Graphical installer in future?

ProzacR · 2008-04-05 22:17:53

dyscoria wrote:

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.

So why it has installer at all? Entire idea of installer is against what you try to explain here. If it is as you try to persuade me now then Arch installation process should be:
/make partitions/
chroot
tar -xvvf basic_files /
cd /etc
nano *
This is KISS as you explain it now.

dyscoria · 2008-04-05 22:24:18

So you're trying to tell me that "KISS=no installer"?

Somebody please help me... I think i've lost the will to live.

Last edited by dyscoria (2008-04-05 22:25:39)

ProzacR · 2008-04-05 22:28:40

I can help you Just i do not know what you need.

pogeymanz · 2008-04-05 22:31:17

I'll throw my two cents in, even though everyone already said pretty much the same thing...

This is how I see it:

1: The only difference between a GUI installer and an ncurses one (at the USER level) is that in GUI you can click things and in ncurses you have to use the arrow keys and spacebar/enter instead of a mouse.

2: The difference between GUI and ncurses (at the PROGRAMMER level) is a tremendous amount of work and code, which is still likely to be buggy on at least someone's hardware. In other words, the devs would spend a lot of effort getting an auto Xorg to work, and as a result less people will be able to get the installer working.

Splendid.

In conclusion: ncurses is the same dang thing as GUI, but will work on more hardware and takes A LOT less programming.

ProzacR · 2008-04-05 22:33:22

Thanks for good and short explanation pogeymanz. Let it be conclusion of this entire topic for long time.

dyscoria · 2008-04-05 22:35:30

OK so if there wasn't an installer, the user would have to use an external source to partition their system, probably a CD like GParted LiveCD or PartedMagic.
Then what? You have a CD with just Arch packages on it? OK so you copy the files over. Oh hold on, there ain't an Operating System to do the copying.

Ok so say you managed to copy files over, and only the ones you want. Then what? I don't remember a step to set root password. Hmmm

You call that KISS?

Susu · 2008-04-05 22:36:11

Really guys (and girls, if present), I don't understand what' all this rant is about. Arch has an installer gui. It leads you pretty well through the setup, and after that your machine is ready to use. I also don't get the point on calling people who are contented with ncurses installer selfish, nor do I realize what's unfriendly or selfish in recommending users to try out other distros if they want to benefit from a GUI installer. We all have tried several distros - at least most of us have, so most of us have had a choice whether we like Arch or not. I personally like it because Arch is straightforward, easy to set up and simple to maintain. If I wouldn't like it, I'd just try another distro. Yes, that simple. I'd never blame the devs because the didn't make things the way I want. THAT would be selfish, if you ask me. As dyscoria said, the community CAN write a GUI installer, and really...nobody would be offended by that.

raymano · 2008-04-05 22:45:36

Do we really want anyone and everyone installing an OS? Especially Arch? NO. For Heaven's sake. NOOOOOO!

A lot of Linux users these days confuse the ease of use of an OS with how easy it should be to install it. Somethings are best left to people that know what they are doing. Let me give an example of this. My son is seven. He uses FaunOS everyday. So in a way he's using Arch everyday. Can he install it? No. Can he use it. Absolutely.

I don't think ease of installation is a requirement for a solid, useful, (and even user friendly) OS. Because installation just won't work out of the box all of the time. They keep saying that it will. Believe me. It won't. I know. Look at FaunOS. I struggle with all kinds of things all the time. Conflicting packages. One man's bug is another man's feature. It has been a great challenge to get FaunOS to work on as many different configurations we can but it is just impossible to cover all cases.

So again I say: Leave Arch the way it is. That's what brought us here together. We fell in love with its simplicity and its power. It should stay that way.

All that said, there's nothing wrong with saying "Hey Arch community. I want to create a GUI installer for Arch. Here's a website I've created where we can share ideas about the project. Would anyone be interested in helping out?" I'm sure you'll have much better luck that way.

Raymano

Last edited by raymano (2008-04-05 22:49:54)

ProzacR · 2008-04-05 22:59:20

dyscoria wrote:

OK so if there wasn't an installer, the user would have to use an external source to partition their system, probably a CD like GParted LiveCD or PartedMagic.
Then what? You have a CD with just Arch packages on it? OK so you copy the files over. Oh hold on, there ain't an Operating System to do the copying.
Ok so say you managed to copy files over, and only the ones you want. Then what? I don't remember a step to set root password. Hmmm
You call that KISS?

sry...:
passwd

AND You can grab and use almost any Linux liveCD liveUSB or OS in other partition or who knows what just what works with ext3 and tar - thats all you need You call this not KISS?
Installer asks you to download special CD, burn it. It is not KISS!

