Need for step-by-step arch guides?

ravisghosh · 2006-10-25 06:58:56

Hello friends,

I feel that there is one major difference between arch and other popular distros. That is support for newbie... Arch really lacks some step-by-step guides as it is found on popular ubuntu forums. There are a few installation guides, but nothing specifically good for creating a complete home/office desktop. I know that arch has not been developed keeping newbie in mind, but that professional archer was newbie at some point of time when he started with some other distro.. Why not let newbie start from arch itself and learn. It would be great if forum regulars can contribute in creating guides which can later be incorporated in wiki. A few topics for guides which I can think of are as follows:
1. Step-by-step guide for complete home/office desktop with all necessary apps, good enough to replace windows.
2. Step-by-step guide to tune arch and enhance performance for all those who want to extract the last byte.
3. Step-by-step guide to setup firewall and other security issues to create a secure desktop for those security conscious archers.

There might be more such topics...

I hope this kinda approach will make arch more popular (its not always a bad idea to be popular. Is it?) and help pull more users to contribute to the arch idea.

Thanks for reading...

Ravi S Ghosh

chrismortimore · 2006-10-25 07:23:38

I think that beginner-orientated step by step guides are bad. In my experience, people just blindly follow them and don't think about what they are doing, so don't learn.

Moo-Crumpus · 2006-10-25 07:39:02

I think new beginners may learn better having a first step by step guide aside. They will progress soon.

FUBAR · 2006-10-25 07:51:52

How is the Arch Linux 0.7.2 (Gimmick) Installation Guide not a step-by-step guide? A friend of mine who had absolutely no previous Linux experience followed it last year and he's been running Arch successfully ever since. Just recently he even said "if it wasn't for Rome Total War, I'd remove Windows completely". And even though I had to help him from time to time, he's been doing amazingly well.

Mind you, I made it perfectly clear that Arch was going to need its (unexperienced) user to read (and obviously understand) docs, man pages and howtos.

I'm with chrismortimore on this one: no matter how simple / easy the installation manual, people (especially newbies) will screw up simply by misreading and misunderstanding the manual. And then they'll come here to ask for info already in the manual, or worse to complain about how bad (the) Arch (installer) is for not having a sparkling GUI (out of the box).

Offtopic: please loose the caps in your topic title next time.

Moo-Crumpus · 2006-10-25 11:19:48

The Installation guide does not match the points ravisghosh was asking for. Several topics of the stuff he demands can be found in the wiki. Don't get me wrong, it is our own job to complete the wiki.

FUBAR · 2006-10-25 12:08:48

True. It's all in the Wiki and if the steps aren't documented well, nothing stops anyone from enhancing the guides in the Wiki.

Mr.Elendig · 2006-10-25 13:12:00

My take on this is that if you need a setp-by-step guide to set up your desktop, arch may not be the distro for you. That said, I have personaly "guided" a person, compleatly new to gnu/linux trough an arch install/setup.

arch about page wrote:

So, to sum up: Arch Linux is a workhorse distribution designed to fit the needs of the competent linux user. We strive to make it both powerful and easy to manage, making it an ideal distro for servers and workstations. Take it in any direction you like.

Edit: oh, just notet, it shoud say "competent gnu/linux user" instead of just linux user. (atleast in my opinion)

Edit2: If there was a step-by-step guide, maby it shoud be more like a list of links to the other wiki posts, instead of a guide on its own.

Example:
Install arch (link to installguide)
Set up a user (link to usermanagment)
Update system (link to pacman page)
Install xorg (link to xorg7 page)
Install WM/DE (list of links to WM/DE pages)
and so on.

brazzmonkey · 2006-10-25 13:59:36

step by step guides are a good thing. otoh arch is quite simple to set up and run, installation docs seem ok to me, and the wiki is a good resource.
i don't think we need to have docs a la gentoo. wiki should be sufficient as long as it is up-to-date.

Mr.Elendig · 2006-10-25 14:21:46

Personaly, when I used gentoo ( it was one of my first distroes) I didn't realy learn anything other than to copy/past from the doc and into the terminal. Only after switching to slackware and later arch, did I start to realy learn the gnu/linux system, beause they forced me to think about what to do, how to do it, and most important, why to do it.

dedhart · 2006-10-25 14:35:14

Well, I think better documentation is definetly needed if we ever want to attract new users, while Arch may be simple compared to say gentoo I could install gentoo with minimal linux experience just goin off thier excellent handbook. If it werent for my experience w/ gentoo I'm sure my switch to Arch would have been impossible. Someone switching from Suse or Ubuntu would be lost from the get go. Arch is an amazing distro, but without a thorough install guide with references and documentation all compiled in one easy to get to place, the new user will be well baffled before ever completing an install. just my 2 cents.

Dusty · 2006-10-25 15:19:56

The best thing to do is to write or edit a step-by-step guide that you think is suitable and stick it in the wiki. Its not really up to the community to decide if this is necessary, its up to the one user who has the time and motivation to do it. There's really no reason not to do it.

