Is live cd "live"

scutiform · 2009-05-05 19:15:36

I have been using Linux for several years now, mostly Ubuntu, but I like to try different flavours of linux from time to time. I downloaded the iso file for Archlinux and burned it to a cd. The menu screen said "install LIVE cd", or words to that affect, but the install sequence seems to want to do a permanent installation to one of my disks. I have used several live cd's to try a distro in the past, so is the live cd label misleading, or am I missing something in the install instructions?:(

haxit · 2009-05-05 19:44:12

It is live. It just doesn't have a GUI.

Primoz · 2009-05-05 20:13:28

It's live in same sense as the Ubuntu's live CD.
If you tried ubuntu or any other Linux distro with preinstaled DE you'll know that when you boot up you get a glimps of the real installation.
Well it's the sam with Arch the thing is just that when you really install Arch you get exactly what your looking at on LiveCD = CLI.
Arch doesn't come with Gnome, KDE or something else. It gives user full freedom to choose what WM/DE they like.
If you want to check Arch with GUI and are a fan of KDE there's project-chakra: http://chakra-project.org/
AFAIK there's no Gnome LiveCD for Arch.

So to shortly answer you: You can boot by choosing install Arch as you have to run setup in LiveCD to actually install it.

Last edited by Primoz (2009-05-05 20:13:41)

.:B:. · 2009-05-05 20:16:10

Almost any Linux installation CD is a live CD; Arch does not offer you a live graphical environment though (why would it need to?)

The thing is, if you have read up on Arch (I am assuming you don't since you expect a fully operational Live CD), such an ISO does not make any sense .

test1000 · 2009-05-05 20:24:12

"If you tried ubuntu or any other Linux distro with preinstaled DE you'll know that when you boot up you get a glimps of the real installation."

I might be wrong but does the archlinux installation cd give you a complete environment before you have installed archlinux, eg: could you install away with pacman on the cd and expect to be able to get comparable functionality in the end as say, an ubuntu live cd have, or would you need to install arch before you would be able to do that? Because if one would have to install it first it isn't what a live-cd is meant to be: a showcase of the distro's functionality and we shouldn't use the live word.

bender02 · 2009-05-05 20:31:28

test1000 wrote:

I might be wrong but does the archlinux installation cd give you a complete environment before you have installed archlinux, eg: could you install away with pacman on the cd and expect to be able to get comparable functionality in the end as say, an ubuntu live cd have, or would you need to install arch before you would be able to do that? Because if one would have to install it first it isn't what a live-cd is meant to be: a showcase of the distro's functionality and we shouldn't use the live word.

I believe you can use pacman to "install packages", but that doesn't help you much since you're running from a read-only system (cd) anyway, so it just takes a couple of packages until you fill up your memory with a) downloaded packages, b) installed packages. Moreover the changes are not persistent, and it usually takes a while until you actually configure your system.

Last edited by bender02 (2009-05-05 20:31:51)

Primoz · 2009-05-05 20:39:06

test1000 wrote:

"If you tried ubuntu or any other Linux distro with preinstaled DE you'll know that when you boot up you get a glimps of the real installation."
I might be wrong but does the archlinux installation cd give you a complete environment before you have installed archlinux, eg: could you install away with pacman on the cd and expect to be able to get comparable functionality in the end as say, an ubuntu live cd have, or would you need to install arch before you would be able to do that? Because if one would have to install it first it isn't what a live-cd is meant to be: a showcase of the distro's functionality and we shouldn't use the live word.

I agree with you. You only see the Arch functionality if you install it. I personally think that installation it self shows what Arch is all about you see pacman especially if you use FTP install.
And you see the rc.conf and other config files.
But that's "too late". There should be a dry run which would showcase the functionality of Arch without installing it.
Like showing the power of pacman, rc.conf etc.
But some might say that this is too ubuntuish. And that the current LiveCD is enough for a new user to see what Arch is all about.

tomk · 2009-05-05 22:06:48

test1000 - a live CD isn't "meant to be" anything in particular. It refers to a system which runs from a CD, that's all. The Arch install images provide a fully functional Arch Core install, so therefore they qualify as live CDs/USBs. The bare-bones nature of that install is irrelevant in this context.

Primoz - if you think there should be a dry run, script it, and submit a patch. Or you could browse youtube - I'm told there are quite a few Arch videos there.

TigTex · 2009-05-05 22:49:42

I think that his problem is to install arch fisicaly on HDD before trying it.... you could try to install arch into a flash drive, it would give you a "live pen" with all your software and read/write support with lower performance (usually), but it would allow you to see what you will get with arch without changing anything in your pc.

Last edited by TigTex (2009-05-05 22:56:58)

lilsirecho · 2009-05-06 00:29:44

Perhaps the poster would prefer to have the entire archlinux system of 600 packages installed with a Flash Drive and boots into kde GUI, runs entirely in ram and never updates since the admin no longer exists to maintain same....FaunOS is its name.

The system does not load anything into HDD!!!

test1000 · 2009-05-06 10:26:27

guys, this thread is about archlinux's use of the term "live". if we do that, then we are in the wrong because and i quote "The term "live" derives from the fact that these CDs each contain a complete, functioning and operational operating system on the distribution medium."

which we apparently doesn't do. Nor have the ability to install on the cd itself: thus it's not a true representation of arch and we doesn't fit the definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_CD

tomk: iv'e never heard of that definition of a live-cd before. i think what you're referring to is an data cd which would in most cases be an installation cd, atleast in the linux world.

Last edited by test1000 (2009-05-06 10:27:57)

scutiform · 2009-05-06 10:43:27

Yes, I was thinking "Live CD" in the same way as Ubuntu and a shed load of other distro's have a "try before you buy". If I was to install Arch, then I have to fit another hard drive. I already have Ubuntu which is my main distro, Fedora 10 which I am giving a trail run, and WinXP . If I didn't need windows for two specialist graphic programs not available in linux, I would clear it from my disk.

I'm not sure how may distro's I have tried in the last 3 years. Sooner or later one of them will just press the button that says "This is what I'm looking for". Sorry guys, but Archlinux goes in the bin, unseen.

Ashren · 2009-05-06 10:51:43

scutiform: That's really too bad for you. It might just have been what you were looking for, but now you'll never know.

A graphical Arch CD is pointless. Arch is about building the system you want from the ground up. You decide which DE/WM you wish to use so a full-fledged DE on the LiveCD would be really misleading for the new user. *buntu/fedora/suse users get what they see on the LiveCD, but on Arch you don't get anything besides a command prompt after installing the base system.

Last edited by Ashren (2009-05-06 10:53:28)

Peasantoid · 2009-05-06 11:29:40

scutiform: You seem to prefer getting everything done with graphical tools...try out Chakra (Arch with KDE).

Also, you could've at least made the effort...

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-06 11:31:09)

.:B:. · 2009-05-06 13:16:59

test1000 wrote:

guys, this thread is about archlinux's use of the term "live". if we do that, then we are in the wrong because

Not wanting to point fingers here - but it's you (and the topic starter) narrowing it down.

and i quote "The term "live" derives from the fact that these CDs each contain a complete, functioning and operational operating system on the distribution medium."

And who decides on that 'definitiion'?

Even if we were to go with this 'definition' - the Arch installation images are fully functional systems. You have a shell, you can execute commands, do stuff. Every had a fallback shell when your Arch system borks on boot up? That's what I wouldn't call 'complete' (it's functioning, but only there to make you get out as fast as possible ).

tomk: iv'e never heard of that definition of a live-cd before

Yet that is the common one .

Misfit138 · 2009-05-06 13:54:55

Live cd? Yeah, it's live.
It provides a fully functional operating system comprised of the Linux kernel and GNU toolchain. It also offers many additional tools and supports a bunch of different filesystem types. (It was also the first live cd ever to offer ext4 support)
It just doesn't have a GUI.

test1000 · 2009-05-06 14:48:19

This isn't that important because if I understand this correctly it's just a matter of a word we use one place on a cd, right? An if one "tester" can't get past that we're not interested anyway I think.

However: Does the current archlinux installation iso give a live environment; that is, a showcase of the distros functionality(eg: the possibility to use the cd environment as one can use an installed environment) in the same way other distros allow this like Ubuntu for example? Have anyone tried it, can anyone confirm? This is not a question of Ubuntu vs Arch, it's just a simple matter of using the proper words for the proper things. The word "live cd" vs "installation/rescue cd". This is a non-brainer if you agree with the wikipedia definition: "The term "live" derives from the fact that these CDs each contain a complete, functioning and operational operating system on the distribution medium.", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_cd

It's not about Graphical vs Non-Graphical, it's about whether the arch live-cd is a representation of arch's functionalities without having to jump trough any hoops you wouldn't have to jump trough if it was installed. That's what it's about, and it's a non-brainer unless you don't agree with the definition of "live-cd", in which case i'm trough discussing this and you can all discuss this up & down walls for all i care.

B wrote:

Not wanting to point fingers here - but it's you (and the topic starter) narrowing it down.

It's the op who decides what the topic is supposed to be about. That's a pretty basic bbs rule. I'm sure you've even enforced it a couple of times.

Last edited by test1000 (2009-05-06 14:49:34)

tomk · 2009-05-06 16:53:34

test1000 wrote:

Does the current archlinux installation iso give a live environment; that is, a showcase of the distros functionality(eg: the possibility to use the cd environment as one can use an installed environment) in the same way other distros allow this like Ubuntu for example?

Yes

test1000 wrote:

it's about whether the arch live-cd is a representation of arch's functionalities without having to jump trough any hoops you wouldn't have to jump trough if it was installed.

It is. No hoops required.

.:B:. · 2009-05-06 19:46:28

test1000 wrote:

B wrote:
Not wanting to point fingers here - but it's you (and the topic starter) narrowing it down.
It's the op who decides what the topic is supposed to be about. That's a pretty basic bbs rule. I'm sure you've even enforced it a couple of times.

You, sir, are twisting my words. The OP is asking for clarification; we're giving it, you don't like it, and now you say 'you don't play by the rules'. It would be to easy to bite... I won't.

windtalker · 2009-05-06 20:30:06

Is the Arch live cd a live cd like Ubuntu's, Mandy's, PCLinuxOs's etc.etc?
No, because it doesn't have a GUI.
One has to use the dreaded terminal.
Can Arch's live cd give you a fair idea of what Arch is cabable of?
Yes, to a large extent if you know what you are doing because you're in that dreaded terminal.
The Arch live cd is not a live cd in the way that Ubuntu, Mandy etc. etc. is because it isn't a what you see is what you get live cd.
Arch is a more of, if you want it then you install it kind of thing no different than Slack.
Arch will not force you to do anything, it's all your call all the way.
As far as jumping through hoops goes, the only hoop is to do what a lot refuse to do and that is read the wiki to help you get it installed and read the same wiki and/or the forum if you have a problem.
If anyone wishes to see what packages are available for Arch, the Repo's including AUR are available on the home page.
Can anyone here recommend you try Arch?
Sure.
If you can run Ubuntu and you can read/comprehend the Beginners Guide in the wiki, you can run Arch just fine.

thisperishedmin · 2009-05-07 12:23:22

sounds like a beating the dead horse session to me. this has been discussed before with the same end result. the arch live-cd is KISS, and it is a live cd. Yes it show cases the operating systems functionality after installation. It is a representation of Arch with no hoops required.

It is a replica of the out of box operating system AFTER install. Ubuntus live cd shows you what you get after install. Arch does the same thing. There is really nothing to be discussed here IMO.

test1000 · 2009-05-07 14:17:30

Ok tomk. If that is the case, that arch's cd-environment behaves as an installed arch environment, i'm done discussing. I seemed to remember it was a kind of limited busybox-like environment but i guess not. I haven't bothered to download the latest arch-image to see for myself but maybe i should when i get home if i still want to spend more energy on this.

Another thing is that some people in this thread seems to have reading comprehension issues, but i won't go further with that.

kgas · 2009-05-07 18:02:42

OP, If you like to have an arch live cd with GUI you can try godane's live cd http://godane.wordpress.com/. There is also a thread http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=43892 here. IMO one who migrates to Arch likes to build their system step by step to his/her need. There are plenty of screen shots with various WM and DE running on Arch.

tomk · 2009-05-07 18:03:46

test1000 - no, people in this thread disagree with you. There is no need to be insulting. You should familiarise yourself with our forum etiquette, or you could find yourself unwelcome here.

Thread closed.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-05 19:15:36

Is live cd "live"

#2 2009-05-05 19:44:12

Re: Is live cd "live"

#3 2009-05-05 20:13:28

Re: Is live cd "live"

#4 2009-05-05 20:16:10

Re: Is live cd "live"

#5 2009-05-05 20:24:12

Re: Is live cd "live"

#6 2009-05-05 20:31:28

Re: Is live cd "live"

#7 2009-05-05 20:39:06

Re: Is live cd "live"

#8 2009-05-05 22:06:48

Re: Is live cd "live"

#9 2009-05-05 22:49:42

Re: Is live cd "live"

#10 2009-05-06 00:29:44

Re: Is live cd "live"

#11 2009-05-06 10:26:27

Re: Is live cd "live"

#12 2009-05-06 10:43:27

Re: Is live cd "live"

#13 2009-05-06 10:51:43

Re: Is live cd "live"

#14 2009-05-06 11:29:40

Re: Is live cd "live"

#15 2009-05-06 13:16:59

Re: Is live cd "live"

#16 2009-05-06 13:54:55

Re: Is live cd "live"

#17 2009-05-06 14:48:19

Re: Is live cd "live"

#18 2009-05-06 16:53:34

Re: Is live cd "live"

#19 2009-05-06 19:46:28

Re: Is live cd "live"

#20 2009-05-06 20:30:06

Re: Is live cd "live"

#21 2009-05-07 12:23:22

Re: Is live cd "live"

#22 2009-05-07 14:17:30

Re: Is live cd "live"

#23 2009-05-07 18:02:42

Re: Is live cd "live"

#24 2009-05-07 18:03:46

Re: Is live cd "live"

Board footer