Graphical installer in future?

ProzacR · 2008-04-04 22:49:12

It is boring topic...., but maybe it is time for GUI installer?

I agree that it is not important but now more and more Linux distributions have installers so maybe it is time to follow the main way?
So many Linux users may ignore Arclinux option just because they do not want text installs. ArchLinux philosophy is about allowing user to make choice. And very first step in ArchLinux forces to dive into console. I think it is not good. Of course old method should remain. It is much easier to say bing NO and do nothing.

pyther · 2008-04-04 23:11:14

Nope no graphical installer... K.I.S.S.

If users don't want to do a text install they shouldn't be using Arch.

EDIT: In addition much more work would have to go into a GUI installer. You start to run into many problems such as supporting all different types of hardware with xorg, etc....

Last edited by pyther (2008-04-04 23:13:18)

bender02 · 2008-04-04 23:27:20

I agree with pyther - if one cannot/don't want to go through text install, he/she should not be using archlinux. Sooner or later the user *will need* to do something in command line. If a nice functional curses installer is not enough, and picture would attract... so long.

(To really push it, I'd even say - maybe it's time to ditch the curses installer, and just publish a guide with a list of commands that one needs to execute in order to install

cactus · 2008-04-04 23:29:30

ProzacR wrote:

It is boring topic...., but maybe it is time for GUI installer?
I agree that it is not important but now more and more Linux distributions have installers so maybe it is time to follow the main way?

This is probably the worst reason I have ever seen for 'doing a gui installer'.

ProzacR wrote:

So many Linux users may ignore Arclinux option just because they do not want text installs.

The question is.. do we want to support those types of users?

ProzacR wrote:

ArchLinux philosophy is about allowing user to make choice. And very first step in ArchLinux forces to dive into console. I think it is not good. Of course old method should remain. It is much easier to say bing NO and do nothing.

It always amazes me that this topic keeps coming up again and again.

Maybe..
* People don't search the forums, or the wiki and don't see the historical conversations and information surrounding this topic.
* People do find the information, and read 'the arch way', but decide they don't care and want arch to change anyway.
* People just want to see if they can provoke people (trolling).
* People know of the historical viewpoint, but just want to see if that viewpoint has changed since then.
* People don't search, they don't read the documentation, and just post because they are genuinely curious about the topic, even though they did not do much research regarding it.

Being that this post *seems* a bit confrontational, with phrasing like "It is much easier to say bing No and do nothing".. implying that a choice against a GUI installer is a choice of laziness, I am curious as to the reason behind the post itself.

Anyway.. If you happened to miss the documentation and information surrounding this topic, here are some useful links..
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/FAQ … _installer.
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
http://www.archlinux.org/static/docs/ar … tml#config (2nd paragraph)

pommes_ · 2008-04-05 00:01:18

What's the benefit from a graphical installer? In my sight there is none! First, you install arch once in a few years and not every few weeks. Second, the time the developers from arch invest in programming a graphical installer, they could also upgrade and maintain the packages which is much better for the distribution and the community.

.:B:. · 2008-04-05 00:03:17

Wrong distro, sorry.

hussam · 2008-04-05 00:12:40

First of all, gui installer isn't always a good thing regardless of KISS/Arch_Way/whatever..

The only important thing is that the installer is easy to use, is user friendly and doesn't ask a trillion questions on install. ArchLinux's ncurses installer in the core CD is very easy to use and very user friendly. I couldn't ask for more.

Who is to say that a GTK+/Qt gui installer will make it easier to install ArchLinux than the current ncurses installer? This isn't something that can be judged until someone makes a prototype.
Gui tools are only needed when they make things easier and not possibly complicate stuff.

It's not like arch installer drops you to a shell and makes you run manually mount your hard disk and manually run pacman to install every single package. Besides, ncurses is a valid gui and a very good one.

Last edited by hussam (2008-04-05 00:13:42)

B-Con · 2008-04-05 01:25:11

Since the question comes up a lot, and cactus addressed the main points and dug up the links for the topic above, maybe this thread (or another like it) should be stickied?

[edit]
This and the pacman GUI thing would make great stickies.