Last edited by ProzacR (2008-04-05 23:01:17)

Susu · 2008-04-05 23:04:19

raymano wrote:

Do we really want anyone and everyone installing an OS? Especially Arch? NO. For Heaven's sake. NOOOOOO!

Everybody, who wants to try, is welcome. That's my opinion.

kensai · 2008-04-05 23:08:48

cnshzj007 wrote:

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

Because, as I predicted, when this was in the making, I can link to my threads here, but I'm lazy now, the Gentoo GUI installer is a failure. It is one of the worst installers ever.

Is stupid in fact, the GUI installer would have the same options as the text installer, it just will hide a lot of processes.

dolby · 2008-04-05 23:09:16

Susu wrote:

raymano wrote:
Do we really want anyone and everyone installing an OS? Especially Arch? NO. For Heaven's sake. NOOOOOO!
Everybody, who wants to try, is welcome. That's my opinion.

That is everyones opinion. Its just that users should get used to Arch the way it is. Not try to change it to something else. & thats the case here. Users coming from other distros, newbie ones, and mainly ubuntu want to change the way things have been around here

Last edited by dolby (2008-04-05 23:11:21)

dolby · 2008-04-05 23:13:46

ProzacR wrote:

dyscoria wrote:
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.
So why it has installer at all? Entire idea of installer is against what you try to explain here. If it is as you try to persuade me now then Arch installation process should be:
/make partitions/
chroot
tar -xvvf basic_files /
cd /etc
nano *
This is KISS as you explain it now.

i imagine since Arch started out pretty much as CRUX+pacman that was the way the installer was at first. CRUX still uses it. & belive me its easier than it seems.
btw nano? pfft

raymano · 2008-04-05 23:17:33

Susu wrote:

raymano wrote:
Do we really want anyone and everyone installing an OS? Especially Arch? NO. For Heaven's sake. NOOOOOO!
Everybody, who wants to try, is welcome. That's my opinion.

Absolutely. Anyone who wants to try installing Arch is welcomed to do so. I think you might have misunderstood my point. My point is that they should also be aware of the fact that they are installing Arch Linux. Not Ubuntu. Not PCLinuxOS. Not ...

Last edited by raymano (2008-04-05 23:20:20)

Maki · 2008-04-05 23:22:19

Stock Arch shouldn't have GUI installer cause it breaks the KISS philosophy.
Various arch based project could make use of a gui installer, but i think it only make sense if they are livecds.
On the other hand, the ncurses installer could use some cleaning up ...

dyscoria · 2008-04-05 23:24:58

ProzacR wrote:

sry...:
passwd
AND You can grab and use almost any Linux liveCD liveUSB or OS in other partition or who knows what just what works with ext3 and tar - thats all you need You call this not KISS?
Installer asks you to download special CD, burn it. It is not KISS!

I can safely say at least 90% of this forum disagree with the OP's beliefs in this thread, but this post is just, well another level entirely. Is it just me that is pained by his inability to grasp the KISS concept? I think I should leave this thread round about now before I explode in needless rage and continue my futile attempt to knock some sense into him (is he joking? have I been had?). /me leaves

Susu · 2008-04-05 23:25:12

raymano wrote:

Susu wrote:
raymano wrote:
Do we really want anyone and everyone installing an OS? Especially Arch? NO. For Heaven's sake. NOOOOOO!
Everybody, who wants to try, is welcome. That's my opinion.
Absolutely. Anyone who wants to try installing Arch is welcomed to do so. I think you might have misunderstood my point. My point is that they should also be aware of the fact that they are installing Arch Linux. Not Ubuntu. Not PCLinuxOS. Not ...

Sorry for understanding you wrong. ;-)

B-Con · 2008-04-06 00:55:19

kensai wrote:

cnshzj007 wrote:
gentoo livecd just use the GUI installer. So what about arch? Why not?
Because, as I predicted, when this was in the making, I can link to my threads here, but I'm lazy now, the Gentoo GUI installer is a failure. It is one of the worst installers ever.

How many releases did it take before it finally didn't crash half the time?

McQueen · 2008-04-06 03:59:04

Arch does not even have the development resources for a GUI installer. Gentoo proved that a half-hearted effort is a cursed endeavor. Better to do what you are capable of to the best of your ability, and set a standard that is consistent and can be improved upon with each release.

XChrisX · 2008-04-06 05:04:32

B-Con wrote:

kensai wrote:
cnshzj007 wrote:
gentoo livecd just use the GUI installer. So what about arch? Why not?
Because, as I predicted, when this was in the making, I can link to my threads here, but I'm lazy now, the Gentoo GUI installer is a failure. It is one of the worst installers ever.
How many releases did it take before it finally didn't crash half the time?

There are times when it does not crash? You seen that first-hand? I may have to try it again

schivmeister · 2008-04-06 05:16:25

That is why people would rather download a sane installer like Sabayon - if there is need for one.

B-Con · 2008-04-06 05:29:26

XChrisX wrote:

There are times when it does not crash? You seen that first-hand? I may have to try it again

I only surmise such a fact from hear-say. I tried a few months ago to install Gentoo on my laptop and I got two successful installations out of (litearlly) 20 tries. I have no idea what magical combination of fairy dust kept the installer hobbling through the process those two times.

I hear, though, that Gentoo is installable via the GUI... I hear.

gradgrind · 2008-04-06 06:30:48

Again regarding the installer theme, I would agree with Maki that a gui (I mean here gtk/qt/... based) installer would only really make sense on a live CD. In that case the arguments against a gui installer (apart from developer time, energy and preferences!) might be a bit less convincing. If you want to install Arch Linux with Xorg etc. (which probably most people do), then sooner or later you will have to get X running - if you can't get it working on the live CD, why should it suddenly work when you install the thing? In that case (and probably only in that case), I think there would be valid reasons for preferring a gui installer - as I mentioned earlier, I would assert that it is easier to write for qt/gtk than for ncurses. But it is undeniably extra work, because the ncurses version would probably still need to be supported, at least for non-X installs.

So who of you who want this gui installer is ready to get your hands dirty and actually work on it instead of expecting it all to be done by others?

drf · 2008-04-06 11:56:39

IMHO, GUI Installers (supposing that GUI here means something that relies on XOrg, and not ncurses-like things) make sense only if we're talking about live cds.
Back in the days when I had to reinstall windows, don't even remember why, I remember it was splitted into a ncurses-like GUI and a real GUI, after first steps. Well, Arch installer does it the same way - in the time windows completes the first step, you have your system installed, so you can have a GUI right after.

Seriously, if Arch was a live CD, I'd have said this was absolutely needed. But since the CD doesn't even have XOrg on it (!!), you understand what a struggle it would be to support a graphical installer. And I do think it's pretty useless, since this kind of installers are good just if we're talking about a live environment.

Current installer has 90%+ chances of success, so why give more risk just to see a mouse pointer on the screen?

Misfit138 · 2008-04-07 03:43:46

I believe the devs and community have spoken their peace on this topic. This is just becoming redundant.
Arch provides a solid procedure of installation which is ncurses-based, and is unlikely to change, according to its own literature.

Arch Linux

#51 2008-04-05 22:17:53

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#52 2008-04-05 22:24:18

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#53 2008-04-05 22:28:40

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#54 2008-04-05 22:31:17

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#55 2008-04-05 22:33:22

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#56 2008-04-05 22:35:30

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#57 2008-04-05 22:36:11

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#58 2008-04-05 22:45:36

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#59 2008-04-05 22:59:20

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#60 2008-04-05 23:04:19

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#61 2008-04-05 23:08:48

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#62 2008-04-05 23:09:16

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#63 2008-04-05 23:13:46

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#64 2008-04-05 23:17:33

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#65 2008-04-05 23:22:19

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#66 2008-04-05 23:24:58

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#67 2008-04-05 23:25:12

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#68 2008-04-06 00:55:19

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#69 2008-04-06 03:59:04

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#70 2008-04-06 05:04:32

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#71 2008-04-06 05:16:25

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#72 2008-04-06 05:29:26

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#73 2008-04-06 06:30:48

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#74 2008-04-06 11:56:39

Re: Graphical installer in future?

#75 2008-04-07 03:43:46

Re: Graphical installer in future?

Board footer