Arch X install

damunix · 2007-07-23 15:19:12

Hi.

I would like to know if someone as already try to make an X installation method for Archlinux ? Because I think it could be a very good idea, to help people who don't really like the bash installation, and it is not really really hard, just take time.

Any subjection ? idea ? anti X install ?

damunix

tom5760 · 2007-07-23 16:06:46

I think you need to look into Pacman, the arch linux package manager. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman

Also, look at the article for X: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xorg7

To install X, simply type as root:

pacman -Sy xorg

Then generate an xorg.conf with

X -configure

Mikko777 · 2007-07-23 16:28:30

I think he ment more like a graphical installer / livecd... which there seems to already be a couple of versions.

Archie, March, Faunos...

damunix · 2007-07-23 20:28:31

Mikko777 wrote:

I think he ment more like a graphical installer / livecd... which there seems to already be a couple of versions.
Archie, March, Faunos...

Yes what I meen is a "live cd" but with a X server, and an X install archlinux program. Because, I don't remember their is one, and I speek about it with an archlinuxiens, and he tells me it could be easier for newbiews to come and use archlinux.

dolby · 2007-07-23 22:19:24

search the forum for larch.
u are more than welcome to do what u have in mind yourself also
my opinion is that arch cant get much simpler than it already is and a graphical installation wont help on that direction either

edit2:ok so its larch after all

Last edited by dolby (2007-07-27 09:38:55)

tom5760 · 2007-07-24 01:10:39

Whoops sorry damunix (nice name ) I didn't read your post very carefully. But yeah, as Mikko and dolby said, I think larch does something like that.

damunix · 2007-07-24 13:37:38

lowarch ? I don't remember that they have develop that thing. someone have a screenshot ?

I would like to develop that idea, but I would like to have the developpers opinion, and if someone could help me !! because there is some work.

I think develop it in Qt. Easy to use, develop and translate program language.

damunix · 2007-07-27 08:42:31

other idea ?

tomk · 2007-07-27 09:22:21

sed -i 's/confusion//' this_thread

larch = Live CD creator based on Arch
lowarch = i586 (and lower) distro based on Arch

Google is a friend to all, particularly the chronically confused.

damunix · 2007-07-27 12:12:13

ok sorry.

but I don't mean exactly the same (or I don't understand very well what is larch ) : what I mean is really a graphic install method for archlinux, like the original and official one, but with a real gui install

iggy · 2007-07-27 13:06:48

i can comprehend your opinion. but there are several reasons, why the current installer is better:
- compatible with most hardware (because its just console )
- no need to write scripts (detect hardware, set resolution and so on)
- jump to any option at any time (with the graphical installers like in Ubuntu you have to press a thousand time back)
- faster boot process
- runs better/faster on older hardware

my last question at you: why you want a graphical installer? what is better with it?

damunix · 2007-07-27 13:49:24

Not for me, but I eard with lots of people that the install system is not really easy, and don't give a good first point (idea of what is archlinux)

FeatherMonkey · 2007-07-27 14:07:02

IMO I actually think you'd have more frustrations, I think arch is great I'm not so sure the arch install system is hard.

But at least it gives you the mind set for when you do get it installed, say you do make the install easier. As much as the great community from what I can see help a lot of newbies with the silly ?'s. An influx of newbies because they could install, would need spoon feeding hand editing conf's etc. Or do you wish to change the philosophy?

There's plenty of distro's for people that find Arch hard to install when they find it easier to install Arch perhaps then they'll have the insight of "Teach a man to fish....." If a user is the type of "Give me a fish.." then there's far better distro's for that.

Edit Typo's

Last edited by FeatherMonkey (2007-07-27 14:13:20)

funkyou · 2007-07-27 14:11:05

damunix wrote:

Not for me, but I eard with lots of people that the install system is not really easy, and don't give a good first point (idea of what is archlinux)

Those people have to read the documentation anyways, even if they have a fancy installer, because after installing you still have a standard arch setup.

I dont get the point why a graphical is better than textmode, its just another visual experience, and the questions asked while installing will be nearly the same except you write a fully automatic partitioner + automatic hardware detection & configuration + an automatic system configurator... but thats not an arch thing

mridc · 2007-08-13 08:24:13

A graphical install method somehow reeks of the *buntu problem. Enforcing a certain type of graphical environment upon the user is bad...