Last edited by B-Con (2008-04-05 02:03:56)

neotuli · 2008-04-05 01:48:53

You appear to be bending words quite nicely. Here let me unbend them for you...

ProzacR wrote:

It is boring topic...., but maybe it is time for GUI installer?

It's never really been a topic, sorry. I can recommend some distros where it might be a realistic topic though, or you could start your own.

ProzacR wrote:

I agree that it is not important but now more and more Linux distributions have installers so maybe it is time to follow the main way?

And they day we start following the main way is the day all the devs quit. Sorry to break it to ya, we like our way because it... you know... isn't the main way.

ProzacR wrote:

So many Linux users may ignore Arclinux [sic] option just because they do not want text installs.

That's a good one. Could you show me where you found that Arch's goal is to attract a wide demographic of users? Or even that its goal is to grow in size? We aren't a corporation, it isn't our number one interest to have a large userbase and appeal to a wide audience. Once again, I could recommend some distros if that's what you're looking for, or you could start your own. Put simply, why should I care if someone doesn't like Arch?

ProzacR wrote:

ArchLinux philosophy is about allowing user to make choice. And very first step in ArchLinux forces to dive into console. I think it is not good. Of course old method should remain.

You have a choice. If you had installed X and configured it from the installer, it wouldn't drop you into a console. You could also make your own graphical installer and distribute it if that's what you're interested in. It's interesting that you seem to think "choice" also means you get to decide where to take the distro. Arch isn't run by mob rule, sorry.

ProzacR wrote:

It is much easier to say bing [sic] NO and do nothing.

Really? So then where's the graphical installer you wrote to show us how much better it is

lucke · 2008-04-05 02:04:22

At least you get a user-friendly partitioning tool with Arch's installer, unlike in OpenBSD ;-p

You'd still have to edit files manually (or would you fancy checkboxes and input lines instead?), so what's the difference if it's in ncurses or gtk? Moreover, ncurses can still be considered graphical, compared to pure command line.

B-Con · 2008-04-05 03:38:31

I honestly don't get why people freak out when they see simple ncurses graphics instead of robust, detailed GUIs. Navigating an ncurses menu, if you just stop and look at the organization of it, is just as simple as a full-fledged GUI. In fact, it's better, because it's keyboard keys navigation-friendly.

Does having a robust GUI somehow make you feel less in control and thus mean you're less prone to screw something up? Do you see the big square in the center and freak out without bothering to even examine the menu?

I don't think the "it's easier" argument is valid at all. My first distro was Ubuntu. The first time I used a non-graphical (by which I really mean "simple") installer was Debian, and it took me about 30 seconds to feel at home in it. You press tab, enter, and arrow keys. You don't even have to use any manual commands. What more do people want? As lucke points about in the previous post, this is Arch, and you still have the same details to take care of regardless of what the GUI looks like.

It has to be a psychological thing.

Last edited by B-Con (2008-04-05 03:40:15)

fflarex · 2008-04-05 04:52:44

I'd just like to point out that there are various third party projects that let you install Arch from a live cd, like FaunOS. They are not officially supported of course, but so what? You just need to seek them out.

Also, I'd like to say that the responses to this thread have been a lot more hostile than the topic-starter. Whether or not ProzacR was trying to be confrontational (and I don't think he was, or at least I didn't get that impression), I think most of the people here would have been better off not posting at all.

EDIT: maybe hostile was too strong a word, but it did seem to me that people were responding for the sole purpose of shutting down ProzacR's idea.

Last edited by fflarex (2008-04-06 05:14:34)

gradgrind · 2008-04-05 06:13:55

Thanks for your sensible comments fflarex. The defensive attitude of some people is quite remarkable, considering that actually nothing was (really) being attacked. One of the main things that has attracted people to Arch has been the friendly, helpful nature of the forums and mailing list. In the last week or two I have seen a few counter-examples, and particularly worrying is the occasional participation of developers or other people long associated with Arch in the propagation of such negative attitudes.

I can appreciate that it is annoying to face the same questions over and over again, concerning matters that one believes have been settled. But the simplest response would be just to ignore them, let someone else answer, or not - or else merely a neutral reference to past discussions/wiki/etc.

