A few nitpiks I have with this.

Drogobo · 2022-07-19 00:53:15

Why is systemd-boot the default for UEFI booting? systemd-boot isn't even mentioned in the real arch install wiki page. Also, why can't you make swap bigger? My poor laptop can't handle anything. It needs more swap.

jasonwryan · 2022-07-19 00:57:24

Drogobo wrote:

Why is systemd-boot the default for UEFI booting? systemd-boot isn't even mentioned in the real arch install wiki page.

No boot loaders are mentioned in the guide, so that's hardly a criteria for complaint.

Also, the whole point of a guided install script is that you accept someone else is going to make choices for you. If you don't like those choices, just install Arch they way you want to.

ewaller · 2022-07-19 00:59:08

Jason, I was searching for the correct way to say just that. Well said.

Drogobo · 2022-07-19 01:05:46

jasonwryan wrote:

Drogobo wrote:
Why is systemd-boot the default for UEFI booting? systemd-boot isn't even mentioned in the real arch install wiki page.
No boot loaders are mentioned in the guide, so that's hardly a criteria for complaint.
Also, the whole point of a guided install script is that you accept someone else is going to make choices for you. If you don't like those choices, just install Arch they way you want to.

The people working on it should have some regaurd for the users.

jasonwryan · 2022-07-19 01:09:55

Drogobo wrote:

The people working on it should have some regaurd for the users me.

That's what you are actually saying...

Trilby · 2022-07-19 01:37:53

The people working on it should do whatever the hell they feel like. If you don't like it, don't use it. The guided installer is not required to be used nor even expected.

If you want to change the way it works and have it do whatever the hell you feel like, then you should become one of the people working on it. Submit a patch; if your code is good, it will have a good chance of being accepted.

Last edited by Trilby (2022-07-19 01:39:20)

ewaller · 2022-07-19 01:40:53

For a long time, we had no installer. As it is now part of the infrastructure, the moderators created a sub forum to support it.
Taking of my staff hat, I personally think it a poor idea.
Replacing my staff hat, this project, like all Arch projects, are created and maintained by volunteers who get to make the decisions -- because they are putting forth the effort.
You are more than welcome to fork it and create a version that suits your peccadilloes.

Edit: Not intending to pile on -- I am just slow

Last edited by ewaller (2022-07-19 01:41:41)

cfr · 2022-08-20 02:33:02

I think the responses here overlook the contributions which users of free software can and should make to its development. I don't think it is a positive thing that so many people seem to use free software without considering at all what they might contribute. Nor do I think it is positive if people think they can't do anything unless they can code. It really isn't only developers and coders who can contribute. I'm not denying that people who can patch stuff and fork stuff make much heftier contributions than I do, but I assume bug reports and feature requests can contribute something, however small. I don't always succeed in submitting useful reports or following up, but I always try to.

If you say 'It's maintained by volunteers who can do whatever they like, so your options are putting up with it, providing a patch or forking it,' it reinforces the sense people have that because they can use free software without contributing anything, there's no reason not to.

Now maybe the people replying here know that, as a matter of fact, archinstall's developers have no interest in hearing from users, that a patch may be accepted but a bug report sans fix or feature request is pointless. If so, fair enough, but that's not been my experience of most projects. Most developers respond more positively; even when they don't respond, it's often not a lack of interest. It goes without saying 'can't fix', 'won't fix' and 'won't implement' can be positive responses.

But the place to report bugs or make feature requests isn't on the forums because the chances of a project developer reading your post are negligible. Instead, you should to use the issue tracker at https://github.com/archlinux/archinstall.

Allan · 2022-08-20 07:29:23

Maybe... but neither of the original points are overly useful. Something needs to be the default UEFI bootloader, and no argument is made for any alternative, or even against systemd-boot.

cfr · 2022-08-21 00:09:42

Allan wrote:

Maybe... but neither of the original points are overly useful. Something needs to be the default UEFI bootloader, and no argument is made for any alternative, or even against systemd-boot.

That wasn't really my point as the responses were only partly about the merits of the suggestions and I don't have any argument with the replies insofar as they address those merits.

ZetaRevan · 2022-10-28 07:07:41

Yes the default is systemd-boot, but you CAN opt to use GRUB instead. The point of vanilla arch is to manually install only what you want/need as opposed to pre-packaged distros. The guided install script is new. If you want a feature, ask the devs for it instead of complaining. IMO, Arch is not for new to Linux users or non-technical users. If I wanted something easy I would have gone with Manjaro KDE. I chose vanilla arch for the learning & the minimalism. I didn't even know there was a guided script until I pulled the guide on my latest venture last week (I've delved into it a bit on spare laptops before the installer script was developed/released...sometime mid last year). As such, I decided to try to play with it and see what it offered. It does do a lot of the heavy lifting for you. Is it buggy? Yes. Could it use more options? Yes. Is it really required to install Arch? No. Is it a current project that is continually being worked on? Yes.

I'm not a dev, but I do a little bit of python scripting. It's not easy working out bugs or adding features for everything. I have a lot of respect for the devs working on projects like this. The great thing is that it's a "nice to have" not a "must have". I mean the guided installer is intended to make the Arch install process just a little easier & possibly a bit more automated for multiple installs.

If you want to use something other than systemd or GRUB, you can format & rebuild the boot partition with whatever bootloader you prefer. Building additional code to work with the other bootloaders requires actually using the other bootloaders (while documentation might have extensive info, actually using it allows you to learn things to implement best practices in the code). Or at least collaboration with someone who uses/has used it.

SimonJ · 2022-10-28 07:30:34

I am fairly new to Arch but I have been using Linux for 27 years, the installer script is great for some things but learning to follow the wiki is an integral part of using Arch, imho. If you use the installer to get a feel for Arch you will soon need the wiki anyway, so you will probably want to revisit the installation to do it your way. One tip I can give you is make notes, Arch is so stable you don't have to reinstall, you fix and learn, so record your fixes because your next install could be a while away and all those tweaks that make it yours are handy to have. Sorry if I am speaking out of turn, remove if unneeded.

bulletmark · 2022-10-28 22:23:59

Off-topic, but if we have a "crappiest topic title" leader-board then this one should be up there.

Arch Linux

#1 2022-07-19 00:53:15

A few nitpiks I have with this.

#2 2022-07-19 00:57:24

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#3 2022-07-19 00:59:08

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#4 2022-07-19 01:05:46

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#5 2022-07-19 01:09:55

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#6 2022-07-19 01:37:53

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#7 2022-07-19 01:40:53

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#8 2022-08-20 02:33:02

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#9 2022-08-20 07:29:23

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#10 2022-08-21 00:09:42

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#11 2022-10-28 07:07:41

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#12 2022-10-28 07:30:34

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

#13 2022-10-28 22:23:59

Re: A few nitpiks I have with this.

Board footer