Dusty

rhfrommn · 2006-10-25 15:22:01

I voted No, but certainly not because it is "an intellectual pursuit". I think the documentation provided in the install guide and wiki are good enough. That plus the very good forums where questions are typically answered very quickly and accurately are enough. Arch isn't intended to be a newbie distro, it is meant for people who want to learn Linux and use it at a "power-user" level. There are plenty of other things Arch needs more than newbie documentation in my opinion. More package maintainers, TUs and acitve Wiki contributors all seem more helpful than spending a ton of time writing newbie docs.

midwinter · 2006-10-25 17:41:42

dedhart wrote:

Someone switching from Suse or Ubuntu would be lost from the get go. Arch is an amazing distro, but without a thorough install guide with references and documentation all compiled in one easy to get to place, the new user will be well baffled before ever completing an install. just my 2 cents.

Personally I switched to Arch after a month of Ubuntu and found the install guide to be more than adequate to get going with.

I have actually always been impressed with the wiki and accompanying documentation of Arch and am surprised when people refer to it negatively. Anyway, I voted no as I don't believe it's necessary but if any individual wishes to go ahead and work on this i'm sure no one will stop them.

elasticdog · 2006-10-25 18:40:02

I think this topic has come up before, and one problem with a step-by-step guide is that it does somewhat duplicate the efforts of the wiki. Since Arch is a rolling release system, it's harder to pin down exact steps to take in a format that isn't dynamic. The wiki provides the perfect way to document these things since it can easily change over time as the distro changes.

You could theoretically put together a guide on the wiki itself, but it would probably just be a cut and paste job from all the other individual wiki articles and would be hard to keep up to date with the other pages (considering it would basically be duplication of information). I'd personally just think that it would be more worthwhile to put effort into clarifying and improving the current wiki articles to make them even more user friendly and comprehensive.

Mr.Elendig · 2006-10-25 19:31:02

elasticdog wrote:

I think this topic has come up before, and one problem with a step-by-step guide is that it does somewhat duplicate the efforts of the wiki. Since Arch is a rolling release system, it's harder to pin down exact steps to take in a format that isn't dynamic. The wiki provides the perfect way to document these things since it can easily change over time as the distro changes.
You could theoretically put together a guide on the wiki itself, but it would probably just be a cut and paste job from all the other individual wiki articles and would be hard to keep up to date with the other pages (considering it would basically be duplication of information). I'd personally just think that it would be more worthwhile to put effort into clarifying and improving the current wiki articles to make them even more user friendly and comprehensive.

Look at my suggestion. That woud solve the duplicate problem

toofishes · 2006-10-25 21:38:11

I voted no because I felt when I came here that this distro is supposed to be to learn a bit on your own. I did fine with the install guide and Google at my side, and I know for sure being forced to read things that aren't step by step makes you actually understand what you are doing. This isn't to say I don't want people using Arch that aren't power users of Linux yet, but you should at least be able to invest the time to solve some problems on your own.

Snowman · 2006-10-25 22:20:05

The wiki might already have all the needed information for a new user but sometime it's hard to find. Mr.Elendig's suggestion of using a list of links for the step-by-step guide is a good one. It would make that information more accessible and would eliminate the duplicate problem. If something is missing from the wiki, the current articles can always be improved or new ones added. And I agree with Dusty, it's up to the users to decide whether they want to use the guide or not. I'm pretty sure there will be some users interested in such a guide.

TripleE · 2006-10-26 17:19:36

For newbies, we should get them some documentation to get them started and arch installed and maybe even a gui setup, but the expect them to want to learn the rest of with some more general docs that will help them learn the way arch or the app works. Isn't that why people come to arch? I was not use to having anything in the /opt directory when I came to arch from ubuntu, but with the help of the wiki and irc and tinkering around, I figured it out (and am still figuring it out).

Nnyan · 2006-10-26 20:57:38

While I see the point of the people who have voted 'no' to the guide and in some cases agree with those sentiments I do have a few disagreements.

First off its the devs/community's decision but any distro's growth is going to be influenced by ease of use/great documentation/just "works" factor.

While I'm all for Arch being a "learning distro" I don't think everyone that uses any distro HAS to fit into the typical user profile. Case in point, awhile back I installed Beatrix (back when it was still being developed) on a friends parents old clunker PC (they were in their 70's). They definately didn't learn anything about Linux per se but they learned how to do what they wanted to do. Funny thing though, several of their friends noticed this OS on their PC and to make a long story short 4 other people who never touched Linux are current users (of one distro or another). One has even converted all the PC's in the assisted living facility he manages in to Ubuntu!

Other then the last example are any of these guys Linux experts? No. But all of them are now aware of linux and are learning.

I myself provide free support for a few non-profits and one group home. As much as I would love to do this full time I can't. These places are running on older donated PCs and they would not afford to spend money on an OS. At that time I installed about a dozen distro's and ended up using Ubuntu and PCLOS mini-me. Why? It just worked and it was really easy to find answers when it didn't. I wish I had more time to spend on these things but I don't and they don't either.

