You are not logged in.

#1 2012-07-22 15:20:25

VlaoMao
Member
Registered: 2011-05-03
Posts: 10

Install media 2012.07.15

Hi all. I am glad that the developers are moving forward and archlinux innovations appear, but after today's update installation image was available only netinstall iso.
Now, in order to install archlinux on a machine without the Internet, I have to carry a mirror of the repository? Or is there more options? It is very inconvenient, in my opinion.
Sorry for my English.

Last edited by VlaoMao (2012-07-22 15:20:45)

Offline

#2 2012-07-22 16:04:12

work
Member
Registered: 2012-03-25
Posts: 40

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

I read this https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 8#p1131588 but I didn't understand it very well. Can someone explain that?
Thank you

Offline

#3 2012-07-22 16:05:21

MajorTom
Member
From: Canada, GTA
Registered: 2008-09-12
Posts: 58

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Unless I missed something, I vote for including the Arch_Install_Scripts WIKI in a .TXT file either in /root or /home/arch.  The former would probably be a better choice since we autologin from inittab anyway and the first thing many would do is 'ls'.

Offline

#4 2012-07-22 19:41:44

fatboy
Member
From: India
Registered: 2012-03-17
Posts: 73

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Offline

#5 2012-07-22 20:59:33

illusionist
Member
From: localhost
Registered: 2012-04-03
Posts: 498

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

This reminds me of my gentoo days. I like mounting , chrooting and all that.
I wonder why devs removed package installation from installation media, setting up an offline system is little trickier now, but i still like the installation scripts implementation.


  Never argue with stupid people,They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.--Mark Twain
@github

Offline

#6 2012-07-22 23:32:13

gemma
Banned
Registered: 2012-07-11
Posts: 98

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

the loss of a text mode installer is a disaster, suddenly arch is in gentoo and LFS territory. No text mode installer means a smaller user base in the long run, less intermediate linux users are going to migrate to arch. Admittedly the helper scripts are very good and i think could quite easily be tied together into a bigger script to do the job, but its no replacement for a good ncurses implementation which is what arch had. I will be adding a rough implementation to my AXE script, to make things easier for me when i have to reinstall, but doubt i will ever bother with a ncurses frontend ( but hey maybe, i think there is some interesting curses dialogs that you can script somewhere )

Offline

#7 2012-07-23 00:06:10

ataraxia
Member
From: Pittsburgh
Registered: 2007-05-06
Posts: 1,537

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

The "core" images (that included packages on the ISO) caused support problems. If the ISO was older than some recent difficult upgrade, users were faced with tough steps (like a combined filesystem and glibc upgrade) immediately after install. The net install method avoids that. I'm not sure how appropriate running Arch without internet access is anyway - how will you add packages not on the media? How will you upgrade? What would Arch gain you in such a state that Slackware or a BSD wouldn't?

Also: Arch devs never had a goal to be popular. A smaller, more expert, user-base to support won't bother any dev that I know, and definitely won't make any forum moderator unhappy. smile The Beginners' Guide is being updated by industrious volunteers as we speak. Maybe the ability to figure out the new "manual" installation is a good bar to test whether a user is competent enough the deserve the community's (and the devs') support efforts?

Offline

#8 2012-07-23 00:18:07

payturr
Member
Registered: 2012-07-22
Posts: 8

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

I'm not too crazy about the new install media either - I want my GRUB Legacy back & I miss the old AIF.

Last edited by payturr (2012-07-23 00:32:41)

Offline

#9 2012-07-23 00:40:28

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,772

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

MajorTom wrote:

Unless I missed something, I vote for including the Arch_Install_Scripts WIKI in a .TXT file either in /root or /home/arch.

Sorry, votes are worth nothing here, this is not facebook. File a bug report, and patches are welcome.

There was no-one to maintain the old AIF, hence it got dropped. Simple, really. If this moves Arch to the so-called 'gentoo/LFS' territory, then so be it (probably would make the mod's jobs easier).


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#10 2012-07-23 02:33:33

twelveeighty
Member
From: Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2011-09-04
Posts: 300

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

[Mods: I'll get on-topic two paragraphs from here.]

Losing the AIF had to happen just a couple of weeks before I wanted to replace my laptop. But I'm sure with the pacman, GRUB 2.00 and glibc updates that appeared since that last install media was cut, it would have been just as difficult running that first update as doing the installation manually.

I agree 100% with the statement that "votes are worth nothing here, [Arch] is not Facebook" - I was disappointed too when I found out the AIF had disappeared, but when I heard it was because of lack of resources for development/testing, I felt stupid for complaining in the first place.
If you feel that the AIF should be updated, then get off your rear-end and take a look at the code, I think it's here: https://github.com/Dieterbe/aif. And until I find the time to dig into it, I'm keeping my complaints to myself. Whenever Linux distros are compared, Arch is always listed in the "top 5 / top 10" (arbitrary ranking, I know). The fact that such a popular distro doesn't have enough contributors to the installer software is one thing, but that people are complaining because of it is far worse. I would suggest to the complainers that they help fix it or switch to Ubuntu, openSUSE, etc. instead.

