arch-0.5beta4.iso

bulliver · 2003-07-20 07:14:39

Hello all,

I downloaded and installed arch-0.5beta4.iso today...

I know you don't really need to but my HD was a mess so I decided to start from scratch, plus I wanted to see what the new (improved?) installer was like.

Everything went pretty smooth, it was a lot easier than I remember, allthough it was a while back that I installed dragon. Perhaps all that time using arch has helped but you know...

I really like the inclusion of grub as a boot loader option, my personal preference is for grub anyway, but don't you worry, you can still use lilo if you like.

Info for noobs who want to try arch:

Make sure you are comfortable with:
- disc partitioning in general / cfdisk in particular
- nano or vi
- editing either grub or lilo .conf by hand
- devfs
- editing fstab (allthough the installer filled it out for me perfectly...)
- the install docs

If you have a handle on these things you should be able to get arch running no problem.

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks to all the developers/volunteers etc who put this thing together.

Arch Linux: my one and only distro since I first booted it six months ago...

Moritz · 2003-07-20 11:12:13

What about some user-system-requierements? no kidding!
I think could be very horrable for real linux-newbs!

And maybe some docs, how to configure a lilo.conf or anything else. Just the real basic things to get a archlinux running. I know, lot's of different pages on the net got this infos, but it could be less work for the user, if they could install it step by step while learing, what it means to :wq or :x in vi.

Just an idea!

Gyroplast · 2003-07-20 11:37:44

Sure, no problem, go get yourself a coke and start working on a "Total Beginner's Guide To Installing ArchLinux" in which every little step is explained in intrinsic detail, it won't hurt. But before you do that, ask yourself whether it's worth your time, considering the intended audience of Arch and the ridiculous amount of work one would have to put into this. Explaining LILO alone to cover all potential pitfalls in a newbie-friendly way is, IMHO, beyond any measurable timespan. And if you don't explain all the pitfalls, newbies will still get lost and the document is rendered mostly useless as it cannot fulfill it's purpose. It's immensely difficult (some people say impossible) to decide what to include in such a document and what not. Every newbie has different problems, some can go along well with LILO, others grasp the DevFS concept quickly, so where to help? Everywhere? How much? What if the newbie needs a rather exotic option for his setup that's just utterly complicated to explain, like the disk= and bios= options in LILO? Mighty difficult, and you might end up with a 200+ pages document nobody will ever read because of it's size.

The idea of having "user requirements" isn't bad, though, and has been included in the new docs in a way. The user is warned that he'll need some working knowledge of a couple things like lilo and such, and that he should make sure he HAS this knowledge before continuing, no matter how. It's further advised that the installation docs are read as a whole before installation to not be surprised with something utterly unfamiliar after you already wasted your machine and can't get on the net anymore.

That's about as far as documentation can go, IMO, at least without rewriting utter amounts of other docs, which would be quite a waste.

However, if you (or anyone else) feels up to the daunting task of writing such a document, feel free. It might save a couple newbies' butts, even if not 100% accurate and all-including.

Greets,
Dennis

Moritz · 2003-07-20 15:37:33

Hey Gyroplast!

I know what you mean! It's true that a all-inclusive-step-by-step-with-all-ways-and-infos could get very long!
I thought of a that-you-see-and-it-is-used-for-???-info.
i.e. while configuring the system with vi or nano, a sample (mostly usefull) lilo.conf is already present. I thought about discribing what's already in, and what it's used for. Not what else could be done with ???.
I still don't know what the /etc/modules.conf is used for... that would be a nice information for me!

dariball · 2003-07-20 17:18:49

modules.conf is traditionally used for loading modules in linux....

you maybe could write something like :

alias eth0 8139too

this would use the module 8139too for your eth0 device if it is needed...

man modules.conf will help you there ...

bulliver · 2003-07-20 20:13:14

Hmmm, I was just saying you know, make sure your comfortable with thos points I mentioned above or you may have troubles.

The main point of this thread was to say that the beta appears to work just fine and to give some much deserved props to the folks that work on Arch.

I agree with Gyroplast: it is hardly the Arch developers duty to explain every unix fundamental in the docs, as it would only duplicate effort (tldp anyone?)

This whole documentation issue seems to be beaten to death elsewhere (in fact there is a seperate forum for it no?)

I was just thinking that people who tried the beta could post their experience with it here....

Moritz · 2003-07-21 08:35:12

Nova beta4 works perfectly for me! I love the see the pacman -Syu after the installation!
I've not yet tested the kernel-compilation during installation, but I'll test that next time!

Thanx for Nova! :twisted:

Arch Linux

#1 2003-07-20 07:14:39

arch-0.5beta4.iso

#2 2003-07-20 11:12:13

Re: arch-0.5beta4.iso

#3 2003-07-20 11:37:44

Re: arch-0.5beta4.iso

#4 2003-07-20 15:37:33

Re: arch-0.5beta4.iso

#5 2003-07-20 17:18:49

Re: arch-0.5beta4.iso

#6 2003-07-20 20:13:14

Re: arch-0.5beta4.iso

#7 2003-07-21 08:35:12

Re: arch-0.5beta4.iso

Board footer