installing arch. They were quite helpful to me. I tended to get confused (probably due to skim reading) on a few topics, such as configuring /root/ partition encryption to work, gdisk vs fdisk, and xinit vs startx. I got all of them to work, and the wiki articles were helpful in explaining how things worked, but I would say there is room for improvement, especially with /root/ partition encryption. It seemed to me that the answers were spread out across 10 different pages. Could have been me being impatient and skim reading though (nasty habit). But after some more research on these topics, and once I feel qualified, I will likely join in and start editing the wiki, hopefully bringing some additional clarity. I personally just want to be sure before I write things there.
Short version. I don't think there is anything wrong with producing your own guide on how to install arch and putting it on a blog or your own website. But explain in detail in the beginning what following the guide will get you. However; no guide can replace the wiki. It would be hundreds of pages long and near impossible to read. Hyperlinks to other pages is the greatest part of the internet.
edit: none of this is to say I don't like the wiki. I came to arch because every time i searched for the answer to a linux question, it brought me to the wiki. At that point, it made sense to just switch over.
]]>there is a problem with the Arch system and methodology, we need to discuss it
This is the warning, if it doesn't get back into something productive it will be closed.
]]>...the Beginners' Guide typically goes through a cycle; it gets cleaned up and slimmed down and then, as it is editable by anyone, over time it accumulates more and more "helpful" information until it resembles Elvis in his final years, lurching around Graceland with a fried peanut butter sandwich, obese, sweating and incoherent...
This topic started with someone claiming that the BG was "quite daunting" because of its size, and has proceeded to someone suggesting adding even more content. Personally, I think the BG is fat enough already. But that's just my opinion.
]]>But let's take the pacstrap example (it could be any other command with relevant output). If I head to the Beginner's page right now, its output is not there. Now I think I began this discussion with a wrong example. The "problem" isn't the absence of pictures, but the lack of output. I know it is not easy to maintain an output updated, and also it does not represent all the use cases, situations or contexts of an installation. But it clarifies a mind of a beginner (like I said in my last post). A simple sample of it would suffice.
I am not sure if there are *that* many commands worth displaying their outputs, and this is not a big deal, but I still think it is important to display the outputs (with or without images; in this case without, like you observed, since there is only text).
I hope I didn't sound much repetitive.
Edit: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9116?page=0,1
I was talking about something like this link in my post before this one. Look at the images...
For irony's sake I almost typed this post in a text editor, took a photograph of it on my screen, then posted that resulting image instead of my post. But sanity prevailed. This time.
]]>Until today, I don't remember any ArchWiki page with only a single image. Is this a phylosophy I didn't caught?
Yes, this is a philosophy you didn't catch. Images are not allowed in the wiki, for several reasons.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/He … nt_content