I'm not saying that Arch NEEDS a step by step ultra detailed guide. But with the little I've been around Arch I have found several instances where the wiki is out of date (and yes I could update it but I don't really know what the right answer was) or if it wasn't I just didn't know the sequence I should follow.

I'll use MythTV as an example, using the howto in the wiki I managed to kludge together all the articles on all the software I would need to install to the Arch Base. But it was trial and error in many places as to what I needed to install first or after X.

Basically I just think the wiki needs to be updated (reading these forums I see many posts that say to the effect "well anyone can update the wiki..." but the fact is its not getting done) and maybe some outlines that point to wiki articles but give you the sequence of events.

Mr.Elendig · 2006-10-27 03:17:59

I've started on a small "ToDo" for the steps from (but not including) base install and to having a desktop with gnome, hal and some apps.
If it will ever reatch a "relesable" state is a completly different thing tho.....

(writing in lyx atm)

Edit: ohh, just found this in the wiki, while looking for something else...

The_Arch_Way@wiki wrote:

The basic nature of Arch.
* Lightweight and simple.
* Not designed to be a newbie distro it is intended for a more experienced user.

gradgrind · 2006-10-27 05:03:42

How about a TODO page for wiki updates (if there isn't one already and I missed it)? Then people who notice pages that need more or newer info, but don't themselves have the knowledge to update them, could post requests there and maybe some other knight in shining armour could oblige.

rhfrommn · 2006-10-27 15:09:28

gradgrind wrote:

How about a TODO page for wiki updates (if there isn't one already and I missed it)? Then people who notice pages that need more or newer info, but don't themselves have the knowledge to update them, could post requests there and maybe some other knight in shining armour could oblige.

THAT is a great idea!

It may help the newbies a ton too. I've taught lots of things at lots of levels (elementary school to college - chess coach to Astrophysics) and found one of the hardest things is to remember what the people you're trying to teach don't know. You can take things for granted very easily. I bet there are things on the wiki or other docs not explained very well from a beginner point of view, but the expert users who write the wiki don't see the gaps since they know all the missing stuff already.

Abecedarian · 2006-10-30 11:50:55

I never thought that Arch was a distro intended for a 'more experienced user' to the point of excluding newbies. It was my first distro that I'd kept for more than a few hours (Ubuntu didn't make it past first boot) and I now believe that I'm quite proficient with Linux. Between the wiki, man pages, and google I was able to figure out almost any problem - and then there was always the forums if all else failed. A few months later and I can zip around the command prompt while my Dad just stands behind me in amazement. I feel like I really know how and why my system works, and if something goes wrong, I know it's because of me, and hence I usually know how to fix it.

I'm overexaggerating; I'm not that good. But I know how to install, update and moderate my system. And that I'm proud of, because a few months ago I had no Linux knowledge other than their symbol was a cute pengiun.

Why is this? Not because of step-by-step guides, holding my hand. No; because of the immensly helpful wiki, man pages, and common sense. Being made to poke around the configuration files, and being made to do so without following a webpage holding my hand all the way. Tell a man to do something, and he's set for the day. Teach a man to do something, and he'll expand and add to that knowledge until he's set for life. Arch makes a lot of sense. I see no reason to dumb it down.

palandir · 2006-10-30 13:14:12

Good idea IMHO (new users will find it useful, experienced ones don't have to read it), but there also has to be a bit of background information what each step really means.
Not too much though, because then it wouldn't be a typical step-by-step guide anymore.

Kenetixx · 2006-10-30 13:24:27

I thought Arch was simple to install?
Im a linux n00b , only been using for about 4 months fulltime and i found arch setup and installation guide easy to follow and never had a problem seeting it up at all, so i dont see a need for a more n00bish guide?

Arch Linux

#1 2006-10-25 06:58:56

Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#2 2006-10-25 07:23:38

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#3 2006-10-25 07:39:02

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#4 2006-10-25 07:51:52

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#5 2006-10-25 11:19:48

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#6 2006-10-25 12:08:48

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#7 2006-10-25 13:12:00

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#8 2006-10-25 13:59:36

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#9 2006-10-25 14:21:46

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#10 2006-10-25 14:35:14

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#11 2006-10-25 15:19:56

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#12 2006-10-25 15:22:01

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#13 2006-10-25 17:41:42

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#14 2006-10-25 18:40:02

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#15 2006-10-25 19:31:02

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#16 2006-10-25 21:38:11

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#17 2006-10-25 22:20:05

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#18 2006-10-26 17:19:36

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#19 2006-10-26 20:57:38

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#20 2006-10-27 03:17:59

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#21 2006-10-27 05:03:42

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#22 2006-10-27 15:09:28

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#23 2006-10-30 11:50:55

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#24 2006-10-30 13:14:12

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

#25 2006-10-30 13:24:27

Re: Need for step-by-step arch guides?

Board footer