Graphical installer in future?

hokasch · 2008-04-05 14:21:02

when i read that there is no gui-installer for arch, i was a bit unsure if i will get it running...
when i started the installation, i was surprised to indeed find something i would consider a gui...
seriously, isnt ncurse a graphical user interface? its text, allright, but it tells you what to do, you can navigate in it, in contrast to just having a blinking cli wating for input. and as said often before, if youre not willing to engage in editing your rc.conf with a text editor, you wont have much luck to keep arch working at all, anyway.

Schaffer · 2008-04-05 14:27:20

People think that a text-installer is command line, but in reality is a gui-installer made in ASCII. So, why a graphical installer?

Allan · 2008-04-05 14:37:42

Schaffer wrote:

People think that a text-installer is command line, but in reality is a gui-installer made in ASCII.

ASCIIgraphical is the (possibly entirely made up) word you are looking for.

I have to say that I actually find the partioning part of the Arch installer better that the graphical Ubuntu one. I figured out what was going on much quicker with the Arch one. In fact, when preparing a friends PC for dual boot Windows/Ubuntu, I used the Arch CD for setting up the partitions.

Just to put this out there... Would you prefer the devs to spend time making and installer you use once or twice, or improving the actual distribution which you would use every day?

ProzacR · 2008-04-05 15:38:08

Then I started this topic I do not thought about myself at all. I understand very well that maybe I will not use any installer at all for few years.

I expected big counter-strike to this kind of topic because at all almost everyone here are so conservative and it is not bad. Few ppl wrote so many long arguments, but summary sounds almost like "the less people will be attracted to ArcLinux the better Arclinux will be".

And someone wrote that windows Xp has no GUI installer. And so what? ArchLinux tries to be WindowsXp-like!? or maybe we should forget about old XP and look at least into Vista?

bender02 · 2008-04-05 15:50:41

ProzacR wrote:

And someone wrote that windows Xp has no GUI installer. And so what? ArchLinux tries to be WindowsXp-like!? or maybe we should forget about old XP and look at least into Vista?

Well, you argued that other distributions have gui installer, so arch should have one too...

PS. it looks to me as a trol. post (not full troll yet

elliott · 2008-04-05 15:54:19

Arch isn't trying to appeal to a large demographic, if someone can't handle the ncurses installer, they should look for another distro. Arch appeals to a very specific demographic, it isn't for everyone and it was never meant to be. It isn't trying to overthrow Ubuntu for "#1", or any other distro for that matter.

aRcHaTe · 2008-04-05 16:08:59

i think arch installer is awesome..no need for a graphical...what for??

dyscoria · 2008-04-05 16:28:21

We should listen to Shakespear:

To GUI or not to GUI, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Graphics
Or to take arms against a sea of pictures,
And by opposing, end them. To text, to ncurse;
and by ncurse to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That GUI's are heir to — 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd.

cactus · 2008-04-05 16:38:24

dyscoria wrote:

We should listen to Shakespear:
To GUI or not to GUI, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Graphics
Or to take arms against a sea of pictures,
And by opposing, end them. To text, to ncurse;
and by ncurse to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That GUI's are heir to — 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd.

wow...
That was beautiful.

wonder · 2008-04-05 16:49:58

don't know why you want an GUI installer. you install archlinux once and you'll be using many years. you'll forgot how "nice" is that GUI installer .

i don't understat why people want to change something that's working very well

Last edited by wonder (2008-04-05 16:50:45)

mianka · 2008-04-05 17:30:23

Well, I feel compelled to put some things here:

Arch HAS graphical installers (for packages) : just look around, or do a little google.

The basic installer (the one tha lets you install the basic system) can not be bettered I think, it's fast and allows one of the fastest installs in the computer world.

What I am missing in the Arch package management is the possibility to explore or compare software the way I do it on Debian with Kpackage : you have rather extensive descriptions of the
packages and once a package is installed of the dependencies. I am not a programmer but I think that a similar system can be made in text-only (some kind of midnight-commander for package management:left the list of all packages,right the selected package with some comments).