As to the matter in hand, I would like to add that (in the days when I often installed linux), I found the simplest, most reliable installer to be the (dialog/ncurses) one for Slackware. But it depends a lot on the concrete situation. I have only used the official Arch installer once or twice, and not at all recently (normally once is all you need!), so I can't comment on that. The thing about Arch is that there are a number of ways of installing it (e.g. 'official' install CDs, from another - possibly live - system using pacman, using an Arch live CD like faunos, just copying an existing installation, ...), and they all have advantages and disadvantages.

I have also written a couple of simple installers myself at various stages of my work on larch - one using dialog/ncurses and more recently one using pygtk. From the point of view of the programmer, I would say it is a lot easier to work with gtk than with dialog/ncurses, but as someone mentioned, you have to ensure you have an Xorg setup that works on all machines out of the box, which seems to be getting easier but is still not as certain as with console/ncurses. It also means your install CD must include all the necessary software. But there are also other advantages to gui install systems, like the (potential) availability of a gui web browser (for getting documentation, help), editor (for people who don't really like nano or vi), gparted (ntfs resizing, etc.), ...

There is no reason why Arch Linux cannot stay exactly as it is, pure, 'KISS' and unsullied, and still have 100 gui installers and gui pacman front-ends available - it just needs people to write them (instead of repeatedly saying, „Isn't it time Arch had ..."). Anyway, if anyone is interested, please take a look at my larchin program, designed as a gui Arch installer for larch live systems. It's not finished (though it has worked in my tests), and certainly far from perfect, but maybe it's a start, or at least an inspiration - it is much easier to write an installer for Arch than for most other Linux distributions (though that doesn't of course mean it's not still difficult).

cnshzj007 · 2008-04-05 06:15:07

gentoo livecd just use the GUI installer. So what about arch? Why not?

cactus · 2008-04-05 06:35:08

Wait..what?
Hostile?
Developer negative attitudes?

<.<
>.>

I haven't read anything I would consider *hostile* in this thread yet.
Just curious where people are perceiving hostility. Maybe some people are doing some eisegesis forum reading, and interpreting "no" as hostile? I admit, I have been on the internet for a while though..so maybe my skin is just thicker and the line of what I consider 'hostility' has moved a bit.

If you would like to send me some example post links (probably best off-forum so we don't pollute the forum threads), then feel free to do so. There is a button under my monkey avatar that says 'email'. I read most of the ones that get sent to me.

finferflu · 2008-04-05 06:35:15

cnshzj007 wrote:

gentoo livecd just use the GUI installer. So what about arch? Why not?

Because Arch isn't a LiveCD. However we have Live distros like FaunOS.

elliott · 2008-04-05 07:04:21

cnshzj007 wrote:

gentoo livecd just use the GUI installer. So what about arch? Why not?

Last time I used the Archie LiveCD, I was able to do just that, FaunOS probably has the same capability.

Susu · 2008-04-05 07:06:18

I really can't see the advantage of a GUI installer. If one can read (and that's what I expected), one can easily go through the steps of Arch installer within five minutes, then the base installation is done and additional packages can be installed. It's like those storybooks for little kids. Once you get used to it, you'll get bored by it, and later on you find those pics disturbing because you don't need anymore pictures to understand a story.

As an example: I once ran into a very stupid situation using an Ubuntu GUI installer. I had like 15 partitions and couldn't finish installation because the GUI has had a resolution of 800x600 and most of the partition listing wasn't simply not visible. I couldn't scroll so I couldn't use those partitions and I had to give up installation. Maybe that's a bad example but at least it shows what can happen.

So, if you're afraid of ncurses, if you think CLI bites, if you don't feel comfortable with that, just use a distro that provides the features you want. I found it a little bit sad that everybody wants everything from something that has clearly defined its aim. It's always the same: "I don't like Suse because of its bloat but I want yast PLUS I want apt-get PLUS the distro shall be like Arch but without CLI". Obviously you want a Wolpertinger

sweiss · 2008-04-05 08:15:19

hussam wrote:

First of all, gui installer isn't always a good thing regardless of KISS/Arch_Way/whatever..
The only important thing is that the installer is easy to use, is user friendly and doesn't ask a trillion questions on install. ArchLinux's ncurses installer in the core CD is very easy to use and very user friendly. I couldn't ask for more.
Who is to say that a GTK+/Qt gui installer will make it easier to install ArchLinux than the current ncurses installer? This isn't something that can be judged until someone makes a prototype.
Gui tools are only needed when they make things easier and not possibly complicate stuff.
It's not like arch installer drops you to a shell and makes you run manually mount your hard disk and manually run pacman to install every single package. Besides, ncurses is a valid gui and a very good one.

I'm with hussam.

Arch already has a GUI installer, only not X-based.
If you ask me, it's rather user-friendly as well (for the targeted userbase).
If you have issues with the installation procedure itself (some things unclear, fails at certain corner cases etc.), then it should be reported and looked at.
X-based installations have some disadvantages, particularly not working with all GPUs. NCurses is better in that respect.

Either way, this is a rolling release distribution, most users end up using the installation program only once in a few years, so it's probably not a priority.

brebs · 2008-04-05 08:28:28

The GUI installers for other distros were screwing up last year, because the nvidia drivers didn't work with the new-at-the-time Geforce 8800's.

A GUI installer which just shows a black screen, is not an improvement

Let's not put ourselves at the mercy of nvidia's crappy drivers. The advantage of text is that it works.

Last edited by brebs (2008-04-05 08:32:11)

schivmeister · 2008-04-05 10:09:28

There is no future, everything works perfect as it is ...

sevenfourk · 2008-04-05 12:15:59

arch installation is very smart and logical
no gui installer needed!

daf666 · 2008-04-05 12:26:51

sevenfourk wrote:

arch installation is very smart and logical
no gui installer needed!

+1

danielsoft · 2008-04-05 12:59:22

I agree with the reason about graphics cards:
- every graphics card supports the text mode, so there are no problems with ncurses install
- the graphics mode support is a lot more tricky, it would require a very, very lot of work to get it to function on all graphics cards, monitors and such. there are people who did not manage to configure X right after Arch install and X configuration required some non-trivial operations on user side (I encountered one problem like this myself)
- with graphics installer those people would not be able to install Arch at all! This is surely a thing we don't want to happen.
Another thing: all the graphics drivers would have to be present on the install CD for this to work, this would bloat the install ISO size very much
and last but not least: what if I don't want any X Window System? suppose I install a server or something - I don't want anybody forcing me to have X in this case.

so from my point of view GUI installer is a bad idea.

Last edited by danielsoft (2008-04-05 13:02:18)

raymano · 2008-04-05 13:09:51

Could I point out that even Windows XP doesn't have a GUI installer (The first stage of the XP installer is a curses app)? Neither does Solaris. And I don't know if OSX has one or not but if they do it's because they have very limited hardware to support. Only their own.

We have to start demanding hardware vendors to give us the OS we want installed and configured on the hardware we purchase. That would be truly simple.

Last edited by raymano (2008-04-05 13:11:40)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-04-04 22:49:12

Graphical installer in future?

#2 2008-04-04 23:11:14

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#3 2008-04-04 23:27:20

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#4 2008-04-04 23:29:30

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#5 2008-04-05 00:01:18

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#6 2008-04-05 00:03:17

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#7 2008-04-05 00:12:40

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#8 2008-04-05 01:25:11

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#9 2008-04-05 01:48:53

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#10 2008-04-05 02:04:22

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#11 2008-04-05 03:38:31

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#12 2008-04-05 04:52:44

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#13 2008-04-05 06:13:55

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#14 2008-04-05 06:15:07

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#15 2008-04-05 06:35:08

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#16 2008-04-05 06:35:15

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#17 2008-04-05 07:04:21

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#18 2008-04-05 07:06:18

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#19 2008-04-05 08:15:19

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#20 2008-04-05 08:28:28

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#21 2008-04-05 10:09:28

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#22 2008-04-05 12:15:59

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#23 2008-04-05 12:26:51

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#24 2008-04-05 12:59:22

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#25 2008-04-05 13:09:51

Re: Graphical installer in future?

Board footer