Sorry, I forgot what I had to add that was on-topic.

Offline

#11 2012-07-23 05:13:55

illusionist
Member
From: localhost
Registered: 2012-04-03
Posts: 498

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

ataraxia wrote:

The "core" images (that included packages on the ISO) caused support problems. If the ISO was older than some recent difficult upgrade, users were faced with tough steps (like a combined filesystem and glibc upgrade) immediately after install. The net install method avoids that. I'm not sure how appropriate running Arch without internet access is anyway - how will you add packages not on the media? How will you upgrade? What would Arch gain you in such a state that Slackware or a BSD wouldn't?

Also: Arch devs never had a goal to be popular. A smaller, more expert, user-base to support won't bother any dev that I know, and definitely won't make any forum moderator unhappy. smile The Beginners' Guide is being updated by industrious volunteers as we speak. Maybe the ability to figure out the new "manual" installation is a good bar to test whether a user is competent enough the deserve the community's (and the devs') support efforts?

I completely agree. Even the installation media that Arch provides has far better hardware support than what gentoo provides (it is my personal experience, don't start flaming me). I use a usb modem to connect to internet and it is supported out of the box. This is what made me switch from gentoo to Arch.
The reason I am saying this is nearly all your standard internet devices are supported , so running a net-install should not be a problem. After all what is the reason of running a computer if you are not going to connect it to the Internet.

I like the direction Arch going in.


  Never argue with stupid people,They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.--Mark Twain
@github

Offline

#12 2012-07-23 05:55:35

MisterAnderson
Member
Registered: 2011-09-04
Posts: 284

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

I'm saddened that AIF hasn't got enough contributors that it had to be cut but it can't be helped I guess. And I'm personally thankful that the offline installation cd's are gone, I installed offline once and it was horrific (many large upgrades since the media came out). I didn't even do it out of necessity, more just being lazy. If you aren't connecting to the internet often, then a rolling release like arch is for you, try debian stable or any others that are tried and tested before distribution.

The only thing I would like would be a copy of the install scripts instructions on the CD in a .txt file or similar, and the inclusion of vim instead of vi, as I hate vi and always stuff something up with it, but vim never fails me. However, using nano to install doesn't kill me, so it's fine how it is.

Hopefully some brave souls are spurred forward to venture into the depths of the AIF. I myself can handle installing and using Arch, but not writing it. smile

I ALREADY MISS YOU GRUB-LEGACY YOU WILL NEVER LEAVE MY SERVER!!! *begins migrating it to grub2 or syslinux*


D:

Offline

#13 2012-07-23 08:34:49

zebulon
Member
Registered: 2008-10-20
Posts: 231

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Well, although it is sad to see AIF going away, the fact it is now unmaintained made that inevitable. Besides, the announcement does not say that AIF is definitely removed, just that it is up to the community to pick it up where it was left. It is up to us guys!
Of course, the fact there are new maintained, clean, install scripts, now used as part of the official Archlinux installer, makes the return of AIF unlikely. What could be done though is to build up around these new scripts. What about some sort of wrapper, using ncurses? I am sure this is going to happen eventually.

Offline

#14 2012-07-23 09:03:29

gemma
Banned
Registered: 2012-07-11
Posts: 98

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

just had a look at the AIF code, its all in bash, which is cool.
Its very big but not too complex, which is cool.
I am just about at intermediate bash level, think i will have a go at a text mode installer, but i am thinking of something MUCH smaller and simpler. A fixed install sequence, reuse the AIF ncurses code, and base it around the helper scrips as zebulon mentioned. I will start it when my AXE script is bulletproof

Offline

#15 2012-07-23 17:54:15

hoschi
Member
From: Ulm (Germany)
Registered: 2008-11-03
Posts: 352
Website

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Well. Without the support of an easy Out-of-the-Box installation, I wonder how somebody can install Arch without a internet-connection or slow-connection or not trustworthy-connection. Hey! We are now even below of Windows! They got a thirty day trail! We got nothing!

No AIF? Okay. Really no problem, Arch philosophy.
Not offline-installation? What are we? No more Open-Source!
Open-Source is about independence!
An with the requirement to a fast internet-connection and mirror-server we can't control, we are definitely not independent.

Will try to figure out a way out of this. Official workaround or something.


Funny:
* Have to install a new system. Tomorrow. Now even Fedora looks like a sane choice!
* I usually use the Core-Image and if possible I use the network to install Arch, so I get an up-to-date sytsem

I'm not against network-based install. But without an offline-install I just lose my independence!

Last edited by hoschi (2012-07-23 17:55:04)

Offline

#16 2012-07-23 18:37:24

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,423

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

hoschi wrote:

Not offline-installation? What are we? No more Open-Source!

Arch is a rolling release distro so core images aren't that useful.

Offline

#17 2012-07-23 18:51:06

Barrucadu
Member
From: York, England
Registered: 2008-03-30
Posts: 1,158
Website

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

hoschi wrote:

Not offline-installation? What are we? No more Open-Source!
Open-Source is about independence!