Like it has been said, there are better distros for users who just want a running desktop and forget about the rest. I think most people came to Arch not despite, but because it only gives you a base setup, upon which your system can be built... If your friends want a graphical installer and a running DE after the first reboot, there's always (K/X)Ubuntu or what have you.

Gah, this isn't supposed to come off as arrogant. Just re-read it and thought it does sound a bit condeescending. Anyway, I love Arch because it leaves the choices to me. And, to be honest, having an ncurses install method isn't really different from an X installer, apart from not having pretty pictures next to your text.

Last edited by mridc (2007-08-13 08:38:37)

jdhore · 2007-08-13 16:53:33

I think a X Installer or having the standard Arch installer install X is a fundamentally bad idea for multiple reasons:
1. Having the installer install X is completely needless if you're running a server (90% of servers at least).
2. Arch is NOT a distro for new linux users so why should they be catered for in one area when they're going to get stuck again down the line?
3. I personally think the Arch installer is ALMOST as easy as the Debian installer and Debian is one of the easiest distros to install.
4. As condescending and arrogant as this may sound, the "walled garden" effect is a good idea. Just look at Ubuntu, they can't really innovate because they first have to cater with every "basic problem" the newbies have. If a lot of new linux users came to Arch, we'd probably have that same problem and it's kind of sad to think how it'll turn out.
5. I'm a reasonably new linux user (been using it full-time for about 8 months and on-and-off for about a year) and i had no problems installing Arch, then X, then GNOME while following a guide a little bit (didn't have to make swap or install a bootloader), so i think if i can do it, most people would be able to do it as well.

Maybe this sounds like rantings of an idiot/lunatic...but...maybe not

mridc · 2007-08-15 11:04:25

I don't think Ubuntu's main goal is innovation. Ubuntu is directed at Windows users. It hides all the relevant stuff from the user, so the user doesn't break anything. At the same time it grants a running system out of the box, because some people don't like to tinker around with their system. And for those people, Ubuntu - or any other distro of that type - is just perfect. You get a web browser, media player, IM software out of the box and it doesn't cost you several hundred quid.

But "those"* people are important to the development of Linux too. A large userbase means that companies might recogniye Linux as a driving force in computer business rather than just a collection of random geeks and tinkerers. Look at the horrible, horrible ATI fglrx drivers. If there are enough people shouting out "God, I'll never buy ATI again, their drivers suck!", they could actually get up and do something. Same for Linux ports of Windows games.

Don't know, but having more people use an OS isn't always a bad thing. A rise in Linux popularity can always have nice side-effects such as more readily available software, hardware drivers and what have you.

Still, Arch is a tinkerer's distro, sort of. and I'd like it to stay that way. But Linux is about choice. No one is forced to choose a certain distro. There are enough flavours out there.

* Saying "those" people is rather amusing, because I'm a complete newbie to Linux as well, having used Windows for almost all of my computer "career" and only recently tried out Linux and stuck to it. So, yeah, I suppose I'm one of those people as well

Arch Linux

#1 2007-07-23 15:19:12

Arch X install

#2 2007-07-23 16:06:46

Re: Arch X install

#3 2007-07-23 16:28:30

Re: Arch X install

#4 2007-07-23 20:28:31

Re: Arch X install

#5 2007-07-23 22:19:24

Re: Arch X install

#6 2007-07-24 01:10:39

Re: Arch X install

#7 2007-07-24 13:37:38

Re: Arch X install

#8 2007-07-27 08:42:31

Re: Arch X install

#9 2007-07-27 09:22:21

Re: Arch X install

#10 2007-07-27 12:12:13

Re: Arch X install

#11 2007-07-27 13:06:48

Re: Arch X install

#12 2007-07-27 13:49:24

Re: Arch X install

#13 2007-07-27 14:07:02

Re: Arch X install

#14 2007-07-27 14:11:05

Re: Arch X install

#15 2007-08-13 08:24:13

Re: Arch X install

#16 2007-08-13 16:53:33

Re: Arch X install

#17 2007-08-15 11:04:25

Re: Arch X install

Board footer