But then again dont force things upon people, neither the text-mode nor the graphics one.

Another thing that irritates me horribly is the paternizing arrogance of some of the people in this particular discussion ("if you don't like it go elsewhere "-style, "you have to do with it" etc.)

I am longer in microcomputers than most of you walk around on this planet, using Linux since 1995 and member of a Linux club : most people I show Arch to are very enthusiastic by the simplicity and speed of it, until they see an actual install:Their minds have become so poisoned by winapple habits that a text-install is definitely a no-go. That is the reality in the outside world and it would be a pity not to have at least the possibility to use a (good!) graphical installer, so we can promote one of the best Linuxes there is ,to more people. The rules of the market and the power of the number also apply to free software .

cactus · 2008-04-05 18:23:12

Why is it that people get downright pissed off when they are told that the goal of Arch may not be to have everyone and their brother using it?

The devs for the most part make Arch for themselves to use. Scratching an itch.
I can tell you that my itch doesn't involve a GUI installer. Nor does it involve a GUI package manager.

That by no means stops anyone from the community from making such things. They can, and do.
Awesome!

Arguing that the Arch devs themselves need to go out of their way to include, and support, things that not only do we not use, but that some of us are actually against...well it is quite silly. I call *that* arrogant.

Maybe people are so used to paying for software, that when they get software for nothing, they attach similar mental models to it. If we derived revenue (like redhat), or had a goal to be all encompassing (like ubuntu), then I could see a validity to alot of the stances taken in this thread.

Would you consider the following arrogant?

Here. This is free ball. It bounces and I made it myself! yay! 
What? You don't like it? oh. ok. Then don't use it.
You want me to change it? Is it broken? It isn't? Then what is wrong with it?
You want it to talk and change color and have big buttons?
No. I made it to be a simple ball that bounces. 
Look, I am not trying to sell these things here. If you don't want to use it, that is fine.
I hear the guy over there has ones that can talk and have big buttons. Why not go get one from him?
You can even take this ball I gave you, and modify it yourself.
Huh? Now you are mad at me because I don't want to make this one talk?
wtf...

bender02 · 2008-04-05 18:32:55

mianka wrote:

Another thing that irritates me horribly is the paternizing arrogance of some of the people in this particular discussion ("if you don't like it go elsewhere "-style, "you have to do with it" etc.)
I am longer in microcomputers than most of you walk around on this planet, using Linux since 1995 and member of a Linux club : most people I show Arch to are very enthusiastic by the simplicity and speed of it, until they see an actual install:Their minds have become so poisoned by winapple habits that a text-install is definitely a no-go. That is the reality in the outside world and it would be a pity not to have at least the possibility to use a (good!) graphical installer, so we can promote one of the best Linuxes there is ,to more people. The rules of the market and the power of the number also apply to free software .

I still think that the following point remains valid: you *cannot* use arch without doing at least some text editing and issuing commands in command line at some point. Some updates just *require* doing it. Now I don't believe that people for whom a text-install is a no-go would be willing/able to do that. Giving them a nice GUI installed, automatically installing xorg and so on would be a downright lie to them - it's a message like "hello, I'm cool nice cool fast system, which works with just few clicks...".

dolby · 2008-04-05 18:58:40

cactus wrote:

Why is it that people get downright pissed off when they are told that the goal of Arch may not be to have everyone and their brother using it?
The devs for the most part make Arch for themselves to use. Scratching an itch.
I can tell you that my itch doesn't involve a GUI installer. Nor does it involve a GUI package manager.
That by no means stops anyone from the community from making such things. They can, and do.
Awesome!
Arguing that the Arch devs themselves need to go out of their way to include, and support, things that not only do we not use, but that some of us are actually against...well it is quite silly. I call *that* arrogant.
Maybe people are so used to paying for software, that when they get software for nothing, they attach similar mental models to it. If we derived revenue (like redhat), or had a goal to be all encompassing (like ubuntu), then I could see a validity to alot of the stances taken in this thread.
Would you consider the following arrogant?
Here. This is free ball. It bounces and I made it myself! yay! 
What? You don't like it? oh. ok. Then don't use it.
You want me to change it? Is it broken? It isn't? Then what is wrong with it?
You want it to talk and change color and have big buttons?
No. I made it to be a simple ball that bounces. 
Look, I am not trying to sell these things here. If you don't want to use it, that is fine.
I hear the guy over there has ones that can talk and have big buttons. Why not go get one from him?
You can even take this ball I gave you, and modify it yourself.
Huh? Now you are mad at me because I don't want to make this one talk?
wtf...

Wonderful post

cardinals_fan · 2008-04-05 19:07:01

Here. This is free ball. It bounces and I made it myself! yay! 
What? You don't like it? oh. ok. Then don't use it.
You want me to change it? Is it broken? It isn't? Then what is wrong with it?
You want it to talk and change color and have big buttons?
No. I made it to be a simple ball that bounces. 
Look, I am not trying to sell these things here. If you don't want to use it, that is fine.
I hear the guy over there has ones that can talk and have big buttons. Why not go get one from him?
You can even take this ball I gave you, and modify it yourself.
Huh? Now you are mad at me because I don't want to make this one talk?
wtf...

This is like poetry...

ProzacR · 2008-04-05 19:07:28

That example with ball do not fits here. No one in this topic asks to remove old installer.

The only logic and real argument against GUI was bender02.
cactus message I understand like "I do not want to make it or have it so I am against it." it is super-selfish and nothing good.

Last edited by ProzacR (2008-04-05 19:08:56)

elliott · 2008-04-05 19:13:17

ProzacR wrote:

That example with ball do not fits here. No one in this topic asks to remove old installer.

How does having 2 different installers follow the KISS principle? The ncurses Arch installer works, it always works, it always works well. How many times have you seen advice on installing Ubuntu involve switching to the "text mode" installer (which is also ncurses IIRC) when the fancy GUI doesn't work?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Theoden · 2008-04-05 19:17:58

ProzacR wrote:

That example with ball do not fits here. No one in this topic asks to remove old installer.
The only logic and real argument against GUI was bender02.
cactus message I understand like "I do not want to make it or have it so I am against it." it is super-selfish and nothing good.

This amazes me, frankly. It's apparent that some (perhaps many) users feel that they are "owed" something - in this case - a GUI installer. The truth is - the devs do not owe any of us anything. The fact that they do what they do is amazing and wonderful, and we all benefit greatly from it.

But they are under no obligation to do so, and they certainly are under no obligation to provide something that they - for whatever reason - have decided not to provide. If I with NO obligation to do so, give you 'free' a nice wrist watch, am I then "selfish" if I do not provide a watchband? That's ridiculous.

--Theoden

dyscoria · 2008-04-05 19:28:09

ProzacR wrote:

That example with ball do not fits here. No one in this topic asks to remove old installer.
The only logic and real argument against GUI was bender02.
cactus message I understand like "I do not want to make it or have it so I am against it." it is super-selfish and nothing good.

I think you're missing the point (and just plain wrong).

The point is that Arch is designed to be KISS (much like a simple ball). Arch is made the way it is because that's the way it wants to be. It doesn't want to change to adapt to "follow the main way" as you put it, or appeal to more people.

Arch doesn't want to climb in distrowatch rankings. It doesn't want to appeal to more people. What it wants to do is keep the KISS philosophy. You said "So many Linux users may ignore Archlinux option just because they do not want text installs." What does that matter exactly? No really, what does it matter? Arch uses a text installer because it's KISS. It's not going to put big buttons and neon lights on the ball to attract more users. Developer's are _not_ going to do it [ONE] because it's not KISS and [TWO] because a priority of Arch is _not_ to change it's philosophy to appeal to more people. Text installer has no problems with hardware, and allows 100% control. That's not to say a good GUI cannot achieve 100% control, but if it's already at 100%, there is no reason to change.

If a member of the community wants to make a GUI installer, they can. Otherwise, sorry bud, GUI just ain't gonna happen.

dolby · 2008-04-05 19:32:33

Instead of asking from the Archlinux developers for such features, maybe you should start thinking about persuading the ubuntu ones to replace their sysv init with a bsd style one and optimise their distro for i686. You will have much more chances in succeeding.

Roberth · 2008-04-05 21:04:47

cnshzj007 wrote:

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

Because Gentoo is not a KISS distro, they are rather "Keep It Smart Smartass".

B-Con · 2008-04-05 21:11:58

mianka wrote:

I am longer in microcomputers than most of you walk around on this planet, using Linux since 1995 and member of a Linux club : most people I show Arch to are very enthusiastic by the simplicity and speed of it, until they see an actual install:Their minds have become so poisoned by winapple habits that a text-install is definitely a no-go.

I don't understand this mindset. There are six keys that must be remembered: tab, enter, and the four arrow keys. If people are so paranoid that they see something and freak out without even trying to look at it and understand it (and they would understand it if they tried, because it's just too bloody simple), then, frankly, they deserve to not be able to use it.

If there were a lot of people paranoid of the color blue, should Arch change its logo?

ProzacR wrote:

cactus message I understand like "I do not want to make it or have it so I am against it." it is super-selfish and nothing good.

...

cactus wrote:

The devs for the most part make Arch for themselves to use. Scratching an itch.
I can tell you that my itch doesn't involve a GUI installer. Nor does it involve a GUI package manager.

What part of "we make a product to do something we feel needs to be done and then give it away for free" strikes you as selfish?

Last edited by B-Con (2008-04-05 21:13:12)

freakcode · 2008-04-05 21:14:10

mianka wrote:

most people I show Arch to are very enthusiastic by the simplicity and speed of it, until they see an actual install:Their minds have become so poisoned by winapple habits that a text-install is definitely a no-go.

Their problems. Not Arch dev problems, and I guess that it isn't a problem to the majority of current Arch users too. If it bothers you that 'winapple' people have a problem with the current Arch installer, you can always create one that might better suit them - and hopefuly support that graphical installer, which is a pain in the ass.

Last edited by freakcode (2008-04-05 21:32:43)

cardinals_fan · 2008-04-05 21:39:51

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?
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.

Why? Because everyone else is doing it? Ncurses installers are actually more intuitive than the gui ones, IMHO. I'm sure that those users who require a gui installer will enjoy editing rc.conf...

tlaloc · 2008-04-05 21:50:33

If you want to improve the installer, go for i18n. Installing/partioning is always a point where things may go wrong, and people may feel re-assured to have this tricky question in their native language. Otherwise, there is no need for improvement - arrows keys should be fine for everyone, and its really hard to mess things up right now.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-04-05 14:21:02

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#27 2008-04-05 14:27:20

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#28 2008-04-05 14:37:42

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#29 2008-04-05 15:38:08

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#30 2008-04-05 15:50:41

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#31 2008-04-05 15:54:19

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#32 2008-04-05 16:08:59

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#33 2008-04-05 16:28:21

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#34 2008-04-05 16:38:24

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#35 2008-04-05 16:49:58

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#36 2008-04-05 17:30:23

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#37 2008-04-05 18:23:12

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#38 2008-04-05 18:32:55

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#39 2008-04-05 18:58:40

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#40 2008-04-05 19:07:01

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#41 2008-04-05 19:07:28

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#42 2008-04-05 19:13:17

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#43 2008-04-05 19:17:58

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#44 2008-04-05 19:28:09

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#45 2008-04-05 19:32:33

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#46 2008-04-05 21:04:47

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#47 2008-04-05 21:11:58

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#48 2008-04-05 21:14:10

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#49 2008-04-05 21:39:51

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#50 2008-04-05 21:50:33

Re: Graphical installer in future?

Board footer