Funny, I thought it was just about having source code available, and nothing else.

There's nothing stopping you from building your own core install - dump the latest image to a USB stick, mount it, and download a copy of [core].

Offline

#18 2012-07-23 19:48:07

hoschi
Member
From: Ulm (Germany)
Registered: 2008-11-03
Posts: 352
Website

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

karol wrote:
hoschi wrote:

Not offline-installation? What are we? No more Open-Source!

Arch is a rolling release distro so core images aren't that useful.


Installmedia has nothing to do with the rolling release. That is like saying, "we don't need install media because it is a rolling release, use Fedora and make a chroot".

As Barrucadu said I will try to make my own "full install media". Maybe others will appreciate that :-)

Offline

#19 2012-07-23 20:27:26

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,423

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

That's what I meant too. You don't need a core iso, just install the packages from a USB / CD.

Last edited by karol (2012-07-23 20:29:23)

Offline

#20 2012-07-23 20:43:16

ypoluektovich
Member
Registered: 2011-11-10
Posts: 13

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

What I'm disappointed about the most is that somebody thought it a good idea to get rid of the architecture-specific images in favor of the dual-arch one. It got bigger! Like, 2-3 times bigger, I can't put it on my 256 MB flash drive anymore. And who does not know their architecture nowadays? If it's new, it's 64-bit, otherwise it's 32-bit, it's that simple! Why do we have to struggle with a bigger image for almost no gain?

Offline

#21 2012-07-23 20:50:09

karol
Archivist
Registered: 2009-05-06
Posts: 25,423

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

ypoluektovich wrote:

Why do we have to struggle with a bigger image for almost no gain?

Maybe because now it's just one image to generate so it's simpler to test and maintain.
People who install Arch on both 32 and 64-bit computers appreciate the dual iso.

Even if you can't / don't want to use the good ol' CD, have you seen the pendrive prices recently? 16 GB ones are pretty cheap ...

Last edited by karol (2012-07-23 20:50:49)

Offline

#22 2012-07-23 20:50:14

Pierre
Developer
From: Bonn
Registered: 2004-07-05
Posts: 1,950
Website

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Providing only one iso reduces upload size, disk space and is easier to test. And your assumption of a 2 or even 3 factor size increase is a little off. See:

-rw-r--r-- 1 pierre users 370M 15. Jul 16:19 Downloads/archlinux-2012.07.15-netinstall-dual.iso
-rw-r--r-- 1 pierre users 203M 15. Jul 16:19 Downloads/archlinux-2012.07.15-netinstall-i686.iso
-rw-r--r-- 1 pierre users 226M 15. Jul 16:17 Downloads/archlinux-2012.07.15-netinstall-x86_64.iso

Offline

#23 2012-07-23 21:00:02

progandy
Member
Registered: 2012-05-17
Posts: 2,143

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

karol wrote:

That's what I meant too. You don't need a core iso, just install the packages from a USB / CD.

If you have a larger USB-stick first copy the iso-image, then add a second partition and create the repository on it. Now just sync this repository regularily and you have an up-to-date core/extra/...-install medium., I think. I don't guarantee it to work, though. I'm not sure if the parition table will handle that. If not, you'll have to create the partitions, copy the image contents and add the bootloader manually

Last edited by progandy (2012-07-23 21:03:14)

Offline

#24 2012-07-23 21:00:58

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,125

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

If only half 10% of the people who now want to make their own installer really sit down and do something, we'll see a contribution boom for archiso, archboot and everything else that automates partitioning. This could be the best thing in a while :-D

Offline

#25 2012-07-23 21:05:36

ypoluektovich
Member
Registered: 2011-11-10
Posts: 13

Re: Install media 2012.07.15

Pierre wrote:

Providing only one iso reduces upload size, disk space and is easier to test. And your assumption of a 2 or even 3 factor size increase is a little off. See:

-rw-r--r-- 1 pierre users 370M 15. Jul 16:19 Downloads/archlinux-2012.07.15-netinstall-dual.iso
-rw-r--r-- 1 pierre users 203M 15. Jul 16:19 Downloads/archlinux-2012.07.15-netinstall-i686.iso
-rw-r--r-- 1 pierre users 226M 15. Jul 16:17 Downloads/archlinux-2012.07.15-netinstall-x86_64.iso

Oops, indeed, not "2 to 3 times" but "just under 2". Still, my point stands, it's ~150 MB of data that is useless to me.
And how does it "reduce upload size"? Judging by your own listing, everyone downloads 150 MB of junk. That is (150MB * <number of users>) of unnecessary traffic for all the mirrors and torrents. At the same time each mirror only wins a measly 420 - 370 = 50 MB of space by storing one image instead of two.
The only valid point remaining is the ease of testing. I do not claim to understand exactly how troublesome testing 2 images instead of 1 is... Could somebody please enlighten me (and everyone else watching this thread)?

Edit: duh, I'm stupid, it's "upload" not "download" size. Still, uploading those same 50 MB per month more... is it that hard?

Last edited by ypoluektovich (2012-07-23 21:06:52)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB